onsdag 26 februari 2014

Downtonathon: Series four follow-up I

Finally! The whole of Downton Abbey series four has now been aired in the US, and I've decided to have no more compunction about spoilers. If you live in a part of the world where series four has not been shown yet, stop reading now...

Roughly a year ago, I tried my hand at some predictions on what might happen in this series. Here's how they worked out:

Close but no cigar for Lady Mary and Branson: YES. Well, to honest they weren't even close, but I look at it as one of the more successful predictions anyway. I wouldn't have minded seeing more of their mutually supportive friendship: it's touching considering how different they are that they should see the point of each other. As it was, Branson (I'm not calling him Branson to be mean as I rather like him, but seriously, Julian Fellowes, "Tom"? There can be only one!) had a somewhat disappointing series four. He had to briefly get embroiled with Edna again, not very convincingly, on the rebound character principle that we then would resent a new Branson love interest less and compare her favourably - not with lovely Sybil but with minxy Edna. As it happens that didn't work out too well, at least not for me. Branson's new woman, schoolteacher Sarah Bunting, has one unfortunate thing in common with Edna: she makes him feel guilty about having changed from his old firebrand socialist chauffeur days, instead of accepting him as the Crawleys' socially aware but balanced steward (and son-in-law). The poor man spent most of the series feeling ill at ease, and no wonder. Lets hope he ditches the Bunting girl in the next series and finds someone who'll love him for his new slightly more bourgeois self.

Thoroughly modern Edith: YES. But not as modern as one could have hoped. She only got to spend one night with her beau Michael Gregson before he went to Germany, ostensibly so he could become a German citizen and divorce his wife. (Ah, divorce tourists - happens all the time). I have my own theories about Gregson's Germany trip which I'll probably mention in a later post, but for now, let's just say he at least seems to be serious about Edith. Too bad he got her up the spout after only one try, then had to pick a fight with some brown-shirts in Munich and disappear from the face of the earth. I do think Fellowes is being unnecessarily mean to poor Edith in his plotlines. She really shouldn't blame Higher Powers when the one who "doesn't want her to be happy" is really a script-writer who prefers her sister. On the other hand, the more bad luck Edith has, the more viewer sympathy she's bound to get. She may have taken a few knocks, but she's still one of the characters who had a good (as in dramatically exciting) series four.

Jimmy gets entangled with Lady Rose: NO. Well, not yet. But it could still happen. Jimmy had a lousy time of it this time round, a little like Thomas in series one: committing small meannesses and suffering small humiliations. However, there's a reason why he's still around while fellow newbies Alfred (predictably) and Ivy (surprisingly) have been written out. He's more likely to get himself - and others - into trouble, which makes him a good potential plot-line generator. Moreover, he's still so shallow and selfish he's fairly crying out for a Seriously Upsetting Thing to happen to him which will make him Grow As A Person - and generate more viewable drama in the process. Rose could still be it. They did at least get chummy during this series.

Rose's suitors generate drama: NOT REALLY. Rose did have a suitor or two. Well, three if you count the luckless farmhand at the tea dance. But both he and the drunken chinless wonder, which we saw the last of in episode four (three in the US), were of little consequence to the action. Now Rose's main love interest, jazz singer Jack Ross, was a more important character, but sadly his plot-line was a bit of a non-starter. Much was said about how the first black character on Downton would enable the show to tackle "racial tensions". In the end, though, Fellowes chickened out rather: not one of the Downton regulars turned out to be a hardline racist, so there was little tension going on in that field, really. (At the same time, I can't help feeling grateful to Fellowes for not branding any character with this particular mark of Cain.) Jack proved to be an attractive character - sensible, urbane and blissfully un-chippy - but his very sensibleness made it hard to understand what he would see in flibbertigibbet Rose. Their romance was unconvincing. Still, if the intention was to convey the impression that it was Jack who had the lucky escape when they split up, it succeeded.

No, the series instead belonged to Lady Mary's suitors, of whom there were suprisingly many. I was incredulous when I heard the rumours that there were to be two suitors for her hand, but in fact there were three. And all three young, handsome, eligible, titled men with not a scratch on them from the war. This will sound cynical, but after Word War One the marriage market must have been a buyer's one for every able-bodied, surviving bachelor with a bit of money. So why would three of these gold prizes all go after Mary? To be even more cynical, all these three fellows need heirs. Mary is in her early thirties and could provide one, but she is not such a sure thing when it comes to heir-producing (you have to calculate in a few false starts, girl babies etc.) as a twentysomething like Rose, especially not if she dithers for much longer.

So what do they see in her? Would they really all rather go for the dark, difficult, arrogant one with lots of emotional baggage instead of the blonde, easy option? Er... On the other hand, put like that...

Anna and Bates start a family: NO. They had other things on their plate. Move over Edith: the Bateses had the most traumatic - and most dramatically powerful - storyline in the series. I glimpsed something about the "contoversial rape scene" before the episode in question was available to me, and I had my serious doubts about the whole thing, like so many viewers. I'm not normally a big fan of Big Mouth Batesy, and even Anna's pertness can get on my nerves sometimes - but this. After the psycho ex, and Bates's time in prison, could they not have been spared this? On balance, however, I think the riskily gloomy storyline paid off, and the marital reconciliation was all the sweeter for being hard-won. Incidentally, I don't think Bates killed the loathsome Green, but that's another story.

