Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I believe the attitude toward a "singer" was evident in that scene. These are the privileged, I don't they cared much about the singer's response. The singer was there for them...not visa versa.
I know that Fellowes was trying to make a point about performers, but walking out of a private performance by Dame Nellie Melba in 1922 would be akin to walking out of a private performance by Beyonce today. Rather gauche.
Oh, and I was just reading on another site where the depiction of Nellie Melba was off. She was apparently a diva with a capital D who moved in high circles, and any insinuation that she was "low class" would have set off an epic meltdown. Even the gamblers walking out in the middle of the performance could have had consequences.
That plot was mishandled on many levels. First of all, it’s inconceivable that Cora would not have looked at the seating arrangements beforehand. Women of her class had two functions in life: to have children and to host parties. She never would have left it to the butler alone, especially for a long house party where the order of precedence was relaxed so that guests didn’t have to sit next to the same person at multiple meals. Fellowes wanted to make Lord G look like a fusty dolt yet again. Historically, if such a faux pas had been made, it would have been by Cora, not Robert.
Second, Fellowes didn’t need to telegraph exactly where the episode was going by emphasizing it so early. As soon as Carson had the conversation with Mrs. Hughes we knew exactly what was going to happen. There was no drama or suspense. He does this all the time.
Third, if he’s going to make it into a major plot point for the episode, it shouldn’t have been resolved so easily. It could have involved a huge “scene” with Dame Nellie refusing to leave her room—which could only be eased with the aid of the Dowager. We should have seen the footmen, who had spent all afternoon setting the table, scrambling to add another place setting in ten minutes while all the guests waited awkwardly in the drawing room and Mrs. Patmore in tears because the food was getting cold. It would have been a nice way to combine a crisis upstairs as well as down. Something that doesn’t happen very often on the show.
I don’t know how they could have solved the bit with the gamblers. It would upset the arc of the episode to have the gambling scene after the concert, because it would also be after the rape. The tone would be too jarring to have such a frivolous scene after Anna. If I were directing, I probably would have had them fail to appear rather than leave. It would have been nice to see Cora glancing over at empty chairs—and pretending they didn’t exist.
I believe the attitude toward a "singer" was evident in that scene. These are the privileged, I don't they cared much about the singer's response. The singer was there for them...not visa versa.
After she was widowed my great grandmother opened an actor's hotel. This was in the US, but it was the norm for actors, musicians and their support people. When she died in the twenties it was still running. In time, they were not needed but still were then. Apparently her's was top flight, since the better actors stayed there, but traveling singers would have as well. Artists would not be admitted to a hotel, even the best and most well known. Thus there were hotels just for them, since most spent their carrears traveling as there was no 'media' as we know it.
The singer in DA is famous and well known, but would not have been the catagory we put celebs today. They were enjoyed, but they were their own class with more notice and perhaps more money, but not a special overriding status. And I agree, while others *may* have felt the need for respect, she was hired to sing at the party and was that was it. Consider how shocked Robert was that she was to sit down to dinner with them. If you have a party and hire a band, are they guests or employees?
In 1922 things were changing, but hadn't changed that much. And the Crawleys are trying hard to show themselves off, too, that they may have to face the inevitable tomorrow, but today they are still the gentry. When things are going away, then those most afraid of losing them cling extra hard to what they have.
I don't know if this was covered, but did anyone find it odd that the children were absent for the whole episode?
I didn't see Mary with George once. I also found it odd that Matthew's mother stayed away from Downton...even though her son's baby was there. Seems with Matthew gone the baby would become her focus.
I'm sure they had their daily visit with their parents. But mostly Nanny would be their caretaker, which is her job. Since they were dealing with adult things, the children wouldn't be around. As adults, children raised with nannies would still have a motherly fondness for nanny and often keep in touch, while their parents were given respect but might not even be close.
I think Matthew's mother is still dealing with the loss of her only son and not well. To go there and him be gone is too painful. And her grandson is now to be incorperated into his mother's family. She's going to be the outsider, no matter how gracious they are. George will never be the close child to her that Matthew was and she may not want to have to think of that.
