What Went Wrong with Downton Abbey’s Ending and What We Can Learn from It
Blogger: Janet Kobobel Grant
Okay, I think we’ve recovered enough from the shock of Downton Abbey’s bad season finale to talk about it–and learn from it. Note: If you didn’t watch the program or don’t know what Downton Abbey is, keep reading. I’m discussing principles more than a specific TV program.
While Downton Abbey is the latest example, we all can recall the moment a film ended poorly, a TV show’s closing didn’t satisfy, or a book’s conclusion just felt like a cheat. What can we learn, as writers, from those disappointments?
- Don’t kill off a beloved character before his/her time. I think an author can end a character’s life if the reader has time to adjust to the inevitability of it. But who can forget Stephen King’s novel (and film) Misery, in which a fan took the ultimate revenge on an author for doing away with a favorite character? The point is to have an artistic purpose for doing so. We all know that Matthew in Downton Abbey had to be written out of the script because the actor was leaving the show. But his death felt like a cheat, an easy answer to the program’s problem as opposed to a natural outcome of where the storyline was going.
- Leave readers with a sense of anticipation. Let the reader imagine some hopeful future for your characters, that they’ve grown in a significant way, and even though the upcoming days will have their challenges, the characters are ready to face it. Downton Abbey didn’t give viewers anything to look forward to: Lady Edith plans to begin a disastrous affair (won’t that be fun to watch!?); Downton Abbey’s future has fallen into disarray with Matthew’s death; Lady Mary will have to soldier on as a new mother without a husband; Tom will continue to grieve the loss of Sybil….even the downstairs characters don’t have anything hopeful on the horizon. What’s to bring us back next season? I’m hard-pressed to find a compelling answer.
- Even if you’re tired of your characters, never let the reader/viewer guess. If I remember correctly, Agatha Christie found Poirot an impossible man and would never have given him such grievous peculiarities if she had realized readers wanted a steady diet of him. In Downton Abbey, we came to expect witty yet sharp comments from Violet Crawley, Maggie Smith’s character. But by the end of this season, she came across as unkind and predictably conniving. What happened to the clever but crotchety woman we had come to love.
- Keep the plotline fresh. Downton Abbey’s season is a short one, and I was still reeling from the loss of Lady Sybil in this season’s first episode by the time we reached the finale. Unimaginatively, the writers took the viewer over that same sad terrain with Matthew’s car accident. This second death was overwrought and a rehash of a plot twist already used this season.
- Avoid neat bows at the end. The scene with Thomas and James becoming comrades felt forced. I understand that James would feel bad Thomas had taken the beating in his place, but little had been done throughout the episode to prepare us for the comradely reading of the newspaper. I felt that the writers wanted to resolve their relationship and did so in one final scene. The story would have been better without this neat bow.
Downtown Abbey writers messed up on many levels. But, as I said at the outset, we each can recount other disappointing conclusions. One that continues to haunt me is my utter displeasure in reaching the end of Cold Mountain. After waiting (and wading) through the entire novel for the two protagonists to come together, the author kills one of them off in a scene filled with the randomness of death that is chilling. I’m still trying to forgive the author.
Now it’s your turn. What elements bothered you about Downton Abbey’s season closer? How can you apply that as a lesson to your own writing?
What other film, book or television program left you disappointed and dissatisfied?
By Janet Grant on Feb 25, 2013 in Blog, Fiction, Writing Craft | 115 Comments
Oh, I’m so glad you were annoyed with Charles Frasier, too. I read Cold Mountain aloud to my husband as we traveled one Christmas (loooong drive) and I was just flat out mad at the ending. Still am.
And I think you outlined the problems perfectly. There has to be a compelling REASON to kill off a character and it needs to be more than shock value (or the end of a contract).
Sybil’s death was among the most deeply moving Downton Abbey scenes ever–it brought out SO much for the other characters. I was so touched by it I had to remind myself she isn’t real before I could get to sleep. After Matthew? I just felt annoyed. And less enthusiastic about next season.
Good lessons in case I feel the need to kill off any of my characters!
I cannot read any more than the time in a moving vehicle. Kudos to reading even the title of Cold Mountain.
And yes, a REASON to kill off a character! Although, that actor should fire whoever did his highlights.
