The Upstairs set come out to greet the king and queen
The Downstairs set toast the king and queen (Downton Abbey, the film, 2019)
Friends and readers,
The old magic, the trick played on us by Julian Fellowes and his teams of people — for those susceptible to it — does not begin until at least one-third and maybe closer to half the way through. Anibundel over on NBC has argued that this cinema continuation carries on one important characteristic of the 5 year series at its best: nothing much or nothing overt happens to change anything in the visible life of these sets of people very much. I agree with her that the first season was particularly strong because more or less this formula was kept to. A crippled man arrives to become Lord Grantham’s butler (Brendan Coyle as Mr Bates), and after much stigmatizing and complaints, Lord Grantham (Hugh Bonnville) keeps him on, because “it’s just not right” to fire him. An old suitor of Mrs Hughes (Phyllis Logan) turns up and asks her to go to a fair because at long last free he wants to propose marriage, and after much heart-wrenching, she decides to stay where she is. Lady Mary, the princess of the family, eldest lovely virgin daughter (Michelle Dockery) is (arguably) raped and the cad (Theo James who blackmailed the homosexual butler, Barrow, Robert James-Collier, to sneak him in as a surprise attack) dies during the fuck! But (awkwardly, with difficulty, comically) the corpse is carried back and there is no scandal at all!
But I want to qualify the implications here. The trick of the thing is to present a character in the throes of some inner crisis that matters to him or her and dramatize how some decision no one but the character and his or her closest intimates see, affects in some central way the rest of the emotional temperature or outlook of that character, the decisions he or she make afterwards, for the rest of their lives. This trick is most effective when it’s played out with the Downstairs people who are more vulnerable to deep hurt or an ejection (getting “sacked”) from the apparent social safety of the orderly household. Add to this what you find in many serial dramas, strong emotionalism, the stance that most people behave in warm and even caring ways to one another, at least emotionally. This does not distinguish Downton Abbey from other serial dramas, but Julian Fellowes is good at making this kind of thing believable. In life most people we meet behave anywhere from indifferently or with a hard edge. An adult might be extra benign to a child. I feel this sentimentalism is central to why people watch what are called realistic (naturalistic) domestic drama movies.
As everyone knows who has paid the slightest attention to the advertisements what happens at Downton is George V (Simon Jones) and Queen Mary (Geraldine James) invite themselves for a one-night stay at Downton while they are traveling through Yorkshire and this creates an nearly traumatic emotional reaction as everyone in the household gear up to present an appearance of high excellence and welcome. As late as one-third or later the way through it becomes apparent the exclusionary snobbish tactics of the royal household decree that its staff replace any local staff. It also sets up a confrontation between the queen’s lady-companion, Lady Maud Bagshaw (Imelda Staunton) and the Dowager Duchess Violet (Maggie Smith) who are related kin but have been estranged for years; it is rumored she is determined to leave her fortune elsewhere than Lord Grantham. Gradually this visit, these two social dramas ripple outward to affect the inner lives of a number of vulnerable characters and at least momentarily affect the self-esteem and comfort of everyone else.
Imelda Staunton as Lady Maud Bagshaw (a name from Trollope)
The problem the movie has is these things take time, and when you have say anywhere from 8 to 10 episodes (plus Christmas specials) you have the requisite time; so it’s in the third episode of the first season that Mr Bates throws away the torture instrument he has put on his leg to make his disability less apparent. We have learned to feel for him for two episodes before this. Plus since Julian Fellowes has been determined to present the world order as ultimately benign, the last we saw of everyone they were apparently set for life in good and fulfilling circumstances. This was not so to begin with, nor did the shape of the series emerge as benign providential patterning until the fourth season when the series began to have problems finding crucial traumas and had to introduce new characters and put old ones through twists and turns of misery (especially Mr Bates and Anna as his wife, aka Brendon Coyle and Joanne Froggart).
So, Fellowes strains to invent inner troubles that matter. He has a couple and adds some: Thomas Barrow is still a vulnerable homosexual man; Daisy (Sophie McShea) has not agreed to set a marriage date with a footman, Andy (Michael C. Fox); Tom Bransome is still not trusted as an ex-chauffeur radical Irishman; and over the course of the couple of hours we discover Lady Maud is trying to leave her estate to her illegitimate daughter disguised as lady’s maid, Lucy Smith (Tuppence Middleton).
Anna and Mr Bates — brief scene showing her telling her idea to him and his loving her for it
What’s more: several favorite characters and a couple of new ones become powerful linchpins in securing respect and power for one another. It’s Anna Bates who seems to think up the plot that puts the royal staff out of commission (drugged, locked in rooms, hoaxed away) and recognizes the queen’s lady is a thief; Bransome saves the king’s life and falls in love with Lucy Smith; she likewise and they are last seen dancing a ballroom dance on the terrace in a lovely landscape (since she is not yet acceptable to the Upstairs people in the ballroom). Daisy leads Mrs Patmore (Leslie Nichol) for once to kindly lie to the grocer and accept an order of food she thinks they will not need.
