downton abbey!
All caught up, just in time for episode three this week!
I had to pause the stream to disagree before the episode even started. "We" do not hate Thomas, Laura Linney, YOU'RE ON NOTICE.
Because, everyone, it is International Thomas Fan Club Vindication Day, or at least it was when this episode aired. Then again I'm pretty sure the Thomas Fan Club is just me and Alex, so. He hasn't become a Good Person, but it's still easy to understand his actions, he's a fox gnawing off its own paw to get free from a trap. And YAY, of course he's nasty as soon as he's back. I love that he and O'Brien are actually bros, it wasn't just a nasty alliance of convenience. They have a real friendship of sorts, and they have real depth which comes from the outsiderness that led them to form their bond in the first place. O'Brien is the one who's not a dick about the PTSD; Thomas is the one who understands the blinded farmer. Everyone else might be a judgmental prick about non-physical differences, but they get it. Carson's snide little comment that Lang doesn't belong at Downton is excellent and horrible - because they're a convalescence home, Downton is exactly where he belongs, but not as an employee. And how do they deal with the unpleasantness? They send him away, they erase him from their pretty picture of heroism and sacrifice.
I love the look into the men's and women's relationship to wartime. The men are expected to go; we don't entirely gloss over the horror of the trenches (as I admit I kind of expected), but we also see that they have a personal stake in gaining honor and camaraderie as well as escaping the shaming by the white feather ladies. The women by and large are conditioned to experience the whole thing as a community tragedy, and it's about the way they define the scope of their community.
Damn, though, this show delivers on shippiness, possibly more than is good for it. Anna/Bates, ugh. GAGGING on the sick sweetness of that first episode; only hate for Bates after his condescension in the pub scene in the second. That scene where Anna goes on to Mary that she'll never love again, that she'll just give up on any happiness in life besides the satisfaction of curling the hair of someone who tells her she doesn't matter, does not make this pairing good. Sure, it's the kind of thing you'd say just after that kind of breakup, but I feel like it's there to be taken straightforwardly. It's not escaping me that the "good" servant who had the good sense to be stationed with the Earl gets rewarded by oh my GOD the cliche, a mysterious relative dying and leaving him everything. Like Robert, he gets a taste of power and becomes this thundering tyrant and I want Anna away from him. And I don't like how his wife is portrayed as this scheming harpy, out to get them all not even for money, but because MUAHAHAHAHA! I'm sorry, what is it about this guy that makes all the women go cray-cray?
I feel almost equally manipulated by how heavy-handedly the show ships Mary/Matthew, but then at least equally plausibly, if not more so, it looks like a relationship between....well, cousins who really care about each other, which is what they are. And I want Mary to have some sense of self, some opportunity for self-actualization, some legitimate ambition rather than simply being terrified to fall from the status she was born into. We know this way of life is on its way out; I don't want Mary to go down with the ship for the sake of nostalgia, hers or ours.
Richard, by contrast, offers a legitimate partnership moving into the future, rather than the attempt to maintain the ways of life of the past represented by the Abbey. I would so much prefer to see her with Richard than Matthew. Because: we're strong, and sharp, and together we could build something worthwhile. And what makes that less than "because we don't repulse each other and could keep the Abbey together"? Richard wants her for her - still by and large for that very traditional role she never expected to escape, but still something beyond her last name. Whereas Mary/Matthew...she bonded because she's not quite as heartless as she thinks she is, but she simply doesn't have her mother's happy disposition and sense of self; as things were, she's quite right that she would have been miserable married to him. She doesn't quite fit anywhere, as she notes when she gets back from London, but at the same time, she'll have to find the place she fits best.
I still enjoyed the Mary/Matthew scenes, though only really for the development they gave her. "I think I'm about to be happy, does that count?" Because she has no internal markers of happiness, but marriage is what people do to show they're happy, so that's good enough, and it'll give her peace of mind after the Farouk debacle, the fear of which has been dogging her all this time. And even being able to recognize the social dance around it, she's still stunned when Richard does propose, because - oh GOD - "Why?!" MARY YOU ARE MY FAAAAAAAAAVORITE.
What I really loved, though, was Mary and Lavinia! Engaged to each other's exes! And they're supposed to be rivals but they're all lovely and trusting toward each other! "We're very much alike, so naturally I think she's perfect." That forced arrogant ice-queen act, to hide the insecurity beneath. I know I've been whining forever about wanting a female character to put in my Unflattering Overidentification Cluster, and NOW I HAVE HER.
Also, as much as I'm generally neutral on him: "I thought caution was a virtue." UM, WELL DONE Carson for getting Mary's place in all this. Everyone pinned their hopes on Mary's marriage; then, when it all fell through, they act like it was just her. "Caution may be; self-interest is not." She deserves better than self-effacing into Anna's Mrs. Hughes' judgy double-bind worldview.