Sybil’s death did me in because I had that same condition. My husband went a little pale watching that scene. I’ve never seen him go pale watching TV.
I kept thinking “Get an IV going!!” Very sad and very well done.
Jennifer, you’re right that Sybil’s death had an authenticity to it that was lacking in Matthew’s–and the resulting family aftermath kept us engaged in the series.
I’m feeling a lot less eager for the next season as well.
My exact feelings about Sybil’s death. I had to watch it at least three times–bawling each view–to see Tom’s reaction as he begs his love not to leave him. The quarrel between the two doctors, in addition to Lord Grantham siding with Sir Philip while Lady Grantham believes Dr. Clarkson, who has known Sybil all her life, brought so much to the storyline.
I had a bad case of “Downton Depression” this week and I’m so glad you put it into words, Janet. I felt emotionally manipulated as a viewer, lulled into warm fuzzy feelings only to be left reeling. I even had a brief moment of denial (maybe he’s not TRULY dead after all, it just LOOKS that way–isn’t denial one of Kubler-Ross’s 4 stages of grief?) until I read that the actor was leaving the show. I still think it could have been handled much more gracefully, by packing him off to America or something. As a loyal viewer I feel almost mocked and reluctant to put myself through another season, lest they try to pull something like that again.
I remember feeling let down by the ending of Anita Shreve’s SEA GLASS, which depressed me, but I wasn’t as emotionally invested in the characters in the first place as I was with Downton.
Ditto to the denial and the “Downton Depression,” Jenny. Great term!
I had that same denial. “He’s just taking a while to blink!”
I hope they don’t up the guy’s salary and do a Bobby Ewing/bad dream scenario.
The writers have promised this will not be the British version of Dallas. I read a number of articles after the episode to try and grasp what happened, and they specifically said there will be no showing up in the shower.
My friends and I exchanged about a hundred emails after that finale. We all had the same sentiment, they took the easy way out with Matthew. We all seriously questioned if the series could be redeemed for season 4.
This is such a good reminder to writers to do the work and honor the intelligence of your readers! Thanks for drawing it so clearly Janet.
What bothered me with the season finale of Downton Abbey was a little term called re-casting. My emotional upheaval due to Matthews’s sudden and tragic demise could have been avoided if the producers would have chosen to find someone else to play the part next season. Perhaps, for some reason, that wasn’t possible, but I would have rather seen another actor take a shot at bringing Matthew Crawley to life over what did transpire. And while you can not ‘recast’ characters in a novel, the show reminded me that I better have a legitimate reason for killing off one of my principal players and if so, to write it well.
I just read ‘Of Mice and Men’ this week for the first time, and I was not pleased with that ending. Also, Hallmark’s spin on the Love Comes Softly saga after movie four left me disappointed. I felt it was unnecessary to kill off certain characters, though I understood they were building a theme through Marty, Missy and Belinda’s lives.
I hit the wrong reply button. This should be under the main post, sorry.
Yes to recasting! They could have sent Matthew away for a while, maybe to some tropical country, and while there he could have contracted some awful disease, but recovered and come back looking entirely different, a la the soldier/imposter in Season 2. Several episodes could have been filled with doubts about his true identity.
Re Edith, you KNOW her anticipated affair will be a disaster from start to finish. The lunatic wife will escape and set fire to Downton or something. Shades of Rochester’s wife in Jane Eyre.
I agree. While recasting doesn’t always work, it would have been better than what we were left with.
I HATED the end of Cold Mountain!!! Only I didn’t read the book, I watched Nicole Kidman chew up the screen and shame lesser minions. I was done when the nice brothers who put up their parent’s hay were killed by the bad guys/deserter police.
And a car accident? What? NOBODY could think of a better way to end that season? Not Carson getting loaded and popping out Matthew’s brain with a champagne cork? Or O’Brian’s curl exploding and piercing him right through? Or maybe, MAYBE, the rightful heir coming back, having survived the sinking of the Titanic by swimming to Nova Scotia. You know, something plausible?
Do you all realize that in England, the BBC aired that “Matthew es muerto!” episode on CHRISTMAS DAY?!?!?!
“Right then, pass the figgy pudding and oh Mum, look! A lorry! Wot? Noooo! He’s dead? Dats it, I am callin’ da Queen!”
