Auld Lang Syne
“I’m not shocked … just stunned, and desperately sad.”
[Downton Abbey S3/CS 2012 Spoilers Ahead]
These were the words of Downton Abbey’s Mary Crawley in S2 to Matthew’s erstwhile fiancée, Lavinia, when they learned that Matthew’s war injury would prevent him from fathering children or, as Matthew himself so delicately put it, being “properly married.” The CS 2012, an episode that culminates in the birth of Mary and Matthew’s son and heir, calls these words to mind in rather a full-circle moment. They also aptly describe the reaction of (most of) fandom to the ending of the Special, which aired in the UK a week ago on Christmas night.
As anyone who follows the show knows, CS 2012 ends tragically in a horrific automobile accident which claims Matthew Crawley’s life. After almost a year of speculation, press, cryptic tweets and ill-advised interviews to the UK and US media about Dan Stevens’ future on Downton, no one could honestly say they were “shocked” that Matthew is gone. But the manner of Stevens' leaving, the actor’s often contradictory statements about the show and the visceral quality of Matthew’s onscreen departure have collectively stunned all of us (sending a fair number into an outright tailspin). And boy does it hurt.
I will not rehash (much of) what has been said over the past week about the actor’s conduct - though I happen to agree with a lot of the criticism - except to say that I am baffled by the attitude ostensibly held by Stevens and shared by many of his fans (and stans) that fulfilling one’s legal (contractual) obligation to a television series is all anyone can expect of him. I cannot imagine the guffaws such a notion would induce if the shoe were on the other foot. What if Downton had not been a success and was never optioned past the first series? Would Stevens have a leg to stand on if he went to NBC Universal/Carnival and said, “but I’ve contracted for three series!” Of course not. The fact that the contract was for three years means almost nothing, except it was a projection of a show’s likely future and the most reasonable means of retaining talent for the period it could be on the air (and as I understand it, long contracts in the UK are not favored). It does not mean that because the show was more successful than any of them could possibly imagine, he can just pretend that his initial three-year commitment is the end of the story and he is off the hook.
Acting, like all jobs in the arts, is not exactly like buying and selling widgets now, is it? An actor - an artist - should be committed to the role, to understanding the character and his arc and placement in the narrative and to accomplishing the vision of the creator/writer. Nonetheless, what exactly an actor in an episodic series “owes” is potentially a thorny question not only because of the open-ended nature of the role but also because television is a commercial medium as well as an artistic one. So we cannot pretend it is “just” art. It is commoditized, no doubt about that. Even so, what about the characteristics of a good actor who cares about his craft? Do they suddenly not matter simply because money, contracts, business and commercial sponsorship are involved? Many actors will tell you that they value what they do irrespective of a project’s lucrative potential. But surely the principle also operates in reverse. Downton’s critical and popular success and its place in our cultural zeitgeist are indicators that there is something universal in the show’s appeal. It resonates deeply with viewers (and a diverse lot they are). And this means, I think, that he owes Downton - the show, the producers, the cast, the fans - a lot. Certainly more than the bare minimum he’s given us.
This is not to say that I hold Julian Fellowes, the producers and television executives blameless in all this. I sympathize more with Fellowes because it is clear this is not the end he had in mind for Matthew and Mary. Matthew’s death is not commensurate with the narrative he has been spinning - the one he caught us with in S1 and S2 (and, if my guess about the timeline is accurate, the first part of S3, which was written before Dan Stevens first broached the subject of his departure). From recent comments and behind-the-scenes interviews, it is clear that the producers would have done just about anything to keep Stevens, even if it meant he would appear in only a couple of episodes per season. And they were extraordinarily accommodating when it came to his outside projects (you know, the ones that did not pay the bills).