After she was widowed my great grandmother opened an actor's hotel. This was in the US, but it was the norm for actors, musicians and their support people. When she died in the twenties it was still running. In time, they were not needed but still were then. Apparently her's was top flight, since the better actors stayed there, but traveling singers would have as well. Artists would not be admitted to a hotel, even the best and most well known. Thus there were hotels just for them, since most spent their carrears traveling as there was no 'media' as we know it.
The singer in DA is famous and well known, but would not have been the category we put celebs today. They were enjoyed, but they were their own class with more notice and perhaps more money, but not a special overriding status. And I agree, while others *may* have felt the need for respect, she was hired to sing at the party and was that was it. Consider how shocked Robert was that she was to sit down to dinner with them. If you have a party and hire a band, are they guests or employees?
In 1922 things were changing, but hadn't changed that much. And the Crawleys are trying hard to show themselves off, too, that they may have to face the inevitable tomorrow, but today they are still the gentry. When things are going away, then those most afraid of losing them cling extra hard to what they have.
Very interesting. But wouldn't the men leaving to gamble be showing disrespect to the hostess? Even if the singer didn't have to be shown the courtesy of the men staying in their seats until she was through, I would have thought that it would have been an affront to Cora for them to leave while her guest was still entertaining.
Very interesting. But wouldn't the men leaving to gamble be showing disrespect to the hostess? Even if the singer didn't have to be shown the courtesy of the men staying in their seats until she was through, I would have thought that it would have been an affront to Cora for them to leave while her guest was still entertaining.
I would expect Cora would mind, but not make a scene. She was allowing the singer to be a guest, and Robert was seeing her as the hired help, if priviledged. But she would not make a scene and make things worse.
I don't think that Robert intended to leave but the gambler/high roller stood up first. Given that he was out a lot of money he followed. As did the publisher. The last thing he wanted was to have to explain to Cora why he had lost soooo much of their endangered money. Cora wouldn't like his rudeness, but better that than she know the rest. I'll bet she's still very curious about what they were doing.
I was surprised to find out about actor's hotels, but they had a far different attitude toward entertainers than we do.
I would expect Cora would mind, but not make a scene. She was allowing the singer to be a guest, and Robert was seeing her as the hired help, if priviledged. But she would not make a scene and make things worse.
I don't think that Robert intended to leave but the gambler/high roller stood up first. Given that he was out a lot of money he followed. As did the publisher. The last thing he wanted was to have to explain to Cora why he had lost soooo much of their endangered money. Cora wouldn't like his rudeness, but better that than she know the rest. I'll bet she's still very curious about what they were doing.
I was surprised to find out about actor's hotels, but they had a far different attitude toward entertainers than we do.
LOL! Under the circumstances I wouldn't expect Cora to make a scene but I bet if she were an American wife in America she would have read him the riot act afterwards.
I just watched the second episode and I found the rape disturbing. I thought the way the men scurried off during a performance by a distinguished singer was improbable. I cannot stand the maid that has come back and is making her moves on the son in law. I also don't believe he would have that difficult a time at a house party. He has been around small talk for a while now. Thank goodness Mary is up and around. Maybe she will nurture her baby a bit.
I know that Fellowes was trying to make a point about performers, but walking out of a private performance by Dame Nellie Melba in 1922 would be akin to walking out of a private performance by Beyonce today. Rather gauche.
If I paid Beyonce a million dollars to perfrom for me...I am gauche.
I'm sure they had their daily visit with their parents. But mostly Nanny would be their caretaker, which is her job. Since they were dealing with adult things, the children wouldn't be around. As adults, children raised with nannies would still have a motherly fondness for nanny and often keep in touch, while their parents were given respect but might not even be close.
I think Matthew's mother is still dealing with the loss of her only son and not well. To go there and him be gone is too painful. And her grandson is now to be incorperated into his mother's family. She's going to be the outsider, no matter how gracious they are. George will never be the close child to her that Matthew was and she may not want to have to think of that.
In the scenes after Sybil's death, Sybil and Tom's baby was featured prominetly. As this is a fictional depiction, Im sure there were no daily parental visits. What didn't happen on air didn't happen.
One scene with Marry with the baby or Matthew's mother concerned with her grandson were missing from the episode. I found that odd.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
