Downton Abbey, You've Changed

Downton Abbey has not "lost its way", "gone off the rails" or "jumped the shark".  It has, however, changed.

And I don't think that is a good thing.

When Downton Abbey first premiered in 2010 (or 2011, for those who waited to watch it on PBS in the United States), one of the main draws was the simmering romance between Mary and Matthew and the "will they ever get to be together" romance between Mr. Bates and Anna.  The creative folk behind the show did a great job of keeping those love lights quietly, but brightly, burning.

This was, of course, on top of an amazingly acted, gloriously shot period piece.

Even in the second season (the season wherein some do claim that the show lost its way), I held firm, convinced that there were still enough hints at possibly a "happily ever after" ending for our star-crossed pairs to keep me watching.  Even the treacle sweet romances between Daisy and William and Lady Sybil and Branson were bearable, as long as I could hold out hope that Matthew and Mary would finally get together.   

But, by sewing up all of those pairings by the end of Season 2, I feel like the writers have nowhere else to go.  At least with regards to love stories.

And that makes Downton Abbey a very different show from where it started.

In Season 3, if you are not awed by the splendor of the house, amused by the strictures of British society or in love with history, you are not going to love this show.  There is nothing for those who love romance to love; at least not right now.  Which is a shame.

A good love story can make any show easily accessible and can bring back viewers who have given up.  Even if you had never watched Downton before this season, if there was a good romance brewing, you could jump in, watch for the love story and figure out the back story along the way.

Lady Mary and Lady Sybil are happily, if boringly, married.  There is such little fire or passion in those pairings that even I, shipper of Matthew and Mary, find myself terribly bored by their couple scenes.  Anna and Mr. Bates are coupled together but torn apart by circumstances that the writers don't seem in any hurry to resolve.  As such, we wait.

But while we wait, there is really very little else to distract us.  In Downton Abbey time, the war is over, but we see very little change in the household or village.  The house itself, THE Downton Abbey, is in peril, this time from financial constraints.  And Lady Edith, poor Edith, has been given the misery role to play for yet another season.  But none of these are really enough to keep a viewer watching.

What are we expected to be waiting for?  What are we expected to be hoping for?  I don't care if the family keeps the house or loses the house.  I don't care if Thomas gets his come-uppance or not.  I don't even care if Mr. Bates never gets out of prison.  And I love Mr. Bates!  (But really, who doesn't?)

That's how much I've lost interest in this show!

Last season, it seemed like the writers were struggling there as well, but they managed to pull together intrigue towards the end of the season to keep me watching all the way through and happy at the end of the Christmas episode.

While I wait for the next episode I find myself wondering:  Will it be ever thus?  Will we Downton Abbey fans have to, every year, sit through boring starts of seasons before we get to the good stuff?

And will I still care?

- Sis

Out of Context: S.F.W.

I never watched SFW when it came out in 1994.  I also never watched it on DVD.

So it was clearly out of context when I watched it last weekend.

SFW asks the dual question: 

1.  What happens when you become a celebrity but you are still you?
AND
2.  What if you had no control over how you became a celebrity?

Even to a staunch avoider of reality-TV such as myself, watching this movie in 2012 was not a novel experience.  Having been a part of the generation in which 'The Real World' started the whole 'reality' trainwreck, watching a person become a celebrity due to nothing but circumstance and then watching those struggles and pitfalls was not new.

But in 1994, it was.  This movie relies heavily on context, or at least the environment where reality TV or being famous for just being famous is not the norm.

"Unintentional" celebrity is de riguer for roughly one-quarter of the 'known' names nowadays.  Even those who seek viral celebrity status often find that celebrity is not quite the shiny gold ring that it often appears to be.

But what if you couldn't even control how you 'became known'?  That question still rings profound.

Spab, our unlikely hero, (who's name I didn't believe was his full name until I saw it in the end credits) did not set out to become famous and definitely not in the manner in which he became.  What is fun about Spab is that he never seemed to try to rise above/beyond himself; to become the "thing" that everyone wanted him to be.  And I say "thing" because Spab, upon becoming a celebrity, lost his humanity.  He became a mantra, a slogan, an idea; the quintessential 'voice of a generation'.  But not a person, not a human with flaws and vices and needs.

