I haven’t seen a single episode of the “worldwide phenomenon” (per a press release) that is Downton Abbey, so I approached this big-screen installment as I always do when I am among the uninitiated: to determine if there is a reason to see this movie for people who don’t think it’s for them. Sometimes there is!
Spoiler: I concluded that this movie is unlikely to please anyone who isn’t already enamored of the life of the fictional historical — by this point, the 1920s — English country manor.
But I also embraced a spirit of anthropological exploration. I thought perhaps I might discover just what is it that draws so many viewers to the costume-drama TV series. Why has it garnered so much acclaim and so many awards (Emmys, Golden Globes, BAFTAs, etc)?
I mean, sure, it’s a kind of fantasy — of a lost world of fabulous clothes and posh accents, of a time when people dressed for dinner and, I dunno, drew baths and stuff. And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. Folks, I literally moved to London from New York solely to indulge my Anglophilia. So I get it.
But — she said as she found herself ever so slightly appalled at what she had just seen on the big screen — just what kind of fantasy is this? My delusions of visiting the early-20th-century English countryside involve being collected at the station by a dashing fellow driving a red Lagonda and then solving an unexpected murder during a weekend house party at a crumbling yet still stately manor. You know, an Albert Campion–at–Gosford Park* sort of thing, amazing nosh and gorgeous eveningwear but also, c’mon, seething intrigue and simmering resentment across class lines leading to genteel violence. As is inevitable.
Or so you would think. But Downton Abbey is a very different brand of fantasy… and it’s way more unpleasant than murder.
The estate of Downton Abbey, sprawling across Yorkshire and ruled over with improbable benign generosity by the Earl of Grantham, Robert Crawley (Hugh Bonneville: Paddington 2, Breathe), is a hotbed of… niceness. Of calm. Of definitely nothing like class-based resentment, heaven forfend. Oh, absolutely, Maggie Smith (Sherlock Gnomes, The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel) as Violet Crawley, Dowager Countess of Grantham, deploys an entertainingly wicked tongue in pursuit of protecting her privilege. But how is it possible that all the servants are so happy? Not only do the cooks and maids and footmen and all the other below-stairs folk Know Their Place, they positively revel in servitude. One character literally makes a foolish spectacle of himself, so giddy is he at the prospect of waiting on his “betters.” This is played for charmed laughs: of course he’s delighted to serve his superiors, who wouldn’t be? His endearing faux pas is merely in being so effusive instead of maintaining a correct British decorum. (There’s a servant character here who is bitter — quietly, passive-aggressively, in the way you’d imagine a centuries-old subservient underclass would be. This character is just about as close as this movie comes to a villain… and this character is visiting from elsewhere, natch; don’t worry, it’s nobody fans of the show are already in love with! The other major miscreant, also an outsider, is someone else who fails to adhere to the prescribed class and power structure.)
When devotees of Downton Abbey insert themselves into this saga, are they imagining themselves as Anna Bates (Joanne Froggatt: A Street Cat Named Bob), clever and resourceful personal maid to Lady Mary Talbot (Michelle Dockery: Self/less, Non-Stop), one of the earl’s daughters? Or perhaps as efficient and dedicated Mr. Carson (Jim Carter: Alice in Wonderland, Creation), the erstwhile head butler who comes out of retirement at this particular moment of need? Seems doubtful. Is this instead the brand of working-schmoe daydream that is so easy to indulge in, that we proles are a mere stroke of luck away from a life of comfort and riches? You’d think it would be slightly less plausible, even as fantasy, for anyone to conceive of suddenly being part of a family not only impossibly wealthy but also of centuries-deep aristocratic heritage, but, in fact, this Downton movie does feature more than one daydreamy entrée into such a life. They are just as implausible as any of us paycheck-to-paycheck, gig-economy laborers hitting the lottery. And at this point, such fantasies feel more cruel than distracting, but obviously that’s just me.
There’s a more deeply reactionary fantasy at work here, a hankering for a world in which no one questions the status quo, where wealth and privilege are deserved and proper: the plot revolves around a visit to Downton Abbey from King George V (Simon Jones: The Devil’s Own) and Queen Mary (Geraldine James: Megan Leavey, Rogue One: A Star Wars Story), and the mild uproar the preparations for this throw the household into. Maybe there’s some sort of satisfaction to be had in seeing that even the Crawleys can be ordered around by their betters? Except the Crawleys are mostly pretty unfussed by it all…
Even the minor bits of intrigue resolve themselves in ways that could not be more conservative, more contentedly uncomplaining: Oh no, is cook Daisy Mason (Sophie McShera: Cinderella) going to abandon her butler fiancé (Michael Fox: Dunkirk) for the handsome new plumber (James Cartwright)? Whom will childless Lady Bagshaw (Imelda Staunton: Finding Your Feet, Maleficent), cousin to the dowager countess, leave her fortune to? Never fear: there are no revolutions in the offing at Downton Abbey. And just when a good one to fantasize about would be very welcome indeed.
*‘Gosford Park’ is also written by Julian Fellowes, creator of ‘Downton Abbey’ and screenwriter here. He obviously recognized which sort of fantasy was more profitable.
see also:
• Downton Abbey: A New Era movie review: should we improve society somewhat, or nah?
I’m all for niceness in old English manors, but it sounds like this one doesn’t have enough theft of police helmets or drunken prize awards at Market Snodsbury Grammar School.
