Downton Abbey 2: ripping it to shreds, or being too soft?

Enjoy the gorgeous trailer for Downton Abbey Series 2. I love how smartly it uses Scala and Kolacny Brothers' cover of "With or Without You", just as Series 1 used the same group's version of "Every Breath You Take".



I don't know how to approach series 2 of Downton Abbey other than to thank Julian Fellowes again for reminding me why I don’t make a practice of watching television shows. This time it’s not because I hate the inevitable rolling of the credits, kicking off another seven days of suspense before the next “fix”. It’s because when a show is as well written as DA1 was, it’s nearly impossible for a followup to live up to its promise. Character driven tv shows always sink, the main reason being, I believe, because you can’t keep developing characters indefinitely. Once your characters are well established, all that’s left to do is throw as many obstacles at them as possible and watch them react, keeping them away at all costs from what will make them most happy and, therefore, keeping the audience in artificial suspense.

Such is the the case with DA2 (which I fully planned on waiting to watch on PBS until I found out my sister was watching them--I knew I wouldn’t be able to restrain myself from drowning in spoilers). It’s rather what I expected, so there wasn’t much to disappoint. Series 1 ended with the announcement of WWI--brilliant bang of an ending. DA2 opens two years into the war, where Matthew Crawley, heir of Downton, is in the trenches. The episode focuses on Matthew coming back to Downton for the first time since he broke with Mary, but with a sweet, golden-haired fiance, Lavinia Swire, on his arm. What a blow for Mary who, abandoning the rallying spirit that Carson so adores in her, still obviously pines for him (presumably because he’s still inheriting her fortune and because she knows she brought on her own misfortune). Jokes aside, I still find the Mary and Matthew storyline to be the most compelling, and believe the show would be lost without it.

!Spoiler alert! (If you haven't watched it, skip to the last three paragraphs)

I was shocked at how choppy the first two episodes were, how much they tried to cram in. As another reviewer put it, “At this rate Downton Abbey might make it into the Guinness Book of Records for the most subplots introduced in an episode.” Every subplot, so nicely paced and balanced in the first series, fights for center stage. Bates and Anna are suddenly engaged? But then he’s gone forever--no wait, he’s back! The abruptness of those developments negates the slow buildup of their story over the first series, and frankly, makes their thread for the rest of DA2 rather boring and repetitive. Branson too, whose feelings for Sybil are only hinted at in DA1, makes his declaration at the very beginning of DA2, only to badger Sybil every episode, it seems, whether she is “ready to make a decision” yet. Additionally, each episode is conveniently framed around Matthew’s leave, making it seem like everyone else’s lives are on hold when he’s not there.

Furthermore, I didn't know that “As if” (with the appropriate attitude) and “You win” were used in supposed 1916. Did Julian Fellowes get sick and have to hire a substitute for dialogue fill? He is obviously more adept at scripting subtle household details than major world events shaping the lives of individuals. The grace and intimacy of the first series are almost entirely gone. What that leaves is the characters. Let’s see how the upstairs and downstairs crowds fare.

Upstairs:
Maggie Smith is still a wicked scene stealer as Dowager Countess Violet Crawley, and has at least one quotably witty opinion to offer each episode. But her character now exists to do just that--offer opinions, whether they are in character or not. More often than not she seems to be the most feminist character of the whole bunch. Maggie Smith is, of course, so good that she almost always disguises her character’s inconsistency.

Violet’s nemesis, Isobel Crawley, becomes Cora’s nemesis as well when she butts into household business with the expectation she will manage Downton as a military convalescent home. Her blindness to the protocol she should follow is a bit much, even for the overly eager Isobel. She is conveniently gone later in the series to make way for some heavy emotional complications to the question, “Who will nurse Matthew back to health?”

Cora may be insufferably dim when it comes to O’Brien (more on that later), but she’s more or less consistent in DA2. It’s Robert, Lord Grantham who infuriates. As head of the household, he has remarkably little to do. That’s a major point of this series--he wants to be fighting in the war and feels utterly useless because he can’t--but surely Fellowes could’ve given him something more interesting to do than go all weak-kneed over a housemaid! That subplot is completely contrived and utterly embarrassing, although the adjoining one of the increasing distance between Robert and Cora is realistic. Since such relationship facets are what made this show successful in the first place, it could have reached its apex in a more natural way than an almost-but-let’s-remember-our-honor-at-the-last-second affair. At least Fellowes didn’t destroy the earl’s integrity entirely by having him go through with it.

Of the Crawley sisters Sybil fares fairly well, especially during her work as a nurse in the early episodes, but I’m not sure she really loves Branson as much as the idea of living a useful and varied life. That could be an interesting development in DA3. Edith, on the other hand, starts out ridiculously desperate for affection (wtheck did she think she was doing with that married farmer?), but improves in likability and believability as the series continues--at least until the “Patrick” episode, after which she practically disappears.

Mary comes off the best, although the edge of her rivalry with Edith has been completely dropped, making Mary--dare I say it?--disappointingly sympathetic. Stunning Michelle Dockery is still able to bring Mary’s steely personality off, even if she spends most of the series either turning a blind eye to the domination attempts of her new fiance, Sir Richard Carlisle, or mooning over Matthew. When it comes to Matthew, Michelle Dockery nails it over and over. Just watch her face in the fundraiser concert scene of episode 4. Matthew’s and William’s sudden arrival is undoubtedly soapy, but the scene is carried off beautifully. Mary looks like she’s about to jump out of her skin, or snog him, or something else extreme. But she’s Mary, so she stays composed. Their scenes are the highlights of the early episodes. Like a typical man, Matthew doesn’t even realize he’s still crazy about Mary, while she’s fully aware of her own feelings but trying to ignore them--and like a typical girl, she doesn’t succeed.