I love that Edith's getting an arc! She learned to drive just out of boredom, and because nobody was paying enough attention to her level of independence - but it's something so useful, and she seems happier than she ever did, waiting around for someone to notice her next to Mary's sharp, cold brilliance. And Sibyl is right about her, she needs a purpose, and she can't go back to lacking one - and her Lady of the House skill set is exactly what's needed. She's not about validation in any way. Sibyl I just love, that her idealism gives her that sense of urgency to do something, even if she doesn't know what; her nurse position is exactly what she needs, to be a part of something larger than herself and get the immediate validation of caring for people in person.
I like Ethel! She's chippy. Even at Anna, which, I do like her, but GAWD, someone should be. Certainly tactless and unkind to O'Brien, but I do appreciate women who don't feel the need to JUST BE NICE and not rock the boat. (As opposed to poor Daisy, expressly pressured into an engagement she doesn't want!) I continue to love Branson, even if he's made me lukewarm about his relationship with Sibyl. Because - he's all IRISH and hot-headed, and so obviously he MUST be a murderer, right?! No, actually, he was going to stage a non-violent political protest, exactly like he had planned.
Maggie Smith continues to be a TREASURE. I HATE GREEK DRAMA WHERE ALL THE ACTION HAPPENS OFF STAGE. I love that Mary and Violet get each other, with their arrogant, over-the-top, sometimes slightly morbid sense of humor. And even as she sweeps around being magnificent at everyone, her wildly-skewed priorities come to a hilarious head when she says she doesn't want recovering officers around the house because - HAHAHAHA - they might steal the spoons.
Stepping back, I really did enjoy these episodes, even more than S1, but still, this show is a perfect example of why I should stay away from extratextual interviews. Because to me, the show looks like an excellent interrogation of what this kind of rigid hierarchy does to the people crowbarred into it, but apparently the creator in this case is a reactionary who thinks he's showing a world better than our own, because - and I am not making this up - he thinks the monarchy stands for fairness. As hard as I try not to be a xenophobic American, that sounds fundamentally like the kind of cognitive dissonance that would require someone to be a little bit crazy-pants. (However, the Salon article where I found those links is a pretty strong progressive take on the show.) I am so glad the last century has forced us all to evolve past authorial intent.
I had to pause the stream to disagree before the episode even started. "We" do not hate Thomas, Laura Linney, YOU'RE ON NOTICE.
Because, everyone, it is International Thomas Fan Club Vindication Day, or at least it was when this episode aired. Then again I'm pretty sure the Thomas Fan Club is just me and Alex, so. He hasn't become a Good Person, but it's still easy to understand his actions, he's a fox gnawing off its own paw to get free from a trap. And YAY, of course he's nasty as soon as he's back. I love that he and O'Brien are actually bros, it wasn't just a nasty alliance of convenience. They have a real friendship of sorts, and they have real depth which comes from the outsiderness that led them to form their bond in the first place. O'Brien is the one who's not a dick about the PTSD; Thomas is the one who understands the blinded farmer. Everyone else might be a judgmental prick about non-physical differences, but they get it. Carson's snide little comment that Lang doesn't belong at Downton is excellent and horrible - because they're a convalescence home, Downton is exactly where he belongs, but not as an employee. And how do they deal with the unpleasantness? They send him away, they erase him from their pretty picture of heroism and sacrifice.
I love the look into the men's and women's relationship to wartime. The men are expected to go; we don't entirely gloss over the horror of the trenches (as I admit I kind of expected), but we also see that they have a personal stake in gaining honor and camaraderie as well as escaping the shaming by the white feather ladies. The women by and large are conditioned to experience the whole thing as a community tragedy, and it's about the way they define the scope of their community.
Damn, though, this show delivers on shippiness, possibly more than is good for it. Anna/Bates, ugh. GAGGING on the sick sweetness of that first episode; only hate for Bates after his condescension in the pub scene in the second. That scene where Anna goes on to Mary that she'll never love again, that she'll just give up on any happiness in life besides the satisfaction of curling the hair of someone who tells her she doesn't matter, does not make this pairing good. Sure, it's the kind of thing you'd say just after that kind of breakup, but I feel like it's there to be taken straightforwardly. It's not escaping me that the "good" servant who had the good sense to be stationed with the Earl gets rewarded by oh my GOD the cliche, a mysterious relative dying and leaving him everything. Like Robert, he gets a taste of power and becomes this thundering tyrant and I want Anna away from him. And I don't like how his wife is portrayed as this scheming harpy, out to get them all not even for money, but because MUAHAHAHAHA! I'm sorry, what is it about this guy that makes all the women go cray-cray?
