A fond farewell to ‘Downton Abbey’
It can be replaced, but it probably will never be replicated
Our TV world is about to become a little less joyful and a lot less civil.
Eventually, of course, we’ll find some new entertainment to replace the joy we’ll lose when PBS’ Downton Abbey exits for good Sunday (9 p.m. ET/PT, times may vary). Not in kind, mind you: There is no substitute for a Maggie Smith-delivered insult. But these days, finding something we can enjoy watching is not that onerous a task.
The tougher task will be replacing the basking-in-the-fantasy pleasure we found each year in returning to a time when tuxedos were considered too casual for dinner and “service” was a family business rather than something you complain about at Cracker Barrel.
Still, it wouldn’t do to let nostalgia blind us, because it never blinded Downton creator Julian Fellowes. The peculiar genius in his journey to the past is that it allowed us to mourn what was lost in the collapse of the “genteel society” while also helping us appreciate what we’ve gained in return from civil rights and economic mobility. For every shot of privileged women in their gowns and jewels waiting to be served dinner, there was a corresponding shot of the people who had to make and serve that meal. For every scene of the Crawley family surveying their land, there was a reminder of how precarious was the state of those working that land.
Nor was the show’s setting in the distant past Downton’s only appeal. There was its speed, a short-scene approach that made the show feel like Upstairs/ Downstairs as seen through an ER filter. There was the skill at rebounding from cast and character exits (Dan Stevens’ Matthew, Jessica Brown Findlay’s Sybil, Siobhan Finneran’s O’Brien) and misjudged additions.
But most important, there was the strength and appeal of Downton’s central characters and cast, an ensemble that has seldom been rivaled and may never be topped. Any such list starts with Smith, but consider the actors around her, including Elizabeth McGovern, whose warmth was the glue that held the series together.
The show did have more than its share of stumbles, though some of those, to be honest, were so goofy and wrongheaded that they provided their own form of amusement. We can look back with a sort of fondness on that purported Titanic survivor who wandered in and out of the show and left no trace; that less-than-stirring re-creation of a World War I battle; Edith dumping her child on the pig farmers; Rose’s jazz-age flirtation; and most everything in these last few seasons involving Anna and Bates.
In Downton’s case, though, time and Sunday’s finale heal most wounds, tying up its loose ends with such head-snapping alacrity, the pace might be enough to make even a younger Mr. Carson spill the champagne. Whether the ending is happy or not is for you to discover and decide, but it is within the proper realm of criticism to say that it is satisfying: Meaning it’s consistent with the tone of the show, true to the characters and fair to the fans.
Then, like it or not, we move on to a Downton- free future. Because as Smith’s Violet points out in the finale, moving back to the past is not an available choice.
And as we all know, Violet is always right.