Sir Richard Carlisle may be a creep, but he’s a delightful antagonist (especially in his confrontation with Vera). I rather enjoy his character even while it infuriates me that Mary convinces herself that she could find any semblance of happiness with him.

And Matthew. Oh, Matthew. How two and fro you’ve been tossed! Lavinia or Mary, lost or found, wheelchair-bound or walking, heir to the earldom or lowly solicitor? With so many external events hammering him, Matthew’s character never has a chance to lose its integrity with melodramatic blunders--that is, until the Spanish flu sweeps through Downton. Come on, man, you know your fiance had to go. The only question was how to get rid of her with the least damage done to your honor. But then, you did make one blunder. You kissed Mary and let your fiance see it.

As for Saint Lavinia, I really hoped Fellowes would find a more creative way to do her in. He couldn’t even content himself with one annoying cliche--he had to include the noble sacrifice, too. The more daring route would have been for Matthew to--gasp!--actually marry Lavinia and live happily without Mary. But that would defy both the rules of tv show plotting and audience expectations (I’m not excluding myself from audience expectations, which is why I’m paranthetically glad he didn’t go that route). Even though it was shamelessly melodramatic, it's to Dan Stevens' credit that I felt some real emotional gravitas in how Matthew responded to Lavinia’s death. I’m glad Fellowes didn’t tie Matthew’s relationship with Mary into a pretty package--then Sir Richard would only have to be shot.

Downstairs:
I spotted the resolution of the Vera Bates story a mile away, and knew by episode 7 what the last scene of the series finale would be. But as I’ve already complained about Anna and Bates, I’ll leave it at that. Even with a lame story, they’re so nice that you can’t help liking them.

William seems to have done a complete 180 since DA1, but I guess that’s natural since he’s been out from under Thomas’ thumb. I was surprised at how forward and expectant he was with Daisy, though. I thought his death was too convenient a way to tie it up at first, but at the same time, it sure didn’t tie up Daisy’s life in a package. As I’m writing this, I think Daisy’s and William’s story may be the most original and emotionally complex one of the lot.

O’Brien and Thomas. Delightfully disgruntled O’Brien, and devious Thomas. I am appalled at the lengths Fellowes went to to bring Thomas back to Downton in the early episodes. Knowing he’s a troublemaker and a thief, the powers that be (Robert, Cora, Carson) barely even blink an eye, even help him back along to the local hospital, and then as manager of the Abbey’s convalescent ward! O’Brien’s guilt over what she did to Cora in DA1 doesn’t stop her from influencing Cora for Thomas’ benefit, but O’Brien’s ability to manipulate doesn’t come off strong enough. It only makes Cora look like a willfully blind idiot. Nevertheless, O’Brien is still an interesting character. She reminds me of the middle-aged dissatisfied retail worker. She has too much a mind of her own to be content as a ladies maid, but isn’t daring enough to look for something else. Thomas is likewise too ambitious for contentment, but repeatedly fails to succeed at anything else. Add their lack of loyalty to the mix, and the only way for them to relieve monotony and keep their wits exercised is to both assert their superiority over those around them, and cause trouble wherever they can. Their treatment of others simply reflects their own self-hatred. Unfortunately, O’Brien has little to do in the latter part of DA2. Based on Thomas’ activities, I would love to see him become a sort of English Jett Rink in the future.

The question of whether Carson will accompany Lady Mary and Sir Richard in their future home is a nice inclusion. In fact, I increasingly love Carson. The subplot involving Ethel and Mrs. Hughes is tangential but although I can’t stand Ethel, I didn’t particularly mind it. I think it exists mainly to give Mrs. Hughes something to do, and to illustrate how difficult it was to keep good servants during wartime.

!End Spoilers!

As far as dialogue goes, I'm guessing a good part of it was quite banal throughout, but the actors sell it so well that, aside from the aforementioned two anachronistic expressions, I rarely noticed. Violet and Mary still have plenty of zingers to deliver. Those lines are Fellowes' personal brand of showstopper: the audience knows it's only a matter of time before an episode is graced with one, and nothing important better happen in the following 30 seconds or it will be drowned out in applause/laughter.

In case it’s not obvious, DA2 is nothing more than soap with the few bright spots of nice costumes, an occasional witty line, and superb acting. Others have pointed out the schmaltzier elements of DA1, such as the dead Turk, but that was a major character-defining moment for Mary, Anna, and Cora, and we can still feel the reverberations of that event in the most recent episodes. The same goes for Cora’s ill-fated pregnancy. Every development in series 2 is so crowded in that there’s no time for the characters to react naturally to them. This “Cut and paste guide to writing your own episode of Downton Abbey” is right on the mark. I don’t know if it was scheduling restraints that resulted in such shoddy plotting, or just because Fellowes just doesn’t have the knack for handling war and its repercussions with the elegance that he does the subtle details of household rituals and interaction. In either case, surely he didn't have to abandon his strengths entirely in favor of asinine character blunders and mechanical reactions to the most improbable of events!

Even though the show isn’t nearly the quality that it once was, I'm still rooting for the characters and I'm pleased that Fellowes at least didn’t trash them up. I was afraid this series would be terrible, so I had no expectations to disappoint. Now that it’s all over though, I find that my retroactive sense of “what could’ve been” is terribly disappointed. A multiple award-winning writer should know better than this. I’m still looking forward to both this year’s Christmas Special and hope Fellowes takes seriously the opportunity to redeem himself in DA3, but I sincerely hope it wraps up there.

In the meantime, I might as well give Lark Rise to Candleford another chance!