There is one major reason why I think “Downton Abbey” works (at least for me) which any of you have not continued your viewing will not totally get – the characters. The characters – from the too-good Anna to the bang-tastic O’Brien – are what keep me tuning in week after week, singing the show’s praises all along.
You’ve all heard by now how much I love “Downton Abbey,” but what I really want to make clear is that beyond all the beautiful costumes, soapy plotlines and Maggie Smith zingers lie some of most fascinating and well-developed characters on TV. And while you all may have started to build allegiances based on our screening of the first episode, I suspect that a major contributing factor in whether or not you will continue watching “Downton” is how much you liked, and connected, with the characters from that first episode.
As good as that first episode is, I’m not sure how much it can really accomplish that. It’s a tall task for a single hour of television, but let me tell you – give it a few more episodes and I promise you’ll be hooked. There’s lust, Communism and the Dowager Countess’ interactions with the new working-class heir to look forward to, after all.
Julian Fellowes writes great stories, but what makes his writing really great is the way his narratives contribute to really excellent character development that makes you bond with the residents of Downton Abbey in fantastic ways. For me, Mary is my girl and Anna and Bates… well, I don’t want to spoil anything for anyone interested in watching more.
I’m sure I am not the only “Downton” fan who parks it in front of the TV week after week to watch her favorite characters live their exciting, soapy lives. In fact, it is my very fondness for these characters that made an otherwise underwhelming Series 2 still appointment TV.
In that sense, there is no question why “Downton” plays so well in Britain, America and all over the world – good characters that one can build a real connection with are universal. It is that very trait that typifies most of my favorite American shows, from “The Vampire Diaries” to “Six Feet Under” to “Parks & Recreation.” Sure, these favorite fictional characters are clothed in Meryl Streep hand-me-downs and told what to say by an Oscar-winning writer, but “Downton Abbey” is just good human drama.
I can definitely see how character development keeps fans coming back for more Downton Abbey. For one, I think the cast features some superb actors and actresses. While the acting is great, viewers actually believe in the characters as well. After having only seen one episode, I began to care for the characters and became interested in their individual stories. This is also impressive for an ensemble cast, in that usually only one or two characters trigger this kind of allegiance. But with Downton Abbey, I found myself entranced by the stories of the entire cast.
I have to agree with Maija here–and to further expand on her commentary, I’d like to note not only how good the characters are here, but the wide range of personalities, played well by the actors. When you look at recent shows that not only have been popular but have truly left their mark on pop culture, you are left with an eclectic mix–“Lost,” “True Blood,” “Mad Men,” and “24” to name a few. Seemingly, these shows may not have much in common–except for the defining trait they are all comprised of ensemble casts, with a wide variety of effectively played characters. That is not to say having a ton of characters is the recipe for success–anyone remember “Heroes”? But the thing is, and “Downton Abbey” makes effective use of this, is in order to keep audiences stimulated the characters cannot just be good, but there needs to be enough of them so as to challenge and engage viewers.
I think the thing that makes Downton even more unique when compared to other Quality TV shows with fantastic and compelling ensemble casts is the way the series is structured. Each episode skips ahead from the previous one by at least a couple of months, which has enabled a lot of character development to happen in the very few number of episodes the series has had. We’ve gone from the Titanic sinking to beyond the end of WWI in 17 episodes. I think that American TV shows don’t like leaving those gaps – the audience’s sense of voyeurism demands being present for everything. In Downton, there’s not a lot of down time. Something is always happening because it’s a soap, but at the same time, skipping the mundane parts of the character’s lives has enabled the audience to watch the characters develop and change so rapidly, it’s hard not to care about what’s coming next. It doesn’t feel forced because the writing, at least in Series 1, is so perfectly paced. For example, I’ve been with Mary on her emotional roller coaster and I feel so much more compelled to care because I’m also aware that it’s been a years-long struggle in her world and it’s something I and the chracter both need to see resolved. All around, it’s just great.
I’m glad you made the “compelling characters” argument, one I discussed with one of my friends the other night. Downton has an amazing way to make you hate someone, yet care for them moments later. Case and point: Edith. I still don’t know what I think of her…one moment I’m proud, the next I’m disappointed, and then I want to give her a hug. With manipulative characters like O’Brien and Thomas, you can’t totally hate them…or anyone because their stories provide ups and downs through their dimensions.
With Brenna’s comment, I can understand the advantage of time lapses, following stories over longer periods of time, but I’m not sure if I like it’s execution as much as the reason behind it. Connecting back to the characters, I wish I could see more. I want to see all the developments between people and storylines, not just check in every couple months, proving Maija’s thoughts. Sometimes their mundane moments provide the building blocks to the big moments, not just seemingly out of the blue.
::SPOILERS FOLLOW::
I’m on episode 3 of Season 2, and to comment on the time lapse argument I’d tend to agree with Erin – the fact that Season 2 jumps over a period of months during the war, and we never really see the conflict that began between Matthew and Mary at the garden party played out, and that we don’t see how exactly they ended things and Matthew became engaged really bothers me. Maybe I just need to get to the end of the season to find out? But I have a feeling this information remains unknown.
::END SPOILERS::
The question I’d like to ask is whether this time lapse idea is an attribute particular to British drama, or can we think of American shows that also use it effectively? Considering the success of shows like “24” that give us insight into every detail of the story, is an American audience as forgiving to time lapses as the British?