Downton Abbey Series 3: finale
So, Downton Abbey! Hi! We may need to talk.
Going into Season Three of Downton Abbey, that terribly upper class show focused on the problems of aristocrats living in a lovely castle and the servants who work for them, showrunner Lord Julian Fellowes (other articles seem to focus on his whole title, and well, this is that sort of show, so, Lord Julian it is!) had three separate issues: 1, the show was just coming off a season of tension, war, and death, meaning that anything not involving major tension, war and death might seem anticlimactic; 2, the rushed nature of the first two seasons meant that eight years had passed for the show, which meant that the show's most popular character, the elderly Dowager, presumably in her 70s in the first season, could only be kept around if the show's pace drastically slowed, and 3, two of his actors wanted off. Permanently off. And the two actors that wanted off were members of the family: as Fellowes noted in very defensive interviews, the servants could head off for other jobs and be quietly written off the show (as had happened with Gwen after the first season, Jane after the second season, and let us fervently hope Ethel after the third season. Hmm. I sense a trend here. Does anyone else sense a trend? Throwing up William as a counterexample doesn't really count, since I can also add Edna from the Christmas Special. But moving on, since this is not actually what I want to discuss.)
Ok, so, problem, because this means that you, as a writer, can't follow an organic flow: you are going to have to follow the departure of two characters. And kill them off. So far, I'm with you.
And, depressing as Sybil's death was - and it was, the tragedy only emphasized by the reactions from other characters - that worked. After all, multiple events led up to it - her marriage, her very very long pregnancy (I am fairly certain that before the actress announced she would not return for a fourth season, Fellowes originally intended to have her show up to Mary's wedding with a baby in tow - after all, she told her mother about her pregnancy at the end of the previous season, which meant that she must have been at least four weeks along (more likely six), which is right before Mary gets engaged, so, by the time Mary gets married, Sybil's what, at least five months along? And looking nice and flat in the stomach, too. Then we have Edith's wedding which must be another month later, so now we're at six months. Ok, so maybe the pregnancy isn't quite as far progressed as I thought. Still.) So, yes, death by eclampsia at least didn't come out of nowhere, although I couldn't help thinking that if the actress really needed to leave the show, the character could have just stayed in Ireland. Still, the characters were given time to react, if not completely heal; Sybil was not forgotten. One down, one to go.
So when it came time to kill off Matthew, the show had lots of options: another big, dramatic death in a nice bedside death scene (hi William and Sybil.) Let Matthew die doing something heroic. Remember that not all that long ago Matthew was supposedly crippled by a lifelong spinal injury and have something arise from that. And pace it well - for full dramatic effect, perhaps have him die just before the birth of his son. Or have him die saving his wife and son. Make it nice and weepy.
Instead, Fellowes chose the worst possible way to go about this. I was spoiled, and even still, I was kinda stunned by how this was done: Mary has the baby (yay), just the way Sybil did; she and Matthew share a Lovely Moment, just the way Sybil and Tom did; and two minutes later Matthew is dead, just the way Sybil was. And I'm left thinking, wait, so, the only way you can kill off your characters is to have them die the same day their kids are born?
But worse, the show more or less just ended there, after a rather drawn out scene with the rest of the Downton characters chatting as if to PUSH THE IRONY, EVERYONE, PUSH THE IRONY about how happy they all were, intercut with bits of Matthew the Happy and Apparently Completely Oblivious Driver and a shot of Mary, who in previous seasons could sense Matthew getting shot all the way over in France, and in this season was like, hey, cute little baby. Maybe the baby distracted her.
Abrupt. Unnecessary. Not perhaps quite as infuriating as a scene from earlier in the season - the one where Edith was left at the altar, but close. And both things had something in common: it's not that car accidents don't happen, or that people don't get jilted, or that life isn't unfair. But that the setups for both of these situations were unearned and out of character: Edith's fiancé would have pulled her out of the church to talk to her; as delighted as he was, Matthew would have been paying more attention to the road. (Or the truck driver would have been drunk, but we didn't see that either.)
You can of course have stories that illustrate the sudden changes and unfairness that life brings. But they still have to make some sense, even against the unfairness of life. Perhaps especially against the unfairness of life. Or, if you can't manage that, you need something original.
Matthew's death? None of that.
Thus the outrage. Because that wasn't just unfair to Matthew, it was unfair storytelling to us: no reactions from the rest of the characters, no buildup ("Matthew! You HAVE to learn to drive more carefully!" or even "Matthew! Have you slept at all recently? Just take a nap here before you drive.") and, worse, it was something we'd just seen a few episodes back -- the death of a parent the same day the baby arrived.
Oh, I'll still be back next year. I've survived questionable bits from Downton before - everybody remember Patrick? Also, well. Lost. And parts of the final episode worked very well: the whole storyline of all of the servants and Branson except for Carson and the nanny tripping off to the fair, though I must admit I found the nanny's absence from this outing puzzling: I keep seeing small children and toddlers at similar events here (farmer's market I suppose they didn't want to cast another actress in a speaking part (although if you asked me, not giving us yet another housemaid yearning for one of the upstairs folk and getting someone to play the nanny instead would have worked much better). So, yeah, I'll be back. But with severely reduced expectations.