Nor is Matthew’s death commensurate with the ethos of the show. In a universe where every character who comes face to face with his or her mortality dies at Downton - at home - surrounded by loved ones, Matthew’s death is brutal, random, senseless. And he dies alone, away from Downton, away from his family. Some read the manner of his death as Fellowes’ punishment of the character; in other words, it is Fellowes’ revenge on Stevens for destroying what he worked so hard to create. I do not see it this way, though I chuckled darkly early in the episode when Matthew’s demise is presaged by the gamekeeper’s remarks on stalking deer: “they’re noble creatures and though they must be taken out for the good of the herd, they deserve a clean death.”… But of course, Matthew doesn’t get a clean death; as Violet says, “we don’t always get our just deserts.” So I suppose on some level these lines can be read as an indictment of Stevens’ decision to leave, forcing Fellowes into killing Matthew off in such a way. (Heh, talk about meta-level commentary and the fourth wall.)
Nevertheless, Fellowes wrote himself into a corner as it were. He made the Matthew/Mary pairing and their representation of the future of Downton the show’s center of gravity without, it seems, adequately vetting the actors to ascertain their views on committing long-term to the show. He lucked out with Michelle Dockery (in more ways than one), who loves her character and has never given anyone one moment’s pause as to her commitment to the role. But I wonder had he asked Dan Stevens what his views on committing to a character in an episodic series were at the outset, if we could have avoided the catastrophe of the last several months by making different casting decisions from the start. Or perhaps he could have written the show differently so as not to rely too heavily on any one character or storyline.
But as things stand now, Matthew’s departure has plunged the show into an existential crisis. My view has always been that if the show continues past three seasons without Matthew, without the Mary/Matthew ship (and prior to their becoming the Earl and Countess of Grantham), it is a real paradigm shift that requires a re-imagining of Downton - in terms of narrative, structure, tone, etc. And Fellowes apparently agrees, since his most recent comments have referenced the need to “reinvent” Downton.
Given the historical context, I cannot say that there is not a certain logic to Matthew’s demise. To the extent that the nihilism and bankruptcy and abandon of the 1920s reflected a certain loss of innocence (or the perceived loss of it anyway), it makes sense, perhaps, for the show to take a darker turn. Matthew, though modern in his outlook, also represents the best, most benevolent manifestation of traditional values. He held onto his moral training and precepts even though time clearly moved the world on. He dies in the very same episode where boundaries of all kinds crumble and the old ways are truly put to rest. It is the beginning of the 1920s. Because we have the benefit of history (hindsight), we know what lies in store. So perhaps a sadder, more cynical cast of characters is fitting in some way.
The problem is … that is not the tale Fellowes wanted to tell and it is not the Downton with which we fell in love. Downton is a drama, but it has optimism and heart even in the midst of tragedy (without being sentimental). It is not a morally ambiguous universe. It is not, by and large, a dark place. This is what makes it fundamentally different from everything else on television now. It is also what set Matthew Crawley (or for that matter, Robert Crawley) apart from Don Draper, Walter White, Nicholas Brody.
And frankly, on a more fundamental level, I just cannot recall a show that lost one of its principal characters - particularly half of the central canon pairing - and recovered. There are suggestions that Allen Leech is going to become one of the principals in Stevens’ absence. Yet every episode that has prominently featured his character's storyline - apart from the Sybil/Branson relationship - has been among the weakest episodes in the series (e.g. 2x03, 3x04). There are also hints that the romantic focus of the show will shift downstairs to Anna and Bates. Again, as well as Joanne Froggatt and Brendan Coyle play their roles, nothing hinges on the success of their story; it is “low stakes” if you will. And of course, there is the question of what to do with Mary. She has always been the heart of the show and the strength of Dockery’s acting has carried the series in its weaker moments. Will they introduce a new love interest for her? If they do - particularly if they do so too quickly - it cheapens the significance of Matthew and Mary’s arc in the first three series and alienates fans of the show. If they do not introduce anyone, I think eventually stagnation will set in with her storyline. There just does not appear to be a viable solution to turning this corner. So in the end, will Fellowes and Carnival look back and wonder if it was worth destroying Matthew and Mary for the sake of another season? (And if ratings are disappointing in S4, as I am predicting, I would not be surprised if it is indeed the last season.)