I feel almost equally manipulated by how heavy-handedly the show ships Mary/Matthew, but then at least equally plausibly, if not more so, it looks like a relationship between....well, cousins who really care about each other, which is what they are. And I want Mary to have some sense of self, some opportunity for self-actualization, some legitimate ambition rather than simply being terrified to fall from the status she was born into. We know this way of life is on its way out; I don't want Mary to go down with the ship for the sake of nostalgia, hers or ours.
Richard, by contrast, offers a legitimate partnership moving into the future, rather than the attempt to maintain the ways of life of the past represented by the Abbey. I would so much prefer to see her with Richard than Matthew. Because: we're strong, and sharp, and together we could build something worthwhile. And what makes that less than "because we don't repulse each other and could keep the Abbey together"? Richard wants her for her - still by and large for that very traditional role she never expected to escape, but still something beyond her last name. Whereas Mary/Matthew...she bonded because she's not quite as heartless as she thinks she is, but she simply doesn't have her mother's happy disposition and sense of self; as things were, she's quite right that she would have been miserable married to him. She doesn't quite fit anywhere, as she notes when she gets back from London, but at the same time, she'll have to find the place she fits best.
I still enjoyed the Mary/Matthew scenes, though only really for the development they gave her. "I think I'm about to be happy, does that count?" Because she has no internal markers of happiness, but marriage is what people do to show they're happy, so that's good enough, and it'll give her peace of mind after the Farouk debacle, the fear of which has been dogging her all this time. And even being able to recognize the social dance around it, she's still stunned when Richard does propose, because - oh GOD - "Why?!" MARY YOU ARE MY FAAAAAAAAAVORITE.
What I really loved, though, was Mary and Lavinia! Engaged to each other's exes! And they're supposed to be rivals but they're all lovely and trusting toward each other! "We're very much alike, so naturally I think she's perfect." That forced arrogant ice-queen act, to hide the insecurity beneath. I know I've been whining forever about wanting a female character to put in my Unflattering Overidentification Cluster, and NOW I HAVE HER.
Also, as much as I'm generally neutral on him: "I thought caution was a virtue." UM, WELL DONE Carson for getting Mary's place in all this. Everyone pinned their hopes on Mary's marriage; then, when it all fell through, they act like it was just her. "Caution may be; self-interest is not." She deserves better than self-effacing into Anna's Mrs. Hughes' judgy double-bind worldview.
I love that Edith's getting an arc! She learned to drive just out of boredom, and because nobody was paying enough attention to her level of independence - but it's something so useful, and she seems happier than she ever did, waiting around for someone to notice her next to Mary's sharp, cold brilliance. And Sibyl is right about her, she needs a purpose, and she can't go back to lacking one - and her Lady of the House skill set is exactly what's needed. She's not about validation in any way. Sibyl I just love, that her idealism gives her that sense of urgency to do something, even if she doesn't know what; her nurse position is exactly what she needs, to be a part of something larger than herself and get the immediate validation of caring for people in person.
I like Ethel! She's chippy. Even at Anna, which, I do like her, but GAWD, someone should be. Certainly tactless and unkind to O'Brien, but I do appreciate women who don't feel the need to JUST BE NICE and not rock the boat. (As opposed to poor Daisy, expressly pressured into an engagement she doesn't want!) I continue to love Branson, even if he's made me lukewarm about his relationship with Sibyl. Because - he's all IRISH and hot-headed, and so obviously he MUST be a murderer, right?! No, actually, he was going to stage a non-violent political protest, exactly like he had planned.
Maggie Smith continues to be a TREASURE. I HATE GREEK DRAMA WHERE ALL THE ACTION HAPPENS OFF STAGE. I love that Mary and Violet get each other, with their arrogant, over-the-top, sometimes slightly morbid sense of humor. And even as she sweeps around being magnificent at everyone, her wildly-skewed priorities come to a hilarious head when she says she doesn't want recovering officers around the house because - HAHAHAHA - they might steal the spoons.
Stepping back, I really did enjoy these episodes, even more than S1, but still, this show is a perfect example of why I should stay away from extratextual interviews. Because to me, the show looks like an excellent interrogation of what this kind of rigid hierarchy does to the people crowbarred into it, but apparently the creator in this case is a reactionary who thinks he's showing a world better than our own, because - and I am not making this up - he thinks the monarchy stands for fairness. As hard as I try not to be a xenophobic American, that sounds fundamentally like the kind of cognitive dissonance that would require someone to be a little bit crazy-pants. (However, the Salon article where I found those links is a pretty strong progressive take on the show.) I am so glad the last century has forced us all to evolve past authorial intent.