The writers were actually brought to the Tower of London by HRH, Elizabeth The Second. Don’t believe me? Where are they, huh?
As a writer, I will grind my characters into the ground, but I refuse to kill a main character who’s suffered in agony to be reunited with his/her love. I cannot stand investing in an experience, only to have a defeatist, depressing ending. There is enough grief in this world, I will not add to it by killing off MY darlings.
Minor sub-characters, yes. Heroes and heroines? Nope.
But they ARE in for a whupping…
Yes! The real heir swimming to Nova Scotia and challenging Matthew to a duel. Then he could have been shot. Much better. Someone still should be shot.
Jennifer, I had no idea that awful finale was aired on Christmas Day in Britain. Talk about a misguided and thoughtless ending!
I wonder who the BBC blamed for that?
Each Christmas Day, Her Majesty’s Christmas Address in broadcast across the Commonwealth. I can imagine her sitting with her hands in the air and saying. “As your sovereign, I promise that I will fire the entire BBC.”
Yes, the Christmas special. Isn’t that unbelievable? I watched an interview with the writer where he admitted being terrified of the audience reaction on Christmas day. The year before they’d given viewers the sweet, long-anticipated down-on-one-knee-in-the-snow proposal scene, and this year–BAM! Yikes.
It’s actually ITV (another channel), not the BBC who is behind Downton.
Not wanting to defend Julian Fellowes and his cheap trick of killing off Matthew, but he said that he left the death to the very end of the show because he wanted Matthew and Mary to be able to revel in their love. I had heard that a major character was a goner, and was worried it was Maggie Smith’s. But I suspected Matthew, so kept waiting during the shooting scenes in Scotland for him to get killed. Not a fun way to spend an episode.
And it was to be our cheery Christmas special. At least the episode of Call the Midwife (which aired just before Downton) was indeed worthy of the Christmas slot. And of course, as Christians our Christmases are more than just good telly…
Thanks for your insightful post, Janet.
I am so glad that we novelists don’t have to deal with a character who wants to leave the story! My husband and I slunk around in the doldrums for a couple of days after that Season Three ending. We’ve asked ourselves repeatedly if we’ll even buy Season Four, but we’re hooked. We can’t quit now. I’m disappointed, but I’m hooked. Thanks for the great analysis, Janet.
I haven’t decided if I’ll tune in for Season Four. I’ll probably watch the first episode, but if it doesn’t have some redeeming/engaging plotline, I’m done.
Have you heard, it’ll start off 6 months after Matthew’s death (to avoid mourning and funerals), and I’ve heard of a new love interest for Mary… he’s a character on the (funny and very British) show Miranda over here.
LOL, Meghan!
It’s fiction.
Yet, we get emotionally involved in the characters’ lives. There’s the power of good writing. And there is the lesson for me as an author: I am building trust with my readers. I can’t afford to violate that trust — one strike and I’m out.
It seems like a bit of HUBRIS on the writers’ part… as if they can do as they please and the fans will keep coming. Not so. They will have to work overtime to regain our trust. Who’s going to risk affection for any character when they can be so easily bumped off? No. It’s shields up from now on.
Downton Abbey has begun its swirl down the drain.
I hated the end of Gladiator (the movie). Too much investment to end up feeling that bad. Ditto for the Notebook. Not a fan of tragedy. Give me a little redemption in the end.
Oh, you just reminded me–Message in a Bottle. Is it bad that I thought he deserved to die? What was Paul Newman thinking . . .
If Mary’s character had an ounce of tenderness in her, Matthew’s death might have been easier to swallow and actually brought feelings of sympathy for her. As she is, she’s as cold as Cold Mountain which I am SO glad to finally hear after all these years I’m not the only person who wanted to throw that book across the room and swear I would never read another book by what’s his name again.
Renee » We could form a Ban Cold Mountain Club. I can never recall the author’s name either, which is dangerous because I might accidentally end up reading another novel of his!
“And there is the lesson for me as an author: I am building trust with my readers. I can’t afford to violate that trust — one strike and I’m out.”
I wonder if that might end up limiting writers, if they aren’t able to write anything which might displease their audience.
A good analogy might be with musicians who the only thing their audience wants to hear is their popular songs, or only want to buy albums which sound the same.