On a personal level, I suppose this debacle has taught me once again to trust my instincts when it comes to narrative. From almost the moment Mary and Matthew twirled in the snow, paranoia set in. When I learned Dan Stevens was not among the actors who expressed interest in renewing for S4 and S5, this end is the one I feared. There were plenty of logical reasons why Matthew should not die: it was redundant considering his survival of the war in S2 (and indeed if Stevens knew he did not want to return for S4 I would have preferred that Matthew be killed in the war - at least it would have been an organic, logical end); it was too close to Sybil’s death; it was a death of another young character when characters well past their life expectancies continue to live on; it was too tragic for a Christmas Special; etc. And yet … I could not shake that feeling which only became stronger as S3 filming came to a close, as Stevens questioned whether Matthew and Mary would become the Earl and Countess of Grantham, as we heard Stevens and Dockery rattle off some of the clunkiest lines of “foreshadowing” I can remember, as off-screen events unfolded last autumn.
As for whether I will continue to enjoy the show, as much as I love Mary and as curious as I am about what Fellowes will do, I just do not think I can soldier on with S4. When I want to visit darker, bleaker universes, I have Mad Men, etc. for that. Downton, by contrast, was a balm to the soul, a refuge, and it can no longer be that for me. Michelle Dockery may win all kinds of awards for her work in S4, but it just is not possible for me to play the detached voyeur.
And in the end perhaps leaving Downton behind come next winter is the highest compliment I can pay the show. Fellowes, and of course Dockery and Stevens, created a memorable love story and made me believe in it (which is no easy feat I assure you). And the onscreen chemistry between Dockery and Stevens is unlike any I have seen before in television (or am likely to see again). What a pity that Stevens failed to recognize how rare it is to play opposite someone about whom you can say that (unless of course you believe the speculation that he did recognize it …).
So in the words of Matthew, to Downton I say: “You’ve shown me I’ve been living in a dream and it’s time to return to real life. Wish me luck with it … God knows I wish the best for you.”
[Downton Abbey S3/CS 2012 Spoilers Ahead]
These were the words of Downton Abbey’s Mary Crawley in S2 to Matthew’s erstwhile fiancée, Lavinia, when they learned that Matthew’s war injury would prevent him from fathering children or, as Matthew himself so delicately put it, being “properly married.” The CS 2012, an episode that culminates in the birth of Mary and Matthew’s son and heir, calls these words to mind in rather a full-circle moment. They also aptly describe the reaction of (most of) fandom to the ending of the Special, which aired in the UK a week ago on Christmas night.
As anyone who follows the show knows, CS 2012 ends tragically in a horrific automobile accident which claims Matthew Crawley’s life. After almost a year of speculation, press, cryptic tweets and ill-advised interviews to the UK and US media about Dan Stevens’ future on Downton, no one could honestly say they were “shocked” that Matthew is gone. But the manner of Stevens' leaving, the actor’s often contradictory statements about the show and the visceral quality of Matthew’s onscreen departure have collectively stunned all of us (sending a fair number into an outright tailspin). And boy does it hurt.
I will not rehash (much of) what has been said over the past week about the actor’s conduct - though I happen to agree with a lot of the criticism - except to say that I am baffled by the attitude ostensibly held by Stevens and shared by many of his fans (and stans) that fulfilling one’s legal (contractual) obligation to a television series is all anyone can expect of him. I cannot imagine the guffaws such a notion would induce if the shoe were on the other foot. What if Downton had not been a success and was never optioned past the first series? Would Stevens have a leg to stand on if he went to NBC Universal/Carnival and said, “but I’ve contracted for three series!” Of course not. The fact that the contract was for three years means almost nothing, except it was a projection of a show’s likely future and the most reasonable means of retaining talent for the period it could be on the air (and as I understand it, long contracts in the UK are not favored). It does not mean that because the show was more successful than any of them could possibly imagine, he can just pretend that his initial three-year commitment is the end of the story and he is off the hook.
