The thing to know about the new “Downton Abbey” movie is that if you liked the TV show you’ll like the movie twice as much because it’s twice as long as a regular episode. Because make no mistake, this is a TV show that just happens to be projected on the screen. Film purists would gag if they ever saw something like this referred to as “cinema.”
Not that it isn’t fun to see the thing in a movie theater full of fans. The Dowager Countess’ quips go over so well with an audience predisposed to love them that the laughter persists so long you can’t hear the follow-up dialogue. Overall, it’s a delightful experience. It’s like drinking a fine white zinfandel on a warm summer afternoon. On ice. And with a couple of squirts of seltzer water. It just takes the edge off reality without diving too deep.
The first clue that this is not what cinema snobs would call a real movie comes at the very beginning. Instead of opening credits, we have a ten-minute “previously on” catch up reel, in which the actors playing Mr. Carson and Mrs. Hughes, appearing as their thespian selves (Jim Carter and Phyllis Logan) provide a brief recap of the six seasons of the show, complete with clips. Can you imagine Mark Hamill and Carrie Fischer doing that at the beginning of “The Return of the Jedi”? Inconceivable! This intro is clearly aimed at spouses and others being dragged to the movie, who need to be introduced to the twenty main characters; “Downton” auteur Julian Fellowes don’t want to strain the mental capacity of any viewer who might not immediately grasp who Tom Branson or Isabelle Crawley are.
All credit to Lord Fellowes for recognizing that the series evolved into a high-end, but silly soap opera over the years. This opening recap makes many wry nods to some of the most preposterous plot twists over the years, making it clear we’re all in on the joke. But nothing in this recap is as funny as the moment when a glimpse of reckless driver and one-time heir Matthew Crawley first appears on screen and there’s an audible sigh of appreciation from the ladies in the audience.
As for the movie itself, the plot revolves around the upcoming visit of the King and Queen, who are taking a tour of the north country and want to use Downton as an AirBnB for one night. This would be King George V and Queen Mary (the grandparents of the current monarch). Now, if you’ve ever seen any movies or TV shows about British royalty, you’ll know that these two (especially her) are usually portrayed as formidable, scary, and humorless, but in the “Downtown” film they are basically good sorts who happen to be stuck in a tough but necessary job.
To the extent there’s a theme in the movie, it’s that the rich and titled have a rough life too so we should get off their backs. Poor Lady Edith, now a marchioness, has to serve on a lot of committees that bore her, and Lady Mary is stressed about keeping the roof repaired. But that’s nothing next to burden of the king’s daughter, Princess Mary, who is stuck in a loveless marriage that she cannot escape because of the call of duty. But in case anyone is too dim to understand the benefits of a landed aristocracy, it’s a servant (!!), Lady Mary’s maid, the sainted Anna, who explains it to her: Downton is the glue that holds the county together by providing jobs, continuity and a way of life that might otherwise disappear without the Crawleys. So Mary agrees to suck it up and continue to live her privileged existence. (Phew, that was close.)
Like many Downton episodes, the movie seesaws between the immensely consequential (i.e., will an assassination attempt be thwarted?) and utterly inconsequential, such as who will cook for and serve Their Majesties, which is barely one level above the Denker-Spratt feud. And both are treated with the same amount of gravitas.
Part of the problem is that “Downton Abbey” is positioned as an Upstairs/Downstairs-type drama, where the lives of both the staff and the toffs are given equal weight. But Lord Fellowes’ heart is not really with the downstairs staff. Their lives could not seem less interesting or important. Many downstairs characters, like Mr. Bates and Mrs. Baxter, have nothing to do except serve as wallpaper. And the actual plots: Andy the footman is jealous because his fiancee is ogling a handsome boiler repair man; someone is pilfering nick nacks; Barrow gets his nose out of joint because Carson comes back to manage the Royal Visit; the royal staff is overbearing. Wow, whose fertile imagination dreamed up all these fascinating stories?
Another sign that the deck is stacked in favor of the aristocracy is the character of the anti-Monarchists. One’s an assassin, another is a thieving servant, and then there’s the nitwit Daisy, whose class consciousness is so jumbled that says she will cook for the aristocrats but declares she won’t cook for their servants. Way to show solidarity! In fact, the bitterest battles are between the Downton and Royal servants, who squabble among themselves over who gets the honor of changing the royal bed linen. (And as the New York Times noted in its review, the Downton servants are so committed to their betters that they fight bitterly to deny themselves a well-earned day off when the royal staff arrive.
And returning to the King and Queen for a moment, they have a remarkable common touch that is completely a-historical. He worries about his son, the Prince of Wales (as well he should, given that said prince will eventually marry Mrs. Simpson and abdicate). She worries about her daughter in her loveless marriage. They show remarkable sensitivity to the needs of Edith and her husband. They seem to know all the personal gossip about the peers of the realm. And at the ball, the King even walks up to Tom Branson to thank him for his services to the crown, which seems highly irregular. I’m pretty sure that when His Majesty wants to talk to a commoner at a public event he gets a flunky to fetch him and doesn’t just go striding over to chat him up.