Of course, the good thing is that from what I gather the problem folks have with Downton Abbey isn’t that the writers decided to do a particular story, but the overall quality of how they handled the story.
Larry, I think Downton fans understand Matthew needed to be written out of the program; it’s how he was written out that felt like a cheat.
As viewers, we trusted the director and writer to realize we cared about Matthew and needed him to depart in a less final way–send him off to India, America or parts unknown, but don’t kill him off.We were still reeling from Sybil’s death.
Good point Larry. Even so, the author must tread lightly… we soldiered on after Lady Sybil’s death. But Matthew was the one that did us in – the breach of trust, IMHO.
Now that’s another pet peeve of mine that you bring up, Janet: when an author doesn’t put the effort into their work, so that the audience is able to craft a much better alternative to what the author did. Not even one that they’d prefer to see, just simply one that is, from the perspective of writing as a craft, a better story to tell than what the author wrote. I’ve read some books like that, so I think now I have a better understanding of what all the Downton Abbey fans such as yourselves, Janet and Bill, are saying here.
The only way DA could have ended worse – Matthew’s car mows down Robert’s adorable Labrador on the way! Ugg…I wore black for a week! And I’ll jump on the Cold Mountain bandwagon. Very disappointing.
LOL, Kathryn! You are so right about the dog.
Kathryn, good point: It could have been worse! Kill the adorable dog as well.
This made me laugh so hard.
Oh, no! Haha That would have been awful.
Great tips, Janet! I don’t want to be a hated author.
After the first season, I felt that Downton waded into soap opera territory: often melodramatic, often weighted with scandal and plot lines far fetched in order to add to an undercurrent of sensual tension. As such, since Fellowes has taken such a ‘soapy’ approach to his writing, I almost gave him carte blanche when it came to disposing of his characters (for character disposal is probably the most apt description for what befell Matthew and Lady Sybil) because he lost my respect as a serious viewer a season and a half ago, I guess I fell into watching for the shock value, for what will come next. Thus, the rather quick end to Matthew didn’t make me cringe. I just wait to see how over-blown the drama will get next time. Also, did anyone think of the opening scene of “Lawrence of Arabia” and Peter O’Toole flying off his motorcycle to his death during the rural Matthew scene of demise?
Yes!! Hair flying and the whole reckless abandon thing? Totally saw Lawrence of Arabia in that.
I’m another one in complete agreement that Matthew Crawley’s death lacked imagination (I also question the actor’s career development acumen, but of course that’s between him and his agent).
Still, I think I’ll come to terms with Matthew Crawley’s death if I can have Matthew Cuthbert back.
Aw. Sniff. Poor Matthew Cuthbert. But Lucy Maud knew what she was doing, didn’t she? Marilla needed to grow a heart.
Oh yes, agreed. Matthew Cuthbert’s death moved the story deeper and further. The DA writers should have taken a cue from Miss Lucy–like Janet said, a car wreck doesn’t fit the arc.
They’d already introduced a possible India storyline with Lavinia’s family’s other heirs. Matthew’s unshakable morality could have sent him scurrying there without too much hassle.
Ok, I’m jumping in now – hear hear! We did so love poor Matthew, but his death DID bring such richness to the story, not the least of which through the changed relationship of Marilla and Mrs. Lynde.
As for Matthew Crawley. Humph. Good riddance. Poorly writte, poorly executed.
I will say that the ONLY gratifying element of the final ep was between Mr. and Mrs. Bates. Will the writers finally allow them the life of joy they deserve? I am hoping for that, at least.
There seem to be very few authors who are able to not make their readers feel like they aren’t being outright jerks to their characters or audience in their stories when they decide to take those stories in a particular direction. (Wasn’t the end to “Little Women”, from what I gather, one of the earliest examples of an author simply loathing her audience?)
I’d say the endings of some of Gabriel Garcia Marquezs’ short stories seem to feel cheap, due to the author concluding them more in regards to the conclusion of the myths and oral tales they are based on, which doesn’t always match the boldness of the rest of the short story.
Larry, maybe I’m alone in this, but I wasn’t put off by the ending of Little Women. I cried when Beth died, but the love match was one that made sense, and Jo went on to pursue her dreams rather than marriage, which seemed right.
