And thus, not!Downton Abbey concluded.
Apr. 21st, 2020 08:25 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shallownessBelgravia 1.6
It concluded rather neatly (I’d say Julian Fellowes 1, Andrew Davies 0, but I suppose Davies would say he was adapting an unfinished novel).
James Trenchard stepped up, we saw the keen businessman and a man of decisive action. He was also vindicated for being a softy in the matter of Sophia/Edward. I mean, like all men, he failed to make the connection all the women in London did about Mrs Oliver, who’s name I can’t reca, not being pregnant with Oliver’s child, but with John Bellasis’s. So, yes, Oliver had best go to the country as his mother manoeuvred, because all the women of London would know his secret.
After spending most of the episode sure Olivr would die of apoplexy, I thought his breakdown over being tempted to let his father drown was rather sweet, although I wasn’t sure if I caught A Look on the missus’ face (genuinely, because of my eyesight) that showed that she still despised him, instead of both of them knowin each other’s failings leading to a better marriage. Before that, no, Oliver, given you were acting out of blinding jealousy, and while Sophia was clearly her parents’ favourite, James’s expectations of his son working in his footsteps weren’t unreasonable.
Anyway, John was a very villainous mix of desperation at how close to the rocks he was, and clinging to those rocks being aristocratic rocks was a potent mix. Was he really as close to destitution as Ellis would have been turned out without a reference (once the money she’d ot recently had run out?) If he was, why was his manservant sticking to him? Anyway, in his arrogant hubris, he incurred the hate of his pregnant ex-lover and deserved to lose ALL the papers, thus revealing to the Trenchards that the weddin had been leal.
Even if John weren’t a snob, would her doting Victorian father have gone, ‘Why yes, m’dear, divorce your husband and marry the father of the child conceived out of wedlock’?
But, because of complacent timing and Oliver’s ignorant hate, Charles’s life was in danger. (O noes etc etc.) Eventually his sense of survival kicked in, but John was a smooth liar. I wasn’t convinced he’d injured Charles enough to ensure he’d drown – that was a pretty vigorous cry for help, but let’s allow dramatic licence for all that.
Minor tussle between Mariah, backed by Lady B, and her mother. Is it awful that I don’t think her brother’s suggestion that she wait a bit was that evil and awful? If they really were in love, they could have waited a few months. As you can see, I was not swept along by the romance plot. The dialogue in the carriage after the wedding was a bit nauseating.
As for Charles going, “Well, I would never have thought you wanted to be my benefactors because you were my secret relations,” demanded the response. “Well, duh. You clearly hadn’t read othics and didn’t know you were in an ITV period drama.”
I have a feeling that Fellowes was far to pleased with himself by having a character called Charles talk about John’s great expectations.
But I cheered at the estimable Mrs Pope getting toasted, because she was the mother who brought Charles up, after all (and was less faily at it than other mothers we saw on screen.) I think I’d have preferred to exchange John’s mother discovering he’d robbed her and being phlegmatic about it because she had to live with her gambling addict husband’s cluelessness for the rest of their days, for a scene making clear when Sir Peregrine knew he had a grandson.
And it looked like the two grannies would be friends.
It concluded rather neatly (I’d say Julian Fellowes 1, Andrew Davies 0, but I suppose Davies would say he was adapting an unfinished novel).
James Trenchard stepped up, we saw the keen businessman and a man of decisive action. He was also vindicated for being a softy in the matter of Sophia/Edward. I mean, like all men, he failed to make the connection all the women in London did about Mrs Oliver, who’s name I can’t reca, not being pregnant with Oliver’s child, but with John Bellasis’s. So, yes, Oliver had best go to the country as his mother manoeuvred, because all the women of London would know his secret.
After spending most of the episode sure Olivr would die of apoplexy, I thought his breakdown over being tempted to let his father drown was rather sweet, although I wasn’t sure if I caught A Look on the missus’ face (genuinely, because of my eyesight) that showed that she still despised him, instead of both of them knowin each other’s failings leading to a better marriage. Before that, no, Oliver, given you were acting out of blinding jealousy, and while Sophia was clearly her parents’ favourite, James’s expectations of his son working in his footsteps weren’t unreasonable.
Anyway, John was a very villainous mix of desperation at how close to the rocks he was, and clinging to those rocks being aristocratic rocks was a potent mix. Was he really as close to destitution as Ellis would have been turned out without a reference (once the money she’d ot recently had run out?) If he was, why was his manservant sticking to him? Anyway, in his arrogant hubris, he incurred the hate of his pregnant ex-lover and deserved to lose ALL the papers, thus revealing to the Trenchards that the weddin had been leal.
Even if John weren’t a snob, would her doting Victorian father have gone, ‘Why yes, m’dear, divorce your husband and marry the father of the child conceived out of wedlock’?
But, because of complacent timing and Oliver’s ignorant hate, Charles’s life was in danger. (O noes etc etc.) Eventually his sense of survival kicked in, but John was a smooth liar. I wasn’t convinced he’d injured Charles enough to ensure he’d drown – that was a pretty vigorous cry for help, but let’s allow dramatic licence for all that.
Minor tussle between Mariah, backed by Lady B, and her mother. Is it awful that I don’t think her brother’s suggestion that she wait a bit was that evil and awful? If they really were in love, they could have waited a few months. As you can see, I was not swept along by the romance plot. The dialogue in the carriage after the wedding was a bit nauseating.
As for Charles going, “Well, I would never have thought you wanted to be my benefactors because you were my secret relations,” demanded the response. “Well, duh. You clearly hadn’t read othics and didn’t know you were in an ITV period drama.”
I have a feeling that Fellowes was far to pleased with himself by having a character called Charles talk about John’s great expectations.
But I cheered at the estimable Mrs Pope getting toasted, because she was the mother who brought Charles up, after all (and was less faily at it than other mothers we saw on screen.) I think I’d have preferred to exchange John’s mother discovering he’d robbed her and being phlegmatic about it because she had to live with her gambling addict husband’s cluelessness for the rest of their days, for a scene making clear when Sir Peregrine knew he had a grandson.
And it looked like the two grannies would be friends.
no subject
Date: 2020-04-22 12:28 am (UTC)James confronting the factory men has come a long way from when he groveled at the ball in Belgium. He's definitely shown as a sharp businessman. I'm glad Susan was vindictive enough to steal the papers from John; even though she fooled her father in law, she certainly couldn't do it with Anne about the pregnancy and where she got the papers from.
And I loved that last scene with Lady Brockenhurst and Anne standing together after the wedding. Happy grandmothers!