Anyway, there’s a lot more of this nonsense during the two-hour run time. If you like nostalgia, the British nobility, soap operas, and beautiful clothes, this movie is for you. And to make an industry-wide observation, what’s interesting about this situation is that turning a TV show into a movie is the antithesis of the Netflixication of entertainment, in which everything except blockbusters is aimed at home entertainment. This is a film event to get fans off their couches to congregate in front of a big screen like they’ve been doing for over a hundred years. Whether this will start a trend is unclear. There’s a subtle hint, though, that this might be the beginning of a “Downton” series. I assume all that will depend on the box office. So if you want to see more “Downton” movies, be sure to turn out.
Stray Thoughts:
— To be fair, there is one personally significant story thread involving a servant — Thomas’ first experience at a gay hang-out — but even that has an air of unbelievability. On the very night the King and Queen visit, Thomas takes off with a member of the King’s staff (who has remarkable gaydar — he recognizes Thomas as a kindred spirit with one glance). Thomas is surprised to learn that there is not only a gay bar in Downton (or was it York? Not clear) but an underground gay nightclub too. Not that anyone ever uses the words “gay,” “homosexual,” or “queer.” Thomas’ euphemism is “men like me.” I think we’re supposed to assume that Thomas and the staffer have sex but it’s only gently implied with the decorum of 1940’s Hollywood censor. As is the case in many “Downton” plots, Lord Fellowes wants to have his cake and eat it too: he introduces a contemporary theme to get the credit for being woke but hides it under layers of gauze to avoid offending the older, sensitive members of the audience who didn’t sign up for, you know, actual man-on-man action beyond one chaste kiss, which seems to be the sole reason for the film’s PG rating.
— I have a feeling that Julian Fellowes believes that if they showed what life was really like back then, modern audiences would be repelled. For example, I find it very hard to believe that the dinner with the King and Queen would be as informal as presented here. There are only three footmen serving the dinner and everyone looks pretty relaxed and convivial. Compare that to a regular family dinner from the original “Brideshead Revisited,” which was made only 40 years after the period in question and is much more likely to be historically accurate (see video below, starting at 0:50). For half as many guests the “brideshead” family has twice as many footmen and the whole atmosphere is stiff and formal. No sane person would want to live like that today, yet that’s how the upper classes conducted themselves less than a century ago.
— I know we’re supposed to be sympathetic to Tom Branson, but boy, is he a guy who keeps failing upward. He’s a crypto-socialist who enjoys the fruits of his in-law’s largesse, despite having no apparent occupation (and whatever happened to his auto partnership with Henry Talbot?) He abandoned his wife in Ireland when the Irish police were after him; he allowed himself to get seduced by an avaricious maid, creating a blackmail scheme that Mrs. Hughes had to extract him from. And yet somehow he manages to sniff out an heiress before anyone else does and it looks like he’ll soon have his own unearned fortune to complain about if the final scenes are any indication.
— Why is Matthew Goode even in this movie? His Henry Talbot shows up for the very last scenes, having raced back from the USA to attend the King’s visit. I can only assume that Goode was filming another movie and could only be spared for a day’s worth of shooting.
— There was one nice subtle touch about the relationship between the peers and the monarchy: Lord Grantham is unimpressed by the news that the King is coming for a visit. “Oh him?” his shrug implies. The villagers are losing they minds but Robert Crawley probably remembers when George V was just one of Queen Victoria’s prat grandsons.
— “Downtown” usually likes to spoon feed the plotlines but I was completely confused about Lady Maud Bagshaw, who is apparently both the Queen’s BFF and the Dowager Countess’s cousin. I think I figured it out in the end but it was only after piecing together several elliptical and muffled lines of dialogue.
— Speaking of Lady Bagshaw, she is played by Imelda Staunton, who is the wife of the actor who plays Mr. Carson — the aforementioned Jim Carter (see below). She’s also better known as Delores Umbridge in the “Harry Potter” movies.
— Julian Fellowes, who likes to sprinkle some historical references into his stories, is a little stingy with the broader historical context. Except for the presence of cars, you get the impression that the movie could be set anytime between 1870 and 1930. But there is one line to date it: the King asks the Dowager Countess about the region’s reaction to the recent general strike. This happened in 1926, when the coal miners went on strike and much of the rest of the country also refused to work in sympathy with them. The Dowager Countess’s response is classic — all she knows is that her maid was “curt” for few days — demonstrating once again how out of it she is.
— Completely preposterous? The idea that Tom Branson could stumble across the King’s daughter, the Princess Mary, on a bench and not recognize her. Then, as now, and even without social media, the Royal Family were the biggest celebrities in the realm.
And don’t forget — Machiavelli is frequently underrated!
Really!!? 