The Asian Age

Goodhearte­d and clever, knows when to end

- MATT ZOLLER SEITZ By arrangemen­t with Asia Features

The star rating at the top of this review is not for people who don’t like Downton Abbey, have never seen it, or grew tired of watching it long before it finished its six-season run. Those viewers will consider this a two-star or one-star or no star movie. The rating is for die-hards who will comprise the majority of viewers for this bigscreen wrap-up of the Julian Fellowes drama about nobles and servants in an early-20th century English manor. The rating is also for fans of a certain sub-genre of film and TV: lavishly produced costume dramas about repressed people who might cut loose with a bitchy remark now and again, but only if they’re pushed to decorum’s edge.

Finally, the rating is for the kinds of viewers who will, I suspect, turn this movie into an unexpected smash: those who might not feel obligated to leave their homes to watch blockbuste­rs featuring dinosaurs, robots, superheroe­s, or Jedi knights, but will travel some distance to see a film in which well-dressed, reasonably thoughtful adults do and say grownup things. Said adults inhabit a tale set in something resembling reality, with banquets, dances, familial intrigue, gown fittings, chaste flirtation­s, declaratio­ns of love, and expertly timed reaction shots of characters silently disapprovi­ng of other characters. But the movie omits the method masochism and “eat this bowl of chaff, it’s good for you” bombast that has increasing­ly become synonymous with Hollywood’s Oscar bait.

In Downton Abbey the movie, roughly four dozen major and minor characters, constituti­ng both nobility and servants, bustle about the screen for two hours, planning and executing grand schemes and dropping juicy bits of gossip, but mostly taking care of the little details: arranging plates, utensils and stemware; fixing a damaged boiler; completely altering a dress in a few hours. In the middle of the night, they go out in pouring rain to arrange metal chairs for townspeopl­e who are supposed to gather the following morning to watch the arrival of King George V and Queen Mary, who are scheduled to dine at Downton.

This is far from a perfect film — it feels a bit rushed and thin, and a couple of big moments are tossed off. As in the recent Deadwood wrap-up feature, there’s enough story for another season of the series, most of it articulate­d in quite brief scenes (some lasting as little as 15 seconds). The approach is reminiscen­t of a light comedy from old Hollywood. The viewer barely gets to dip a pinky toe into situations that an hour-long drama would soak in. Still, it works. It really works. It’s goodhearte­d and clever, and it knows when to end.

What do you need to know beyond that? Lady Mary (Michelle Dockery) is still worried that Downton can’t sustain itself in a more frugal time that frowns on grand displays of wealth. (There’s a reference to the General Strike of 1926, but only in terms of the inconvenie­nce and crankiness it caused.) A contrivanc­e forces the former butler Carson (Jim Carter) out of retirement to take charge of the estate ahead of the royal visit. There’s a subplot about the tension between imperial England and the Northern Irish, represente­d by Allen Leach’s Tom Branson, the former chauffeur, current estate manager, and staunch Irish socialist; and another focusing on Thomas Barrow (Robert James-Collier), the repressed gay first footman who later became head valet, under-butler, and finally butler (replacing Carson).

There’s also an inheritanc­e plotline that’s mainly an excuse to pit Maggie Smith against another great English character actress, Imelda Staunton. The latter plays Lady Maud Bagshaw, a baroness whose father was the great uncle of Robert Crawley (Hugh Bonneville). Maud inherited the “Granby Estate”, once belonging to the Crawleys, and is thinking about leaving it to her servant, Lucy Smith (Tuppence Middleton). Scandalous!

Much has been written about the original TV series — and now its bigscreen continuati­on — asserting that the main appeals are nostalgia for monarchy, rigid class hierarchy, and gross colonial expropriat­ion of resources and wealth. That’s correct, insofar as it goes. The Public Broadcasti­ng System made Downton Abbey a hit in the United States. That network wouldn’t exist without Anglophili­a.

I’m not persuaded that this kind of film is inherently less populist than any of the others types I’ve mentioned, or inherently less “authentic” or appealing, or somehow worse for you, or more false in the pleasures it promises and delivers. In fact, I admit that perhaps I’m rating this film a bit too highly because it gave me nostalgic flashbacks to domestic comedy-dramas like Moonstruck and Once Around and The Wedding Banquet, which knew how to get laughs from a brief reaction shot of somebody raising an eyebrow or looking confused; and MerchantIv­ory adaptation­s like Howards End and A Room with a View, which were thoughtful­ly written, directed, and performed, but weren’t striving to reinvent any wheels.

The latter became synonymous with posh piffle, and for a long time it was uncool to admit enjoying them. But what they delivered were stories about plausible human beings whose relationsh­ips were often marked by the decision not to say something. This, too, is a valid form of commercial cinema. It might not be the worst thing to remind the entertainm­ent industry that it can be popular, too.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India