Allen Leech as Thomas Bransome (working with Lady Mary again)
It does not all work: You would think Bransome was trusted by this time and a few others seem a stretch: Lady Edith (Laura Carmichael) is still feeling undervalued and left alone; the rivalry of the Dowager and Isobel, Lady Merton (Penelope Wilton) has become tiresome; their quips no longer amuse. Lady Mary is still unsure she doesn’t want to disburden herself of Downton. Mr Carson (Jim Carter) is still absurdly proud and wants to work as a butler; Moseley (Kevin Doyle) makes a fatuous worshipper of himself. But Fellowes does have a gift for endowing his characters with good feelings and kindliness towards one another, and those endangered in some way, yearning for some kind of companionship, security achieve this by film’s end.
I’m saying I don’t think the movie quite succeeds. Those who like it are giving it slack — extra patience like you would an old friend.
Some will say this is not what draws people to this series. It’s the super-rich glamour of the house, the grounds, the gorgeous clothes, the leisured existences, the evocative music, the nostalgic escape into a world that never was — the servants were not treated in the way this series dramatizes; it omits 9/10s of the population of England. On top of that, the whole idea this order was a non-violent one is ludicrous. I can’t deny that might be why many people watched the TV series year after year and are making the Downton matter once again a big box-office money-maker. Who does not enjoy seeing a ball? I do. I love the beautiful photographed landscapes. There is the reiterated idea that these super-rich privileged people lead troubled lives themselves — so let’s not envy Princess Mary (Kate Phillips) as she tries to have a life with some emotional satisfaction with a cold mean man. (As if this were anything like the desperate needs and anguished conditions of ordinary people everywhere.)
Princess Mary (Kate Phillips who most of the time ends up dead or otherwise pulverized — as in Davies’ War and Peace …)
To that I can only say, I am not fooled, this kind of supposed comfort (?) is not for me. The thought we are offered at the end that the building, Downton Abbey, and this way of life will last another 100 years and more does not make me happy. It’s sad to think that so many will remain without and desperate so that the money may be gathered by this privileged class to live this way. I suggest that there are many like myself — since this trick so in evidence (for at least three years of TV time) is at the core of the plot-design once again. I know I would be an utter outsider and long ago (say the 2nd season) been ejected as unfit, perhaps scapegoated as a seduced woman. I don’t belong in this series anywhere — the closest I come is to Anna as she was presented in the first couple of seasons. Even then she is such a “good” girl, so filled with respect for the order that keeps her at work long hours most of her life — this is wholly anathema to my finding something to live for in my hours of existence as I recall them.
Yet I found tears coming to my eyes when a character is once again rescued from the possible exposure and punishment — Barrow is lured into going to a homosexual club, something very new, taken in to jail by a police raid but then released on the say-so of one of the king’s footmen, himself homosexual. I wish there had been more of the inner life of Anna and Bates (my favorites) but it’s clear their lives are all content, comfortable, good — as are those of Mrs Hughes (now Elsie to Mr Carson) and Mr Carson (Charlie to her) and others. I am fond enough of them all to feel good seeing them surviving still — like Miss Baxter (Raquel Cassidy) still waiting to marry Moseley.
Moseley and Baxter — behind the scenes (promotional) hsppy moment
I am not dead or broke yet myself. The magic is the trick of involving you, getting you to believe and identify.
Thomas finds a friend and ally, the king’s footman, Richard Ellis (Max Brown)
If you can respond to these carefully studied characters presented with tact and mostly compassion, and most of all, if you watched and liked the TV series for that first and second (occurring during WW1) seasons, here it is back again, trying to repeat what it managed in the first season especially. There is something for everyone, some qualification to enable us to identify. I agree with Anibundel the sweetest story is of that Barrow at long last finding a world forming he can join, and that the charm the wanting to hold onto this world is it feels like a blessed escape. Quiet lives. So if you want a happy ending, yes, that’s there, but if you are into quiet melancholy, it’s here too.
Lady Mary at the opening of the film, tough lady left in charge at the end
And, for those who would find some satisfaction in thinking this meretricious stuff will go away for good after this, in the last scene Violet tells Lady Mary that she has been diagnosed with a mortal illness and will be gone from from the scene before long. It is a moving moment as she turns the Abbey over to Lady Mary as her replacement. One thing I liked across the series (and think it’s what makes it so appealing to women) is that we have strong women characters through out; it’s the woman’s anguish and loss and power that is often focused most upon. And so it is in this installment.
Ellen
Ellen And Jim Have A Blog, Two 
I’ve written many blogs on Downton Abbey. You can find them by clicking on these links below:
https://ellenandjim.wordpress.com/?s=Downton+Abbey
https://reveriesunderthesignofausten.wordpress.com/?s=Downton+Abbey
https://austenreveries.wordpress.com/?s=downton+abbey
Ellen
Patricia Honaker: “I loved it. Everyone finds happiness at the end.. I left the theater with a smile on my face.”