More perceptive fans had their doubts about Anna's ability to conceive as I was still anticipating happy family-making. Now, I believe they could be right, and childlessness might be the next hurdle the Bateses have to face. After this series, though, they'll know they can get through anything.

Yikes, three prediction follow-ups to go, including the most important one! I'll have to call it a day and continue in a later post - and then tackle new predictions for series five in the post after that. Sorry for wallowing, but I might as well while the going's good. Downton won't go on forever: as Fellowes said, "it's not Perry Mason".      

onsdag 12 februari 2014

Light at the end of the Beeb costume drama tunnel?

It is too early to cheer, but maybe, just maybe, we are nearing the end of the "new grit" trend in English costume drama. The high and mighty BBC, no less, are currently airing a new series based on The Three Musketeers, which they have cheekily scheduled to run at the same time as Mr Selfridge series 2 on ITV. I've not watched it - it's not airing in Sweden, and the DVD will be a while - but judging by the reviews, the series is nothing more nor less than a light-hearted romp.

All right, so the Beeb is clearly still eschewing "bonnet dramas". But nor is this a drama about "ordinary people". Leather-clad (yes, it's true - I've seen the pictures) posh young men swashbuckling their way through 17th Century France - is it possible to think of a concept more unlike that of The Village? It does look a lot like Auntie has finally realised that people must be amused. But who knows - this may just be this year's White Queen, a single sop to costume drama viewers who only want to have a good time before the network starts again with the earnest, muddy, social-history approach.

I may be wrong, but again judging from the reviews, the series looks likely to be something along the line of the Scarlet Pimpernel TV series starring Richard E. Grant, Elizabeth McGovern and last but not least Martin Shaw. This series not only played fast and loose with the original Scarlet Pimpernel books, but also with history. The approach of Musketeers sounds similar: the historical background becomes a sort of cloud-cuckooland where every adventure is possible. Richelieu having his unfaithful mistress shot in a wood is surely a parallel to Robespierre wearing buttons featuring the guillotine: not even the book version went that far, and as for the real historic personages, they wouldn't have dreamt of doing any such thing (it is to be doubted that Richelieu even had a mistress). I enjoyed what I saw of the Pimpernel TV series, much thanks to Martin Shaw's manly Chauvelin - much as I dote on Orczy's Chauvelin, I never imagined him looking anything like Martin Shaw, but hey, who's complaining? The actor saddled with playing the Alice-in-Wonderland version of Robespierre was also very good, in spite of his caricature of a part. I'm sure I will enjoy Musketeers in much the same way. Nevertheless, you do wonder: what is it with the Musketeer story that makes adapters take a cavalier approach both to Dumas and the history books?

A confession is in order here: I haven't read The Three Musketeers. My knowledge of what takes place in it is based on somewhat foggy memories of the Illustrated Classic and the film starring Michael York as d'Artagnan (which seems to have been faithful to the book if you go by the Illustrated Classic test). Even with this limited knowledge, though, I sensed that things were decicedly off-kilter in the 90s film version (starring Charlie Sheen as Aramis and a wolf-grinning Tim Curry as a libidinous Richelieu - I forget the rest). The trippy 2011 film (full of villain totty - I like it) was more honest in a way: it was clear by out-there set pieces such as the infamous airships that this film bore no resemblance to any known version of 17th Century France whatsoever, whether written by Dumas or otherwise. Both the new films had you scratching your head if you'd grown up with the Michael York version of events. As for history, you're more amazed when a film gets it (almost) right than otherwise. Buckingham in the 2011 film refers repeatedly to "King James", and what do you know, James I's Buckingham is the same as the skirt-chaser in Musketeers. Granted, in reality he wasn't quite stupid enough to carry on a flirt with France's queen while his patron was still alive - his "diplomatic" mission to France came later, much to the then English king Charles I's chagrin (Charles was Louis XIII's brother-in-law) - but all the same, that was darn close.

I don't think it's a coincidence that it's The Scarlet Pimpernel and The Three Musketeers which have been victims of cheerfully-off-the-rails adaptations. Simply put: if the history in a historical novel is already wonky, the temptation must be all the stronger to crack it up another notch. If the French Revolution is depicted as nothing more than a bloodthirsty rabble's revenge on mostly cuddly noblemen, why not go the whole hog and let Robespierre wear guillotine buttons? If you have to make Cardinal Richelieu, an able and loyal minister who was a blessing to his country, into the villain of the piece, then both history and the original story might need further tweaking, especially if you want viewers to sympathise with a undertaking aimed to cover up the French Queen's adultery with an English duke. Tellingly, Queen Anne in the 90s and 2011 films is innocent of any Buckingham hanky-panky, and part of the musketeers' mission is to heal the breach between her and the King so two vulnerable young hearts can beat as one (both films are set at the start of Louis XIII's reign, when Richelieu really shouldn't be around at all). There was no such sentimental nonsense in the Michael York version. The King and Queen were no longer naïve newlyweds, and obviously not the lovers of the century. The Queen did have an affair with Buckingham, but had to be shielded because... because... well, because she was against the Cardinal who did all sorts of wicked stuff. Like... banning duels.

Whether it's because of modern values or insufficient Frenchness, there are points of the original story that viewers like me have problems with when it comes to The Three Musketeers. This has been used before as an excuse for adapters to go wild, and I strongly suspect that the same is true of the BBC series. It'll be intriguing to find out whether Queen Anne is blameless in this version or not.