I’ve only read Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s novels; so I can’t respond to the quality of the ending of his short stories. His novels’ endings, though often sad, seemed “right.” They didn’t feel like a cheat.
I guess that’s what I measure: Did I, as a reader, feel cheated in the end or did the ending seem justified by the rest of the story and therefore satisfying.
A writer whose endings drive me nuts is Agatha Christie because only her ever-so-clever protagonist has all the information necessary to solve the mystery.
Agreed wrt Little Women. Jo’s Boys was one of my favorite novels as a tween, and I grew up longing to have that kind of relationship with my husband and my sons. And look at me now…writer, boy-mom, and married a man 9 years my senior. Not far off…
Little Women ended as it should have – Laurie and Amy were far better suited to each other than Jo and Laurie, and Beth was never part of this world, but rather beyond it, all her sweet life.
I also agree. I loved Bhaer and Jo together since I was a little girl. He challenged her, he “got” ( meaning he understood her artistic sensibilities) and he really, truly loved her. I always felt Laurie might hold Jo back; expect her to mould into the Angel of the Hearth in whatever way she could. Though I don’t necessarily enjoy the pairing of Laurie/ Amy, I really think Jo and Bhaer are sweet
It’s good to hear your perspective on Little Women, and the perspective of Adelle and Rachel, as the only knowledge I have of it is from the American Masters episode on the author, so it is good to hear from actual readers of her work. That’s one of the things I dislike about dramatic interpretations like American Masters sometimes do; they certainly use dramatic license of their own!
I agree with the Agatha Christie pet peeve, though I have found that it is quite fun to read her novels in a reading group and make guesses as to “whodunnit!”
Heard about DA everywhere I went. Saw only two episodes and it is beyond understanding how everyone got so hooked on it. Too many characters, too much gossip and snide remarks. Maybe if I’d seen more episodes it would have made sense. Just sayin’
I think most viewers would agree it was much stronger in the first two seasons. Although I’ve never been able to abide the theme music, which is played way too often.
I’ll admit that big part of the appeal for me is the time period, the costumes, and the sets. For some reason I’m very drawn to the time period from the Edwardians through World War II, and my own WIP is set in the 1920s. Sometimes I get so distracted by a dress or a painting in the background that I have to rewind to hear what the characters said.
Jenny Leo » well, that could make it a little hard to concentrate on all the pathos happening in the foreground.
The hats! I hope women will be inspired to start wearing more hats. I mean, one at a time, of course, but more often!
I think I’m one of the few viewers in the universe who has not watched Downton Abbey. Judging from these comments from betrayed viewers, I’m glad. I felt the same way with Karin Slaughter’s Beyond Reach in which she killed off a main character in the last few pages–for no discernible reason that I could ever figure out. In a letter, she said she had the backing of her editor and the powers-that-be. If so, I believe she received some poor guidance. I was not a rabid fan but decided not to read her at all after she made what seemed a stunt choice to grow a buzz. I just did a quick Google search and discovered there were tons of her readers who felt betrayed. Most said they would not be reading more of her books. So, whatever her creative reasons, in killing off this beloved character she seems to have forgotten that her first loyalty is to entertain–not alienate–her readers.
Good point, Nancy. Authors who play with readers emotions tend to alienate fans. Maybe authors should be required to watch the Misery film once a year, just to keep writers honest with readers.
Oh Janet…that’s a scary thought…watching Misery once a year. Torture. I doubt I could remain sane.
I have to disagree about Violet. When she took that long, stumbling walk through the hall after Sybil’s death, I fell deeply in love with that character. What a beautiful display of “showing” vs. “telling.” I used to think her conniving, but not after that scene.
A few years ago I read a novel where the major story question was dangled like a carrot the entire book. I slogged through the lengthy detail-laden historical, only to find out that the question was never answered. You had to read book two and (I assume) book three. I usually love historicals, but that really left me feeling cheated.
But, Karen, Sybil’s death was at the beginning of this season. I think Violet’s character degenerated into caricature in the last few episodes. I initially adored Violet and couldn’t wait for her to be in a scene. I think the writer lost sight of how to develop and deepen Violet.
Karen, I agree with that moment. It showed masterful acting (of course it’s Maggie Smith, after all). But she showed more in that moment than an entire soliloqouy could have.