Thank you for this review, Ellen. I haven’t seen it yet, but plan to soon, with my son! He wants to see it & his girl friend has no interest. I was a faithful watcher Sunday nights for the years of all the series, & defended it against my naysayer friends. There were several. Other reluctant friends came to it late & then had to catch up. I have always watched these British Upstairs/Downstairs sagas, but of course would never, ever want to have lived either level of that world. Heaven forbid & forfend! Remains of the Day was a grimmer take on it. Julian Fellowes went to the cruel side too somewhat in Gosford Park. No, I’m just more engaged by these stories than I am by fantasies, sci-fi or gangsters. I’m looking forward to revisiting the Crawleys et al, though I wasn’t waiting breathlessly.Thanks again for your wise, interesting & insightful critique, as always. Judith
It compares very well with recent TV serial dramas: when they are realistic or domestic dramas, Downton Abbey is just written, performed, filmed so much more skilfully with nuance; and yes instead of voyeuristic cruelties, writhing violence and then the fantasy heroism, we have realistic enough characters in life-like situations. I felt this time the emphasis was on those “inbetween” stairs: Bransome, Lucy Smith especially. I enjoyed seeing these “old friends” surviving on ….
Julie Taddeo: “My 13 yo turned to me when Daisy was so pleased her fiancé had a jealous temper:”that’s toxic masculinity”. That story line was horrible.
Me: “Julian Fellowes is no feminist. Tellingly, though — showing he is making what we may call a woman’s film –, all the powerful moves are made by women: Lady Maud can leave her property to whom she pleases; Lady Mary decides what will be done, does it herself, goes to ask Carson to come, she follows Bransom; Anna is the person who conceives the plot, ferrets out the thief; it’s the queen who tells the king to let Hexam stay home with his wife (though I cringed when she said Moseley’s embarrassing infatuation was okay). We began with Daisy and Mrs Patmore, nearly ended with them.
Bransome, the man with least titles and property, has taken over the paternal advice role.
Russ Hunt: “Thanks for that, Ellen. Very much like my ambivalence about the show – which we gave up on after the first couple of seasons, for reasons you state quite elegantly, and for which we probably won’t see the movie (however much we were made warm and comfy by those early episodes and Fellowes’ astonishing scripts). And in spite of the fact that we try never to miss a Maggie Smith show. I saw her play Millamant at Stratford (Ontario) generations ago, and fell in love.”
Thank you in turn for commenting and the praise. Maggie Smith is a magnificent actress. My favorite of all her roles is Alice in Alan Bennett’s Bed Among Lentils. There was a period where she did a number of movies where Judi Dench also had a role: she too so moving. Fellowes’s scripts are astonishing — a number have been published; I find especially brilliant Gosford Park. There under the impulse of Altman, Fellowes does adequately critique this upper class as far as the mystery story line will allow. Ellen
Joanne Swolack: “Anibundel over on NBC has argued that this cinema continuation carries on one important characteristic of the 5 year series at its best: nothing much or nothing overt happens to change anything in the visible life of these sets of people very much.” This line reminds me of something once written about Pride and Prejudice (can’t remember where or by whom): “It’s the kind of book where you can’t wait to turn the page to see what doesn’t happen next.”
Quintino Zaccardelli “No screenplay is fine literature. they’re written with the intention of leading a filmmaker to project specific images onto a second medium. any level headed screenwriter will attest to that. there’s a reason many of the best films ever made were adapted from books.”
Me: I have to disagree. Not that this makes me an authority, but I wrote a paper for conference on screenplays and studied of many of them – and Julian Fellowes’s screenplays (e.g., Gosford Park) are among those which are in this genre complicated works of art. They are not the result of just one person; or they are much amended after the first script and then again usually edited by the first author before the publication. There are anthologies of them and good editions of individual ones.
Quintino: I enjoyed his movie Gosford Park when I saw it years ago. a screenplay is a work of art, yes. “complicated works of art” is not a genre. the structure and intentions of a screenplay limit its ability to be classified as “fine literature.” for example: in a screenplay it is ok to describe the room, but it is not fine to list what is in the room. this is because there is an art department which is tasked with designing the room based on their idea of the characters/situations in the room. this structure does not lend well to the idea of “fine literature.” please understand my point of view, that is the nature of screenwriting. Film is potentially the greatest medium of art because it requires/involves many other mediums to work together for a single project. and yes, individually those parts are great. but I don’t think a screenplay could be considered “fine literature.” alas, to each their own, any reading an individual does is fantastic in my book.
Me in reply: We can agree to differ. I’ll send along a URL to my paper where I do not argue that the screenplay is fine literature, but rather that it is centrally, crucially important in as a central shaping document and for the dialogue and story-boards of a film: https://www.academia.edu/…/Screenplays_and_Shooting…
[…] hit, I hurried to see it later Tuesday afternoon and then wrote yet another blog — moved to: the trick, the involving magic begins one-third to one-half the way through and doesn’t quite succeed. I was reminded of what had drawn me in so emotionally in the first […]
I can’t believe that a movie was made from “Downton Abbey”. No wonder I had given up on the show after its third series. I thought Fellowes would try to make the film close to something on the level of “Gosford Park”. I was wrong.
The quality, irony, much that projects to us from Gosford Park is the result of Altman’s presence. This film might be regarded as simply another episode of the same.