I’m currently on Team Phryne Fisher myself when it comes to old-fashioned period pieces…
Oh. Oh, yes.
Oh my God, MaryAnn! First a positive review of a movie about strippers — with a Hispanic actress in one of the lead roles yet — and now a mildly less-than-positive review of an Anglocentric movie like DA…
Are you all right, MaryAnn? Because if I didn’t know better, I’d say you were turning into the cis-female equivalent of me.
Or perhaps it’s the other way around.
I do seem to be writing a lot of fan fic lately. Just like — ahem — you used to do…
You make it sound like I never give a positive review to Hispanic actors…
Well, to be fair, you do give positive reviews to Hispanic actors. But Jennifer Lopez is notorious for being very unpopular with film critics. The fact that her movie got praise from you means more than a rave review from the usual “I Heart J.Lo” crowd.
The absolutely fantastic Ready Or Not seems to be the perfect counterpoint to this movie. Besides the obvious- there’s a rich family in an old Victorian mansion, but their servants are terrified of them, and they can’t eacape- it’s a perfect send-up of class conflict as a murderous game of hide-and-seek (no, really). It’s a hilariously blunt fuck you to the one percent, and I thought it subverted the “strong female character” really well as well.
Well I wouldn’t bother to go and see this – and having seen some of the TV episodes, I can understand the bemusement you felt on seeing this stuff for the first time. It is clearly a film that will only appeal to those who already love the series – and there are a great many of them. This film is in the grand tradition of trying to make a bit more money out of a franchise. Next there will be Downton Abbey dolls, teddy-bears, oatcakes, marmalade, clothing then maybe a Theme Park.
i am already seeing ads for tours of Downtown Abbey sites and teas and BnBs…
AirBnB is offering a thing where you can stay at the estate where DA is filmed. It will be hugely successfully I have no doubt.
https://www.airbnb.co.uk/rooms/38373507?c=.pi80.pkb21uaS80LzM0Njc0&euid=f6538d07-d070-719d-a1f0-2190e44666e2&src=omni%5B34674%5D&src_section=190365&_set_bev_on_new_domain=1569233061_MTQ0MTEzMDE5MzBh&source_impression_id=p3_1569233065_NdASaCadVTicRwJv
Yes! A weekend away in the country in the 1920s is simply not complete without an ‘orrible murder. (And I have also never seen the programme.)
I suppose one could be realistic and say that someone given to expressing red-rag sentiments would be unlikely to retain their job, but it does rather remove an obvious source of tension and drama.
I’m a fan of the show! It did on occasion feature criticism and commentary on English society, like how out of touch the aristocrats were (Ep. 1 has the Dowager asking in confusion “What is a ‘weekend’?”), staff lamenting how the best thing they could hope for is to be a butler to a powerful family. All ultimately toothless, of course, but the aristocracy got a thorough gumming over the course of the series. ;)
Seems like they assumed the audience for this movie wouldn’t be into seeing that element at all, much less amplified into something real. For those wanting to nostalgically revisit the Abbey at cinema prices? Probably correct.
As a fan of the show that was also my first thought. :)
For my part, maybe when it’s on a streaming service I already subscribe to. But probably not.
Brad Pitt had a movie out this weekend?
My gosh, why are critics so cruel. We loved the film, and we enjoy watching how the privileged lived. That’s just the way it was. The characters, the costumes, the scenery; everything; just beautiful. Why do people have to be so negative?
MaryAnn addressed your point directly, early in the review:
But she also addressed the part where you said, “That’s just the way it was.” She disagrees:
And she has problems with an underlying message of the movie:
She’s not preventing–or even trying to prevent–you from enjoying your personal fantasy. She’s just explaining why she was bothered by the movie. It’s not cruel to give you something to think about. In fact, some of us read her reviews precisely because they’re thought-provoking. But if it upsets you when you’re asked to question your assumptions, you should probably find a different site.
What Danielm80 said, but also this: If you are seeking total and complete validation of your opinion from film critics, you are probably going to be disappointed.
And also this: You can enjoy things and also recognize that those things you enjoy have problematic elements at the the same time. That’s okay.
Also also: Who the “we” you say who love this film? Who are you speaking for, and do they know you are speaking for them?
Why don’t you tell us what, specifically, you love about this film? Are you bothered at all by the fact that the servant characters are so happy in their station? What do you find “beautiful” about people who rise at dawn to wait hand and foot on their “betters”?
If I hadn’t had time to write a lengthy response to Suzanne, I might have posted this:
https://thebaffler.com/kate-takes/dont-let-people-enjoy-things-wagner
And also, possibly, this:
https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/5/16/18618425/let-people-enjoy-things-criticism
Gosh, MA.
Went to see the 4PM show on a bargain Tuesday here at the UEC 12 in Dead Center, PA., and there was a crowd waiting for the doors to open at 3:45. The large theatre they had it in was almost sold out by the time it began. And what an audience! The average age must have 60 with many older, many with canes and walkers. They laughed and clapped and applauded at the end. Everyone was a fan of the TV show and ate it up–and that’s the reason this film is doing so well. I know what you say about having to read the book or comic, MA, but, really, the TV show made all the difference in one’s appreciation of this movie. (By the way: they failed to provide proper lighting for before and after the show–we’re old! Also, it’s been enough years since the switch to digital that the bulbs are dimming–replace!)