Log in

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Too bad it was to a character we hardly know. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

So end of last episode, Edith is a sodden heap of unmarried nothingness. This episode, she seems pretty okay apart from the fact that she's bored. Not one single word about the loss of the man she insisted she loved. She just can't think of anything else to do. So instead of taking up the horror of gardening, she embraces the suffragette cause by writing a letter to the newspaper.

Because that is where suffragettes come from, you see. Mildly unattractive women who can't get husbands. Thank you for that history lesson, Julian Fellowes. And I hope you weren't expecting to actually be let in on Edith's specific views on women's rights because that would mean the screenplay would have to go beyond plot point level so no. Sorry.

And then Sybil's tediously hostile little husband burns down a castle. But no, you don't get to see that, either. Instead, you get to see him blubbering about leaving his pregnant wife behind in Ireland and everyone's all pissed at him but then Sybil arrives safe and sound* so nothing happened there, of course. Except now it looks like they're stuck with the grumpy leprechaun because he can't go back to Ireland.

But then there was that one big thing that actually happened. Remember Ethel? The maid? The maid we didn't know very well? She had a baby with that guy we didn't know at all? Well, now the maid we don't know very well wants to give away the baby of the guy we didn't know at all to the grandparents we really don't know. Isn't that sad? It might be, if we knew who these people were.**

Other than that, this was a pretty drab little episode. So what else did we have:

Matthew being his usual doughy ass of a self over the damned money he never wanted in the first place.

Anna and Bates separately sniveling over letters. The waterworks were on full blast in this episode.

Then in a move employed by no lady ever in the entire history of running a large household, Mary actually instructs Carson to hire a hot new footman*** because the maids will like him. Dear merciful goodness. Yes, let's deliberately set up as much conflict amongst the servants as we possibly can because it will be so amusing and won't upset the household one jot!

And boy were the anvils falling fast and heavy over Mary re-doing the nursery. (Only a complete moron like Matthew would have bought that line about hay fever.) We're going to have an old fashioned soap opera conception drama with a miracle pregnancy. Mark my words. God forbid there should be no heir and this appalling family should not continue into the next generation. What a loss to mankind that would be.

*Except for her hair, which looks worse than ever.

**Not to mention, it was all a little too reminiscent of Violet giving away Tizzy in Flambards for me.

***And really, he's not even all that good looking. Though he doesn't have a lot of competition among this pasty bunch.


( 8 comments — Leave a comment )
Jan. 23rd, 2013 04:58 pm (UTC)
"It might be, if we knew who these people were."

OMG! I thought it was just me! I admit, I miss the first 2 seasons--but I have NO IDEA who these people are and I've been trying to figure it out for months!

And yet...I'm hopelessly addicted to this show. I think it's because each scene is like 30 seconds long at the most. No chance for my ADD to click in. :)
Jan. 23rd, 2013 10:03 pm (UTC)
I am addicted to HATING this show! Heh. I am a lonely Sergeant Sarah Brown, beating her tambourine into the void.
Jan. 23rd, 2013 11:18 pm (UTC)
HAHAHA! And you're watching it! You're so funny.
Jan. 24th, 2013 03:17 am (UTC)
I am insane!
Jan. 24th, 2013 02:10 pm (UTC)
I do the same withing with IDIOTIC MOVIES, lol.
Jan. 24th, 2013 03:01 am (UTC)
I kind of liked that sad-eyed Matthew is going to stir the pot regarding the finances, and maybe suggest to Mary's darling papa that he act like a responsible landowner for a change. The man's never been responsible a day in his life. Heh. (Maybe Matthew will grow a spine in all this.)
Jan. 24th, 2013 03:22 am (UTC)
The way he's going about it makes me want to punch him in the nose. He's got a nasty habit of saying he's not doing something objectionable at the very same time he's doing it. Like telling Mary he wasn't accusing her of forging that letter and then in the next split second ACCUSED HER OF FORGING THE LETTER!

So here, he tells Lord Grantham that he doesn't want to make him feel like he has "absconded with the Squires's money" and yet that's just exactly what he's doing. And saying he doesn't want to put his foot in and then putting his foot in and blah blah.

And I don't know that we've really seen evidence that Lord Grantham was irresponsible up until this point. That's one of the issues I have with the writing. There's a lot of this sort of plot point stuff going on. This Lord Grantham is not season one's Lord Grantham because this is not season one's plot and season one's Lord Grantham does not serve this plot and therefore, meet the new irresponsible Lord Grantham. How do you do?
Jan. 24th, 2013 06:12 pm (UTC)
I guess I always had the sense Lord Grantham was blase about anything to do with the household (and by extension the estate). But maybe it's just that sense of entitlement that comes with being titled. Lady Grantham is always more aware of what's happening.

So you're saying Matthew is a little passive aggressive (to use a much overused term)? He should have just been forthright and asked to at least learn how to run the estate. He is the heir after all, and supposedly a lawyer (which usually suggests a level of competency).

I do enjoy your rants. :-)

( 8 comments — Leave a comment )