![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatFinished watching the first three episodes of Dowton Abbey S2.
Now, the only review I could read online prior to watching this series without being spoiled was a one line assessment: That Dowtown Abbey is the British version of Gone with the Wind. So..every time the Momster and I discuss Dowton Abbey - I ask her if she thinks it is anything like Gone with the Wind. (Bit of back story on Gone With the Wind - while we are appreciative of the film, and have read or attempted to read the book, we all find the lead characters to be incredibly whiny and difficult to sympathize with. Also highly controversial novel in the US on account of the rampant racism and somewhat childish characterization of the black servants. I remember doing an in-depth analysis on the restored film version with a friend in college. We dissected the metaphors - about how the film was in reality about the Old South. Scarlett represented the injured south, romanticizing its past but struggling to change, Rhett the future, Ashely the desire to hold onto the romanticized past, and Melanie...the pre-Civil War South. The book is really about how Southerners at a specific time in history viewed the Civil War. At any rate...Gone With The Wind...is not a work I think can really be understood well outside of certain specific context.)
Momster's response to my query? No, it's nothing like Gone with the Wind. Different wars, etc.
I respond - well I suppose you could say the upstairs people have some similarities, but unlike Gone with the Wind...the servants are better developed. They are actually better developed than the upper class. Sad but true. If anything this reminds me more of Upstairs Downstairs, East Enders, and Godsford Park (which the writer of Dowtown Abbey co-wrote). Remains of the Day, also comes to mind. Possibly even Winds of War by Herman Wouk - made into an incredibly boring mini-series in the 1980s...which made me wonder if Robert Mitchum could act (I had to re-watch Cape Fear and Night of the Hunter, to change my mind.) So no...don't see the Gone with the Wind comparison. Too weak. Probably why none of the US critics have mentioned it. But that one line review...did inspire some odd imaginings in my brain in regards to the second season. Not disappointed that it doesn't fit it...well except for the fact that I was expecting the Upstairs characters to be a bit more developed. In Gone with the Wind they were.
At any rate, that's the problem I'm having with Dowtown Abbey this season is I don't like the Upstairs characters that much, they feel woefully under-developed. While the servants are incredibly complex. They actually managed to make me sympathize with Thomas (the evil butler from last season) and Edna O'Brien (the evil lady's maid). Both came across as quite human and sympathetic. More so actually, than the Lord and his Lady did.
I'm in love with Anna, Bates, Mrs. Hughes, The Cook, and Carson. Mary is more likable this season, but isn't doing all that much but mooning after or worrying over or stoically watching over Captain Crowley. Edith has more of an arc at the moment, as does Sybill.
So it's uneven. One half of the story is quite gripping. The other half feels a bit weak. Maybe that will change in upcoming episodes?
A bit on WWI? We, as in the United States, know woefully little about this war. It kept getting skipped over in American History class or at least my American History courses. We'd do the explorers, the American Revolutionary War, The Civil War...and the school year would be over. They weren't very good at pacing themselves. Next year would start, and well...we might make it to WWI, but usually would spend no more than a day on it, before it was off to WWII. See, from the US's perspective? It wasn't that big a deal. We got into it quite late. And we didn't lose quite that many people - as opposed to all the other wars we've been involved in. Plus, it wasn't our fault and it seemed to be a bit stupid. From an American pov - it was Europe's fault and Europe deserved what it got. Which was in part, why the US adopted an isolationist stance through the 1930s and did not join WWII until we were literally attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. We figured Europe got itself into this, they could get themselves out.
Here's what Wiki says about the causes of WWI:
The causes of World War I, which began in central Europe in July 1914, included many intertwined factors, such as the conflicts and hostility of the four decades leading up to the war. Militarism, alliances, imperialism, and nationalism played major roles in the conflict as well. However, the immediate origins of the war lay in the decisions taken by statesmen and generals during the July Crisis of 1914, casus belli for which was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife by Gavrilo Princip, an irredentist Serb.
Not all that much clearer. I'm guessing Europe has a better understanding of the US Civil War than we have of WWI, which is just sad.
At any rate...what did come out of WWI, or what I know about it, is the classic anti-war film "All Quiet on the Western Front" based on the book of the same name by a German author. WWI destroyed Germany and is why Hitler came to power. I doubt it would have happened otherwise. Although you never know - there was a lot of unrest over there, bit like today's Middle East and Persia.
Dowtown Abbey similarily focuses on the anti-war aspects - we see what War does to people, and how truly horrible and irredeemable it is. WWI is a harder war to film, because unlike WWII there really wasn't any clear-cut bad-guy. No true evil to fight. No Holocaust. At least with WWII you have the Nazis. Same with the American Civil War - you have slavery - that war resulted in an end to slavery. But WWI resulted in WWII - what's good about that? If any War depicts how pointless and horrible War truly is - it's that one. (And the most of the one's that happened after WWII for that matter.)
The other main theme, I'm picking up here...is about women's rights and how women are perceived.