Acting, like all jobs in the arts, is not exactly like buying and selling widgets now, is it? An actor - an artist - should be committed to the role, to understanding the character and his arc and placement in the narrative and to accomplishing the vision of the creator/writer. Nonetheless, what exactly an actor in an episodic series “owes” is potentially a thorny question not only because of the open-ended nature of the role but also because television is a commercial medium as well as an artistic one. So we cannot pretend it is “just” art. It is commoditized, no doubt about that. Even so, what about the characteristics of a good actor who cares about his craft? Do they suddenly not matter simply because money, contracts, business and commercial sponsorship are involved? Many actors will tell you that they value what they do irrespective of a project’s lucrative potential. But surely the principle also operates in reverse. Downton’s critical and popular success and its place in our cultural zeitgeist are indicators that there is something universal in the show’s appeal. It resonates deeply with viewers (and a diverse lot they are). And this means, I think, that he owes Downton - the show, the producers, the cast, the fans - a lot. Certainly more than the bare minimum he’s given us.
This is not to say that I hold Julian Fellowes, the producers and television executives blameless in all this. I sympathize more with Fellowes because it is clear this is not the end he had in mind for Matthew and Mary. Matthew’s death is not commensurate with the narrative he has been spinning - the one he caught us with in S1 and S2 (and, if my guess about the timeline is accurate, the first part of S3, which was written before Dan Stevens first broached the subject of his departure). From recent comments and behind-the-scenes interviews, it is clear that the producers would have done just about anything to keep Stevens, even if it meant he would appear in only a couple of episodes per season. And they were extraordinarily accommodating when it came to his outside projects (you know, the ones that did not pay the bills).
Nor is Matthew’s death commensurate with the ethos of the show. In a universe where every character who comes face to face with his or her mortality dies at Downton - at home - surrounded by loved ones, Matthew’s death is brutal, random, senseless. And he dies alone, away from Downton, away from his family. Some read the manner of his death as Fellowes’ punishment of the character; in other words, it is Fellowes’ revenge on Stevens for destroying what he worked so hard to create. I do not see it this way, though I chuckled darkly early in the episode when Matthew’s demise is presaged by the gamekeeper’s remarks on stalking deer: “they’re noble creatures and though they must be taken out for the good of the herd, they deserve a clean death.”… But of course, Matthew doesn’t get a clean death; as Violet says, “we don’t always get our just deserts.” So I suppose on some level these lines can be read as an indictment of Stevens’ decision to leave, forcing Fellowes into killing Matthew off in such a way. (Heh, talk about meta-level commentary and the fourth wall.)
Nevertheless, Fellowes wrote himself into a corner as it were. He made the Matthew/Mary pairing and their representation of the future of Downton the show’s center of gravity without, it seems, adequately vetting the actors to ascertain their views on committing long-term to the show. He lucked out with Michelle Dockery (in more ways than one), who loves her character and has never given anyone one moment’s pause as to her commitment to the role. But I wonder had he asked Dan Stevens what his views on committing to a character in an episodic series were at the outset, if we could have avoided the catastrophe of the last several months by making different casting decisions from the start. Or perhaps he could have written the show differently so as not to rely too heavily on any one character or storyline.
But as things stand now, Matthew’s departure has plunged the show into an existential crisis. My view has always been that if the show continues past three seasons without Matthew, without the Mary/Matthew ship (and prior to their becoming the Earl and Countess of Grantham), it is a real paradigm shift that requires a re-imagining of Downton - in terms of narrative, structure, tone, etc. And Fellowes apparently agrees, since his most recent comments have referenced the need to “reinvent” Downton.
Given the historical context, I cannot say that there is not a certain logic to Matthew’s demise. To the extent that the nihilism and bankruptcy and abandon of the 1920s reflected a certain loss of innocence (or the perceived loss of it anyway), it makes sense, perhaps, for the show to take a darker turn. Matthew, though modern in his outlook, also represents the best, most benevolent manifestation of traditional values. He held onto his moral training and precepts even though time clearly moved the world on. He dies in the very same episode where boundaries of all kinds crumble and the old ways are truly put to rest. It is the beginning of the 1920s. Because we have the benefit of history (hindsight), we know what lies in store. So perhaps a sadder, more cynical cast of characters is fitting in some way.