Going into Season Three of Downton Abbey, that terribly upper class show focused on the problems of aristocrats living in a lovely castle and the servants who work for them, showrunner Lord Julian Fellowes (other articles seem to focus on his whole title, and well, this is that sort of show, so, Lord Julian it is!) had three separate issues: 1, the show was just coming off a season of tension, war, and death, meaning that anything not involving major tension, war and death might seem anticlimactic; 2, the rushed nature of the first two seasons meant that eight years had passed for the show, which meant that the show's most popular character, the elderly Dowager, presumably in her 70s in the first season, could only be kept around if the show's pace drastically slowed, and 3, two of his actors wanted off. Permanently off. And the two actors that wanted off were members of the family: as Fellowes noted in very defensive interviews, the servants could head off for other jobs and be quietly written off the show (as had happened with Gwen after the first season, Jane after the second season, and let us fervently hope Ethel after the third season. Hmm. I sense a trend here. Does anyone else sense a trend? Throwing up William as a counterexample doesn't really count, since I can also add Edna from the Christmas Special. But moving on, since this is not actually what I want to discuss.)
Ok, so, problem, because this means that you, as a writer, can't follow an organic flow: you are going to have to follow the departure of two characters. And kill them off. So far, I'm with you.
And, depressing as Sybil's death was - and it was, the tragedy only emphasized by the reactions from other characters - that worked. After all, multiple events led up to it - her marriage, her very very long pregnancy (I am fairly certain that before the actress announced she would not return for a fourth season, Fellowes originally intended to have her show up to Mary's wedding with a baby in tow - after all, she told her mother about her pregnancy at the end of the previous season, which meant that she must have been at least four weeks along (more likely six), which is right before Mary gets engaged, so, by the time Mary gets married, Sybil's what, at least five months along? And looking nice and flat in the stomach, too. Then we have Edith's wedding which must be another month later, so now we're at six months. Ok, so maybe the pregnancy isn't quite as far progressed as I thought. Still.) So, yes, death by eclampsia at least didn't come out of nowhere, although I couldn't help thinking that if the actress really needed to leave the show, the character could have just stayed in Ireland. Still, the characters were given time to react, if not completely heal; Sybil was not forgotten. One down, one to go.
So when it came time to kill off Matthew, the show had lots of options: another big, dramatic death in a nice bedside death scene (hi William and Sybil.) Let Matthew die doing something heroic. Remember that not all that long ago Matthew was supposedly crippled by a lifelong spinal injury and have something arise from that. And pace it well - for full dramatic effect, perhaps have him die just before the birth of his son. Or have him die saving his wife and son. Make it nice and weepy.
Instead, Fellowes chose the worst possible way to go about this. I was spoiled, and even still, I was kinda stunned by how this was done: Mary has the baby (yay), just the way Sybil did; she and Matthew share a Lovely Moment, just the way Sybil and Tom did; and two minutes later Matthew is dead, just the way Sybil was. And I'm left thinking, wait, so, the only way you can kill off your characters is to have them die the same day their kids are born?
But worse, the show more or less just ended there, after a rather drawn out scene with the rest of the Downton characters chatting as if to PUSH THE IRONY, EVERYONE, PUSH THE IRONY about how happy they all were, intercut with bits of Matthew the Happy and Apparently Completely Oblivious Driver and a shot of Mary, who in previous seasons could sense Matthew getting shot all the way over in France, and in this season was like, hey, cute little baby. Maybe the baby distracted her.
Abrupt. Unnecessary. Not perhaps quite as infuriating as a scene from earlier in the season - the one where Edith was left at the altar, but close. And both things had something in common: it's not that car accidents don't happen, or that people don't get jilted, or that life isn't unfair. But that the setups for both of these situations were unearned and out of character: Edith's fiancé would have pulled her out of the church to talk to her; as delighted as he was, Matthew would have been paying more attention to the road. (Or the truck driver would have been drunk, but we didn't see that either.)
You can of course have stories that illustrate the sudden changes and unfairness that life brings. But they still have to make some sense, even against the unfairness of life. Perhaps especially against the unfairness of life. Or, if you can't manage that, you need something original.
Matthew's death? None of that.
Thus the outrage. Because that wasn't just unfair to Matthew, it was unfair storytelling to us: no reactions from the rest of the characters, no buildup ("Matthew! You HAVE to learn to drive more carefully!" or even "Matthew! Have you slept at all recently? Just take a nap here before you drive.") and, worse, it was something we'd just seen a few episodes back -- the death of a parent the same day the baby arrived.
Oh, I'll still be back next year. I've survived questionable bits from Downton before - everybody remember Patrick? Also, well. Lost. And parts of the final episode worked very well: the whole storyline of all of the servants and Branson except for Carson and the nanny tripping off to the fair, though I must admit I found the nanny's absence from this outing puzzling: I keep seeing small children and toddlers at similar events here (farmer's market I suppose they didn't want to cast another actress in a speaking part (although if you asked me, not giving us yet another housemaid yearning for one of the upstairs folk and getting someone to play the nanny instead would have worked much better). So, yeah, I'll be back. But with severely reduced expectations.