I kept expecting the movie to go in the direction of either 'guru with feet of clay' or self-destruction.  But the movie doesn't go in either direction, choosing the at-the-time-not-yet-overdone 'slice of life', a raw, convoluted, sometimes boring and slow, but true lens.

-Sis

My New Best Friend: "Friends with Kids"

It has to be a very special movie to be started (and watched about halfway through) on a long plane flight, immediately rented on Netflix upon arriving home (so that the rest of the movie can be watched) and then placed into the Amazon shopping cart immediately once the movie is over.  

“Friends with Kids” is that kind of very special movie.  

On a superficial level, “Friends with Kids” follows the lives of 6 friends (2 couples and 2 singletons) as they maneuver the fraught-filled waters of early 30s coupledom.  The cast is so full of quality that you would be hard-pressed to find a bad performance in the entire movie.  

First off, let’s get the easy praise out of the way:  “Friends with Kids” is beautifully written, directed and produced by the incomparable Jennifer Westfeldt.  I had not previously experienced the package that is Jennifer Westfeldt (although “Ira and Abby” is now in my Netflix queue) but I knew early on into “Friends with Kids” that there was a woman at the helm of this movie.  The situations, dialogues and characters resonated too deeply with me for it to be otherwise.

What I loved most about the movie was how real it felt to me.  As a member of Generation X (or Y, they’re never really quite sure), I recognize the partnering-up, pairing-up and parenting-up frenzy that many of my friends are going through; as well as the anxieties of those who are “left behind”.   But this movie doesn’t let any green grass sit unexamined.  If you didn’t already know: marriage is messy, dating is messy, relationships are messy, children are messy, sex is messy, love is messy and life is messy.

Both situations, either being partnered or single, have benefits and drawbacks and this movie seamlessly (but lovingly) shines a soft light on all of it.  What this means as a viewer is that you interact with all of the characters using the full range of emotions (joy, embarrassment, sadness, anger, amusement, humor, frustration, love) and consequently are very, very sad to see them leave when the movie is over.  

Ultimately, it is a story about love for people who grew up on love stories, but are also grown-ups.

- Sis

Neilson's Needless Numbers

Just because I don’t watch in REAL time doesn’t mean I don’t REALLY watch.
 
(Disclaimer: I am crap with numbers.)

In 1930, 50 years ago, when Arthur Nielsen started his television ratings system, there were 5 networks and 3 channels that aired about 6 hours of content a day.  It was very easy to get a sense of what the public liked.  You were either watching television or you weren’t.  

Even in the olden days of VCRs and 25 basic cable channels (read: the 80’s), my dual antenna VCR and 8 hour EP recording tapes could ensure that I never missed a show.  Fast forward to now.  There are over 500 channels that I NEED to watch.  And suddenly I cannot not keep up.

So I upgraded to Tivo.  Oh bless you, Tivo!

This little box could not only record 2 shows at a time, but it could also find shows I had accidentally missed on ANY of my now 150 basic cable channels.  However, this amount of TV watching would not suffice for the The TV gods.  

I have to to admit the television Pantheon did help me out some:  expanding prime time programing to 11pm on weeknights.  Still no matter how hard I tried, anything starting at 10 pm had to be recorded to be viewed the next day. I just could not stay awake.  

Also, with the completely dreadful reality TV line up, I had full-on HOURs of time that I would not watch any programming at all on any network.  

And THEN CAME HULU!  And On Demand.  And life was sweet again.

(Cue the swelling orchestra and large dance number.)

But my happiness was short lived.  Because of Nielsen.  (Cue the booing.)

Because I couldn’t watch my shows in real time, Nielsen did not count my viewings towards the show’s ratings.  Suddenly, my 20 hours per week of television-watching did not count.  How crap is that!  

I am a FAN (a hardcore, loyal one at that).  I LOVE my TV and my television shows.  
Just because I do not watch them in “real-time” does not mean that I don’t REALLY WATCH them.

Nielsen’s needless numbers have been the death of some of my favorite shows and I feel partly responsible, because I (and others) watch them online.  

We are watching, just not on TV.

Here are some numbers for you.  In case you’re curious.
 
I am one person.  
12 is the number of hours of programming that I record on my DVR a night.*
4 is the the number of hours of programming I watch online every week.
5 is the number of hours of programming I watch On Demand every week.


This adds up. We need to be counted.  

Neilson needs new numbers.

*(see disclaimer above)


- Squirt