Bates tells Anna that a man can use adultry against a woman to get a divorce, but a woman needs more than that to get a divorce from a man. Adultry is not enough for her. Women also have less avenues. Marriage, Nursing, Servitude. They can't go to War (not back then). They can't become a lawyer. Edith wishes to drive...or to write. Sybil becomes a nurse. Mary wishes to run Dowtown Abbey - but she can't - even though she's the eldest, she is female, and Dowtown must go to a "male" heir. She can't run a household or obtain power, unless it is through someone else.
This powerless state of women - explains why Bates' wife clings to him, even though she clearly hates him. Alone she can't do as well, as she can with him. It also explains Mary's statement to Anna - I can't necessarily marry for love. She doesn't have a job to fall back on.
Oh...I know I'm not supposed to love Sir Richard, or like him better than Matthew, but unfortunately I adore the actor portraying him (the same guy who is on Game of Thrones)
and like him much better than the actor playing Matthew. So I'm sort of rooting for him to marry Mary and for her to fall for him, even if I know that's not the direction the writer is going.
(An example of how an actor can influence how you see a character or story.)
Now, the only review I could read online prior to watching this series without being spoiled was a one line assessment: That Dowtown Abbey is the British version of Gone with the Wind. So..every time the Momster and I discuss Dowton Abbey - I ask her if she thinks it is anything like Gone with the Wind. (Bit of back story on Gone With the Wind - while we are appreciative of the film, and have read or attempted to read the book, we all find the lead characters to be incredibly whiny and difficult to sympathize with. Also highly controversial novel in the US on account of the rampant racism and somewhat childish characterization of the black servants. I remember doing an in-depth analysis on the restored film version with a friend in college. We dissected the metaphors - about how the film was in reality about the Old South. Scarlett represented the injured south, romanticizing its past but struggling to change, Rhett the future, Ashely the desire to hold onto the romanticized past, and Melanie...the pre-Civil War South. The book is really about how Southerners at a specific time in history viewed the Civil War. At any rate...Gone With The Wind...is not a work I think can really be understood well outside of certain specific context.)
Momster's response to my query? No, it's nothing like Gone with the Wind. Different wars, etc.
I respond - well I suppose you could say the upstairs people have some similarities, but unlike Gone with the Wind...the servants are better developed. They are actually better developed than the upper class. Sad but true. If anything this reminds me more of Upstairs Downstairs, East Enders, and Godsford Park (which the writer of Dowtown Abbey co-wrote). Remains of the Day, also comes to mind. Possibly even Winds of War by Herman Wouk - made into an incredibly boring mini-series in the 1980s...which made me wonder if Robert Mitchum could act (I had to re-watch Cape Fear and Night of the Hunter, to change my mind.) So no...don't see the Gone with the Wind comparison. Too weak. Probably why none of the US critics have mentioned it. But that one line review...did inspire some odd imaginings in my brain in regards to the second season. Not disappointed that it doesn't fit it...well except for the fact that I was expecting the Upstairs characters to be a bit more developed. In Gone with the Wind they were.
At any rate, that's the problem I'm having with Dowtown Abbey this season is I don't like the Upstairs characters that much, they feel woefully under-developed. While the servants are incredibly complex. They actually managed to make me sympathize with Thomas (the evil butler from last season) and Edna O'Brien (the evil lady's maid). Both came across as quite human and sympathetic. More so actually, than the Lord and his Lady did.
I'm in love with Anna, Bates, Mrs. Hughes, The Cook, and Carson. Mary is more likable this season, but isn't doing all that much but mooning after or worrying over or stoically watching over Captain Crowley. Edith has more of an arc at the moment, as does Sybill.
So it's uneven. One half of the story is quite gripping. The other half feels a bit weak. Maybe that will change in upcoming episodes?
A bit on WWI? We, as in the United States, know woefully little about this war. It kept getting skipped over in American History class or at least my American History courses. We'd do the explorers, the American Revolutionary War, The Civil War...and the school year would be over. They weren't very good at pacing themselves. Next year would start, and well...we might make it to WWI, but usually would spend no more than a day on it, before it was off to WWII. See, from the US's perspective? It wasn't that big a deal. We got into it quite late. And we didn't lose quite that many people - as opposed to all the other wars we've been involved in. Plus, it wasn't our fault and it seemed to be a bit stupid. From an American pov - it was Europe's fault and Europe deserved what it got. Which was in part, why the US adopted an isolationist stance through the 1930s and did not join WWII until we were literally attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. We figured Europe got itself into this, they could get themselves out.
Here's what Wiki says about the causes of WWI:
The causes of World War I, which began in central Europe in July 1914, included many intertwined factors, such as the conflicts and hostility of the four decades leading up to the war. Militarism, alliances, imperialism, and nationalism played major roles in the conflict as well. However, the immediate origins of the war lay in the decisions taken by statesmen and generals during the July Crisis of 1914, casus belli for which was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife by Gavrilo Princip, an irredentist Serb.
Not all that much clearer. I'm guessing Europe has a better understanding of the US Civil War than we have of WWI, which is just sad.
