I recently had the opportunity to see the Downton Abbey movie before its official release. It was a fancy dress showing, so I donned my 20’s finest and headed over to the Alamo Drafthouse here in Austin for a night of fancy cocktails and sparkly dresses.
I was very excited; I’ve been a fan of Downton Abbey since it first aired back in early 2011. I watch the series pretty regularly and probably could quote half of it without much effort.
So I wasn’t sure what to expect going into the movie. Would it be good or bad? Would I laugh, cry, roll my eyes? Would the costumes be as incredible, would the story be as good as the TV show? Or would I be disappointed, as I find often happens when something I love gets turned into a movie?
In the end, I felt about the movie much like I felt about the last season: it was mostly fan service. The repartee was great, I did laugh, and generally enjoyed the movie. But for all the zips and zaps between the Dowager Countess and Isobel Merton, and one wonderful, painfully-awkward-yet-funny moment in the dining room, I found myself wondering what exactly the whole point of the story was, and whether there was really a plot at all.
And so, if you’re a fan of the series, you’ll probably like the film enough to risk a $10 ticket. But if you’re not, don’t bother. You’ll be bored.
- Number of Laughs: Too many to count
- Number of Eye Rolls: Three, including two very large ones
- Overall Rating: 6.5/10
So, should you go see Downton Abbey, the movie? Let’s break it down with an infographic:
Continue below for the full analysis–warning: spoilers!
If someone asked me to give a pitch of the Downton Abbey movie on the spot in an elevator, I’d say something like, “The royal family decides to visit
Downton Abbey and their staff are all assholes.”
And that pretty much sums it up.
From a storytelling standpoint, there needs to be an antagonistic force,
something which opposes the goals and desires of the characters. What’s the antagonist here? The royal family? No. The staff? I guess, but that force
really is only an issue downstairs. Upstairs, everything’s Granny Violet
one-liners and pretty scenery…except for the random kleptomaniac.
And that, my friends, is really it for the plot. There wasn’t a whole lot
going on. In fact, it felt like fan fiction. Like someone who isn’t a professional got a hold of these characters and set about making a story to
some sort of writing prompt, like:
“The Royal Family Visits Downton Abbey. Discuss.”
There really wasn’t one antagonistic force driving the story towards a
resolution. It was, in short, a bunch of fluffy escapism. Even more so than the actual series. There’s nothing wrong with that, per se, but I was hoping for a little more from a series that was, up until this moment, well written.
Below are my issues, large and small, that I bumped up against while
watching the movie.
Issue #1: The Feels-Like 30-Minute Recap Before the Movie Starts
Okay, so I don’t actually think it was that long, but being at the Alamo
Drafthouse, I couldn’t check the time on my phone. It felt like 30
minutes. Please, sit here and listen as Phyllis Logan and Jim Carter recap the entire series. A short recap might have been fine, and it was pretty amusing at times, but seriously, it was way too long. On top of that, I just finished binge watching the entire series in preparation for the movie, like probably 60% of the other people in that room. I don’t need you reminding me that Sybil died in childbirth and Mrs. Hughes and Mr. Carson got married. This recap is almost geared toward people who have never watched the show, and let’s be honest, guys, not a lot of people are going to start off watching the movie. That’s like reading Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows before starting Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. You ruin the whole darn story.
Issue #2: Thomas the Not-Butler
In the series, footman/under butler Thomas was always verging on the show’s most defined antagonist. While his character did grow and develop over time, there was always something shady or underhanded happening at his hands. By the end of the show he developed into enough of a sympathetic character that, when Mr. Carson acquired a crippling disease and had to step down, he was appointed The Butler of Downton Abbey.
One of the things I was really looking forward to was seeing how Thomas
handled being the butler. After all, it was what he strove for, one of his main motivations, for the majority of the series. I thought seeing how he maneuvered the staff was going to be a very interesting, different dynamic and was excited to explore it with my fellow audience. So you can imagine my indignation when, twenty minutes into the movie, they demoted him as butler and told him to take a couple days off in favor of Carson, whose crippling illness seemed to miraculously melt into nonexistence.