The problem is … that is not the tale Fellowes wanted to tell and it is not the Downton with which we fell in love. Downton is a drama, but it has optimism and heart even in the midst of tragedy (without being sentimental). It is not a morally ambiguous universe. It is not, by and large, a dark place. This is what makes it fundamentally different from everything else on television now. It is also what set Matthew Crawley (or for that matter, Robert Crawley) apart from Don Draper, Walter White, Nicholas Brody.
And frankly, on a more fundamental level, I just cannot recall a show that lost one of its principal characters - particularly half of the central canon pairing - and recovered. There are suggestions that Allen Leech is going to become one of the principals in Stevens’ absence. Yet every episode that has prominently featured his character's storyline - apart from the Sybil/Branson relationship - has been among the weakest episodes in the series (e.g. 2x03, 3x04). There are also hints that the romantic focus of the show will shift downstairs to Anna and Bates. Again, as well as Joanne Froggatt and Brendan Coyle play their roles, nothing hinges on the success of their story; it is “low stakes” if you will. And of course, there is the question of what to do with Mary. She has always been the heart of the show and the strength of Dockery’s acting has carried the series in its weaker moments. Will they introduce a new love interest for her? If they do - particularly if they do so too quickly - it cheapens the significance of Matthew and Mary’s arc in the first three series and alienates fans of the show. If they do not introduce anyone, I think eventually stagnation will set in with her storyline. There just does not appear to be a viable solution to turning this corner. So in the end, will Fellowes and Carnival look back and wonder if it was worth destroying Matthew and Mary for the sake of another season? (And if ratings are disappointing in S4, as I am predicting, I would not be surprised if it is indeed the last season.)
On a personal level, I suppose this debacle has taught me once again to trust my instincts when it comes to narrative. From almost the moment Mary and Matthew twirled in the snow, paranoia set in. When I learned Dan Stevens was not among the actors who expressed interest in renewing for S4 and S5, this end is the one I feared. There were plenty of logical reasons why Matthew should not die: it was redundant considering his survival of the war in S2 (and indeed if Stevens knew he did not want to return for S4 I would have preferred that Matthew be killed in the war - at least it would have been an organic, logical end); it was too close to Sybil’s death; it was a death of another young character when characters well past their life expectancies continue to live on; it was too tragic for a Christmas Special; etc. And yet … I could not shake that feeling which only became stronger as S3 filming came to a close, as Stevens questioned whether Matthew and Mary would become the Earl and Countess of Grantham, as we heard Stevens and Dockery rattle off some of the clunkiest lines of “foreshadowing” I can remember, as off-screen events unfolded last autumn.
As for whether I will continue to enjoy the show, as much as I love Mary and as curious as I am about what Fellowes will do, I just do not think I can soldier on with S4. When I want to visit darker, bleaker universes, I have Mad Men, etc. for that. Downton, by contrast, was a balm to the soul, a refuge, and it can no longer be that for me. Michelle Dockery may win all kinds of awards for her work in S4, but it just is not possible for me to play the detached voyeur.
And in the end perhaps leaving Downton behind come next winter is the highest compliment I can pay the show. Fellowes, and of course Dockery and Stevens, created a memorable love story and made me believe in it (which is no easy feat I assure you). And the onscreen chemistry between Dockery and Stevens is unlike any I have seen before in television (or am likely to see again). What a pity that Stevens failed to recognize how rare it is to play opposite someone about whom you can say that (unless of course you believe the speculation that he did recognize it …).
So in the words of Matthew, to Downton I say: “You’ve shown me I’ve been living in a dream and it’s time to return to real life. Wish me luck with it … God knows I wish the best for you.”