At any rate...what did come out of WWI, or what I know about it, is the classic anti-war film "All Quiet on the Western Front" based on the book of the same name by a German author. WWI destroyed Germany and is why Hitler came to power. I doubt it would have happened otherwise. Although you never know - there was a lot of unrest over there, bit like today's Middle East and Persia.
Dowtown Abbey similarily focuses on the anti-war aspects - we see what War does to people, and how truly horrible and irredeemable it is. WWI is a harder war to film, because unlike WWII there really wasn't any clear-cut bad-guy. No true evil to fight. No Holocaust. At least with WWII you have the Nazis. Same with the American Civil War - you have slavery - that war resulted in an end to slavery. But WWI resulted in WWII - what's good about that? If any War depicts how pointless and horrible War truly is - it's that one. (And the most of the one's that happened after WWII for that matter.)
The other main theme, I'm picking up here...is about women's rights and how women are perceived.
Bates tells Anna that a man can use adultry against a woman to get a divorce, but a woman needs more than that to get a divorce from a man. Adultry is not enough for her. Women also have less avenues. Marriage, Nursing, Servitude. They can't go to War (not back then). They can't become a lawyer. Edith wishes to drive...or to write. Sybil becomes a nurse. Mary wishes to run Dowtown Abbey - but she can't - even though she's the eldest, she is female, and Dowtown must go to a "male" heir. She can't run a household or obtain power, unless it is through someone else.
This powerless state of women - explains why Bates' wife clings to him, even though she clearly hates him. Alone she can't do as well, as she can with him. It also explains Mary's statement to Anna - I can't necessarily marry for love. She doesn't have a job to fall back on.
Oh...I know I'm not supposed to love Sir Richard, or like him better than Matthew, but unfortunately I adore the actor portraying him (the same guy who is on Game of Thrones)
and like him much better than the actor playing Matthew. So I'm sort of rooting for him to marry Mary and for her to fall for him, even if I know that's not the direction the writer is going.
(An example of how an actor can influence how you see a character or story.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-01-17 03:01 pm (UTC)Mary is less off putting this season... but she is rather useless.
I do find myself rooting for Edith to learn to have a true purpose.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-17 05:19 pm (UTC)Mary is less off putting this season... but she is rather useless.
Way too passive. She was to a degree more active in the first season. Here...she seems to just lurk about and mope.
Although I did like how she dealt with Lavina and Matt Crowley.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-17 04:12 pm (UTC)In fact that was the biggest reason why, at the end of WWII, FDR did everything possible to avoid leaving Germany and Japan destitute! No good can come of the winners leaving the losers starving.
So from my POV the whole WWI thing (as a criminal waste) seemed well presented in Downton Abbey... but man it really flew by in record time! I mean the show managed to get through that war in just a few weeks.
LOL
no subject
Date: 2012-01-17 05:16 pm (UTC)I've only watched three episodes...so I'm not positive, but from what I've read I'm guessing that they skip around in time in S2 like they did in S1 - so while it is chronological, we skip months, days, weeks, jumping in at different moments in their lives. Sort of the snap-shot method of telling a tale.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-17 04:25 pm (UTC)The changed characters in the second series seem to be Mary (more worried about love than she used to be. Marrying Richard would be a catastrophe now. Wouldn't have been so bad last series.), O'Brien (less heartless, but still sometimes cruel), and Bates (I keep getting hints that the problems he's been hiding are just going to get worse. Poor Anna!).
no subject
Date: 2012-01-17 05:22 pm (UTC)True. She's less practical and less sharp/self-interested. And more love-lorn. It's going to be painful when Matthew and Lavina wed.
and Bates (I keep getting hints that the problems he's been hiding are just going to get worse. Poor Anna!).
I keep waiting for him to murder his wife, who seems to have a strangle-hold on him. Am rather annoyed at no one doing anything to help him - considering several people actually know.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-17 07:18 pm (UTC)I wonder how drunk he must have been to marry that battle-ax Vera, in the first place. ;o)
no subject
Date: 2012-01-18 01:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-17 06:35 pm (UTC)As for the WW I, the summary you found in Wikipedia is quite accurate if not detailed. Its causes are complex and multiples as are its consequences which shape the whole history of the XXth century. For example the Bolchevik revolution is one of its consequences. I'm rather surprised it's so underestimated in the USA, though of course I know there're good US historians working on this subject.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-18 01:40 am (UTC)It's actually more of an example of how poorly the public school system deals with History. History and Social Studies was my favorite course - but I was always taken out of it for speech therapy or whatever. It was the course the school system gave the least amount of time or support to. Used to drive my father, a frustrated history professor nuts. (My father had a Master's degree and post-graduate work towards a Ph.D in American History and has read history his entire life.) He'd visit with my history teachers and discover that they didn't have degrees in History, they had them in physical education and were often coaches of some sport, and got asked to teach history. I took honors history in school and found a few good teachers here and there. But the curriculum was poor. We only had so much time - and the focus was primarily on American History. I did get some world history in
the Sixth and Fifth Grade and was incredibly happy.
Prep Schools or private schools are different matter.