More than I think any other element of the show (except the excessive Granny Violet one-liners), this plot point highlights the extent of the fan service in this movie. And I am a fan, but I could not believe they did this. It elicited one of the two huge eye rolls of the night, as well as a groan. I wasn’t surprised that it happened, but I was disappointed. Kicking Thomas out of the butler seat to make way for Carson was incredibly lazy from a storytelling standpoint. Instead of exploring unknown areas of the characters in question, Julian Fellowes really just pushed back into the familiar writing of old, throwing out a major plot point of the last series in the process.
Issue #3: I see London, I see France, I see Edith’s Underpants!
Early on in the movie Edith comes to Downton for the royal visit. Of course
she does; what would Downton Abbey be like without our favorite,
feminist-leaning middle daughter?
But I had some issues. And most of them form around one thing: the extensive time she’s shown on camera in her underwear.
It starts soon after she arrives at Downton. She’s in her bedroom, in her
underwear, and there’s this long, kind of awkward camera shot of her just
admiring herself in the mirror. It was weird enough to make me blink. I mean…is it a statement on the kind of underwear she’s in, which is a little romper thing. If it is, it’s a statement that only people who extensively know about historical costumes is going to get.
From there, at least half the shots of Edith were either her in her undies
or lounging around in a robe with her legs sticking out. Maybe not literally
50%, but it sure felt that way.
It’s not that I’m a prude. I’m not offended to see her in her underwear. But
it felt off to me, almost gratuitous, like the show is trying to entertain the
male viewers. And, I’m sorry, but I like to think of Edith as more than just a
sexual object.
In fact, I feel like they’ve really done Edith a disservice. Before, she was
our champion feminist. She was the one who had a job, had a baby out of
wedlock, etc. Not so much anymore.
She complains about her life to her mother, how all she ever does is throw
parties for people she despises, and she misses the times when she was working and felt like she had a purpose. But here’s the thing: She is the second daughter of an Earl. Logically, her whole life she’s been trained to be a wife managing an important household. Is it an easy job? No. Is it fun? No. But it’s what she’s always known, why the heck is she so surprised? I’m not saying she shouldn’t miss her independence or should just be happy with her lot. Absolutely she should feel like she’s missed her calling. My issue is with how it was handled. It felt like a cop out. A stronger, less lazy story would have maybe shown her determined to tackle both careers. Or determined to pursue her career despite being a Great Wife. Something other than her just whining about it in her damn knickers.
And then the whole baby progress. “Oh yes, by the way, enjoy me in these
knickers while you can, Bertie, because I’m pregnant. Maybe you should blow off the king and not go on a party-tour of Europe with the Prince of Wales and stay here to massage my stretch marks. It’s your duty as a husband.”
Lame.
Issue #4: Where in the World are Lord and Lady Grantham?
Elizabeth McGovern and Hugh Bonneville were like female characters in a
fantasy movie; they had a couple of lines apiece and otherwise just stood
around looking pretty. I love both these characters; they are the lord and lady of the house and should have played a more important role in the plot.
Issue #5: Matthew Goode’s Grand Entrance
On the same sort of subject, Matthew Goode was vacant for most of the movie. His grand entrance happened what, like 20 minutes before the end of the movie? Drove in, jumped out of the car, ate Mary’s face, and then danced a little.
Maybe he was filming something, maybe he didn’t feel like doing it, I don’t
know. What I do know is that between his absence and Hugh Bonneville’s limited part, the Handsome-Man-In-Nice-Suit-Draped-Across-Furniture ratio was very, very low and I was not happy about it. In fact, I think Edith’s underwear got more shots than Matthew Goode. C’mon, guys.
