Downton Abbey

Rachel Cooke doesn't believe the hype about ITV's new period drama

Downton Abbey
ITV1

Two weeks in, and those of us who have been longing for a Brideshead Revisited-style Sunday-night treat - for a drama that is long, sumptuous and properly involving - must now invest all our hopes in the BBC's forthcoming revival of Upstairs, Downstairs. Yes, I refer to Downton Abbey (Sundays, 9pm), an advert for which I was even treated to at a cinema the other day. How is it that this much-hyped series has turned out to be such a disappointment? I was determined to love it and, after struggling to feel even remotely involved during part one, I decided to keep my doubts to myself. Perhaps it would pick up. Yes, I felt patronised by the explanatory dialogue. Yes, the soundtrack was intrusive. Yes, virtually every costume-drama cliché one can think of had been concertinaed into a little over an hour's worth of television. But, still: a grand house, a collection of warring servants, an estate without a rightful heir. What's not to like?

Yet, now that I've seen part two, I'm already thoroughly sick of the bitchy servants and couldn't care less who inherits Lord Grantham's pile. If they turned Downton into timeshare flats, I'm not sure I would be exactly sad. Julian Fellowes, who won an Oscar for his script for Gosford Park, another big-house-in-changing-times drama, is obsessed by social class and I think Downton Abbey is a victim of that fixation: the series has no light and shade because its only preoccupation is where anyone stands in the house's hierarchy. As a result, everything else - plot, character - has been bleached out.

People are either good or bad, nice or nasty: cardboard cut-outs in jet beads and plus fours. The whole set-up feels ersatz, a mere vehicle for gawping at silverware and hunting jackets. Worse, for all that Fellowes pays lip-service to the social revolution that will come with the Great War - his working-class characters say things like "Just because you're a lord, you think you can do what you like with me!" - the script oozes nostalgic approval for the days when people not only knew the difference between an earl and duke, but cared about it, too.

So, in terms of emotional development, his characters make some weird journeys. Lord Grantham's heir, Matthew Crawley (Dan Stevens), who is a solicitor from - the horror! - Manchester, learns to love his new valet, allowing him, against all his instincts, to fiddle with his cuffs and brush down his lapels, and this is deemed a Good Thing. Order is restored, and Crawley is a better man because of it. As for me, I demand greater epiphanies than this from a drama that expects to be taken seriously.

Much has been made of Downton Abbey's wondrous cast. Hmm. Hugh Bonneville as Lord Grantham and Elizabeth McGovern, who plays his rich American wife, Cora, are wonderful; neither one of them could overact if they tried. Bonneville is able to convey powerful emotion with the twitch of a corner of a lip. But Maggie Smith is woefully miscast as the dowager countess. What kind of countess sounds like the bastard child of Alan Bennett and Frankie Howerd? She's hammier than a plate of Christmas gammon. I like Rob James-Collier as the sculpted footman Thomas, but you knew he was going to turn out to like boys right from the off, just as you might have predicted that the doctor at the local hospital, an establishment funded by the good earl, would be Scottish. Edwardian TV doctors are always Scots.

What is going to happen? Oh, must I? I expect that Lady Mary (Michelle Dockery), the earl's eldest daughter, will, after various disastrous flirtations, fall for her cousin, the good solicitor from Manchester, perhaps breaking her younger sister's heart in the process. The estate will be safe. The servants will continue to be uppity to no great effect. The countess may well enjoy a long deathbed scene, just like Lord Marchmain in Brideshead. You see, Downton is not a place for surprises.

Perhaps that is the point. This is status-quo television, uncomplicated and undemanding, with backstories that are easily tied up between ad breaks. You can watch it with your supper on your knee without any fear that your tray will have cause to wobble.

32 comments

Assia W.'s picture

It's still better than " Big Brother".
Or ' The Antiques Road Show".
Or, in fact, the rest of the crap that's usually on Tv these days. This is written, by the way not by some old codger but by someone under the age of 30.

Peter's picture

Sorry Rosie Julian Fellowes does know excatly what he is writing about. I agree a couple of the actors are not up this wonderful production and oh and ADGS you will have a long while to wait for the Beeb to come up with anything so good, unless you count a tired rehash of "Upstairs Downstairs which returns at Christmas. And if you wanted to be completely accurate that title is wrong it is never refered to as Downstairs but below stairs.

Mya's picture

Rachel Cooke are you watching the same thing as me?
I enjoy every moment watching this series, Maggie Smith is the best cast person for this role, Who else could add their quick humor to her lines?
I love her, and i love the show.

ADGS's picture

It would seem to be almost lese-majesty to criticise this programme, but I have to agree with most of what Rachel Cooke has to say and the fault lies with Fellowes and his really rather dreary script. The acting/production values/direction etc are all top drawer, but they're wasted on this second-division tosh. Like the equally disappointing Kingdom from that other national treasure, Stephen Fry, this is seemingly made-to-measure Sunday night fare and forgets that we need the basics of drama to keep us engaged even in what is no more than an upmarket soap.

AnneJ's picture

Wow. With all of the rubbish shown on TV these days - "reality" crap with the 15 minutes of fame attention seekers - you would think that a show with people who are actually actors, with a script, period costumes and beautiful scenery would be a welcome sight. I live in Canada - and have no idea who Rachel Cooke is - but I'm glad I don't look to her for viewing advice. Critics do just that - criticize. Far be it for her to say "some of you may enjoy this" for this or that reason.
Bet she watches the X-Factor. Say no more.

Just another "muttonhead"

Peter Hackeau's picture

I've enjoyed every minute of this splendid serial, superb casting, great acting, a light touch with the production and no junk music to drown out the dialogue. Immensely enjoyable and two outright villains who have yet to get their cummupence!!

Peter's picture

Oh Dear Rachel,

perhaps you should stick to eastenders, you can probably just about follow that.

Liza's picture

Hear, hear! No junk music drowning out the speech or atmosphere.This interference or "jamming" as we used to call it in the days of the old Soviet Union, has become almost compulsory in every other programme, no matter how serious or scholarly. Even the Flower and Dog Shows have to have it and one just switches right off. Perhaps that is the main reason so many people are watching this treat for the eyes, and don't mind the banal plot and script.

James's picture

Rachel Cooke lacks imagination and is driven by astonishing ignorance in her review - but maybe, just maybe she is so knowledgeable about transatlantc marriages in 1900, entailed UK estates, and the realities of life pre-1914, that she cannot see the point of a dramatic series telling a story about such events. Drama is often cliched, obvious and always a contrivance, to those who know anything about story-telling (I guess she has not read Christopher Booker's 'Seven Basic Plots'?) but that does not detract from the interest such a series may have for those without her oh-so-clever opinions. Just as well many curious youngsters are more likely to view this well-made and subtle drama on television, and learn something of what life might just have been like in 1912-14, rather than read such an ill-tempered review in the NS.

DowntonAbbey's picture

I hope that you take back what you said about what would happen after seeing the final episode last Sunday night, Mary and Matthew did not get together. I think the show is wonderful, of course that is my opinion, but seeing as 10 million tuned in to the finale, I'd say mine is the more popular opinion!

Latest tweets