Issue #6: Tom is…pro-crown and pro-abusive relationships
BUZZUH? Okay, so I’d buy him thwarting an assassination attempt on the king but the way that they went about it felt…off. Forced. Would Tom Branson really save the king based on the sole desire not to embarrass Lord Grantham? No. Tom Branson would save the king because he’s a decent person and, despite his opposing view on pretty much everything, doesn’t want to see the man die. That’s the plot I wanted to see. Not this random dude being vague and buying Tom drinks and then Tom being like, “Oh hay, I love my family, don’t kill that man!”
I accept Tom has changed from his revolutionary days, but considering that
at the end of the series they were all encouraging Tom to pursue his political interests, the fact that Tom suddenly has no political opinions save for what Lord Grantham tells him is perplexing.
Also. I was so very confused about his talk with Princess Mary, who clearly
was in a very abusive relationship. Duty over your own personal goals! This, I think, is Fellowes’ justification for Tom’s about-face, but in reality it just makes a poor woman stay with an abusive husband and call it duty. I am not okay with that. At all.
I’m not sure if that happened in real life. If it did, sure, let’s mention
it. But let’s not view it as a good thing when Tom talks that poor woman into staying with the man who holds her hostage. This isn’t Beauty and the Beast. Let’s see more of her thought process, the pressure from her parents, and above all the evil hand of society bearing down on her. That would be much better storytelling. And less offensive.
Issue #7: “Nappily”-Ever-After
Look, bitches. This isn’t a Disney movie. So why—and this is an issue that
extends from season seven of the series—WHY is it that everyone’s happy ending is getting paired off—or, worse, having babies? (I’m looking at you, Edith.) Why is it that every single character in this show needs to end up married for it to be a happy ending?
This annoyed the heck out of me during season seven of the series. It was
like every single member (pun intended) of the household had to be either
engaged or married by the end of the series or everyone would all die a slow, painful death. The practice continues in the movie and was the main source of squeals from the audience which caused me to grit my teeth many times.
I need to be realistic here, how could Tom possibly fall in love in like a
day and a half? I know he’s a man and thinks with his groin but up until the Downton Abbey movie he’s been a very rational person about romance. And then this chick comes around and POOF! they’re in luuuuurve! It would have been better if this had been a little more subtle, or a little more open-ended. Let the viewer interpret things. It goes back to the very basic storytelling rule of showing and not telling. This movie told us hard.
I was happy, however, that Thomas finally met someone. It was subtler (minus, you know, the disaster in the random underground gay bar, which is a whooooooole different rant) and left us wondering a little what would happen. Thomas has been a malevolent force for so long it was nice to see him finally be treated like a human being. One hopes that this might pay forward into his own actions.
The Good Parts
For all the issues I had, there were some really great things about this
movie. The costumes were incredible. The dress Lady Mary was wearing at the ball in the end was particularly stunning. In fact, this movie was definitely not short of eye candy, minus the lack of pretty men in suits on chairs. The scenery was beautiful as always.
I did really enjoy the scuffle with the Downton servants and the rather
obnoxious royal staff. It was entertaining, although the Boiler Incident—and its resolution–left me scratching my head a bit. I sort of loved the idea of Bates being the mastermind, and Thomas finally having everyone cause mischief with him instead of against him. Being an American, though, I was kind of with Daisy: why was everyone so indignant about not serving the king and queen? They should have been happy to take the time off.
But hey, it was fun to watch.
The witty repartee was on point. Who doesn’t love the Violet vs. Isobel
one-liners? They might have been a little excessive, but honestly, I didn’t
mind. I also loved Imelda Staunton swooping in to battle it down with Maggie Smith; McGonagall vs. Umbridge once more, kind of. Even if that subplot came out of left field—and, again, left me scratching my head.
All in all, I did like the movie. I enjoyed it and will probably watch it
again once it’s available to stream. But I didn’t like it as much as my fellow
moviegoers, most of whom were die-hards and spent half the movie “Awwww!”ing at pivotal moments. In fact, Edith’s big announcement (which I suspected well before the event) elicited so many squeals of delight that my eyes rolled so hard I thought they were going to pop out of my sparkly-bedazzled head.