“A few years ago I read a novel where the major story question was dangled like a carrot the entire book. I slogged through the lengthy detail-laden historical, only to find out that the question was never answered. You had to read book two and (I assume) book three. I usually love historicals, but that really left me feeling cheated.”
Oh my goodness…..yes, this is also a pet peeve of mine. I can appreciate when an author is able to sustain the themes and questions of a book over a series, but by exploring the nature and implications of said questions, and by making each book feel “complete.”
The cheap, “Stay tuned ’till next week!” attitude in some series is one thing that will make me no longer read that author.
Yes! I strongly believe each book should leave the reader with a feeling that major issues were dealt with. I’ve read a book that had a major, useless plot twist in the last page, so expressly designed to get you to read the next book, that even though I had been fully hooked by the character and planning to buy the next book, I decided not to read anything by that author ever again. I felt manipulated, and it was so unnecessary.
Another aspect of Downton that bothered me was the rushed passage of time. Lady Mary gets an operation so she can get pregnant, then suddenly she’s about to give birth, then gives birth… It’s like her wedding to Matthew. They show them coming into the church and suddenly they’re coming BACK from their honeymoon. Let us wallow in the happiness a bit.
That one year leap forward also robbed us of seeing how Thomas was integrated back into the household service. So much was made of his promotion, but we never got to see how that got worked out. Lots of drama was left unexplored. I guess the writer pushed the storyline forward so he could write the birth of a healthy son and then Matthew’s death as the finale. But that rush forward in time felt forced as well, Nancy. Good point.
One huge inconsistency my daughter pointed out to me, is that Lord Grantham would throw a fit about his womenfolk being served lunch once by a girl who’s a previous prostitute, but enthusiastically insists on an openly homosexual manservant not only staying in his house, but being advanced to under-butler. The thing that bothers me most about these modern-made “period pieces” is when modern ideals are viciously imposed anachronistically. Ugh.
I agree, and it happens in other shows, too.
I just get tired of people’s sexuality being thrown at us.
Oh, doggone it. Rebekah reminded me of the death of Matthew Cuthbert! Sad moment. But the deept effects of that on Marilla and Anne were well worth it. I’ll have to watch DA, but it sounds like if they had gotten rid of their Matthew for a PURPOSE (other than a contract ending) they could’ve kept watchers happy. Maybe they wanted to totally and completely give the actor no possible way back in, but that doesn’t mean they had to take the easy way out.
Blessings,
Voni
The problem was compounded in that the first episode of this season involved the death of a character that left viewers badly shaken. So, to resolve the loss of an actor by killing off his character at the end of a very short season was more than viewers wanted to contend with. I think most viewers would say to write the character out of the series in some way besides death.
What really put me off with Matthew’s death–in addition to how it was too easy a resolution–is that scene with the bloody ear. Why was that necessary?
According to interviews I’ve read, Fellowes felt he had no alternative because Matthew and Mary were so blissfully happy he wouldn’t be satisfied to be apart from Mary or his newborn son, but he also said that happiness is so hard to dramatize. I think we’re seeing that with Anna and Bates. What did they do in this episode other than have a picnic? Oh, yes, Anna learns the reel. Does this indicate some limits to the master’s storytelling?
When fans cried out because a tragedy altered the anticipated outcome of Shades of Gray by Jessica James, the author opted to write another version with a happier ending, and released Noble Cause. I read the first book, and want to read the second to see what she did, but I remember crying so much through the first one. Though it was very sad, I was satisfied that a book elicited so much emotion from me. I’m almost disappointed that the author would change the outcome.
Cheryl, that second shot of Matthew’s dead body was offensive to me too. I already saw the body once; I really didn’t need a second view, this time with blood.
Happiness is difficult to portray and keep interesting, but life continues to intrude on happiness for everyone. So Anna and Bates are happy together; how are Bates and Thomas getting on? What new conflict could the writer introduce for the couple?
It’s a cop-out to just say happiness isn’t as interesting as unhappiness. Create some conflict! It’s what a writer is supposed to do.
Adding conflict needs to be done as carefully as killing off a character. I’ve felt just as manipulated by authors dreaming up improbable new complications as by poor endings or character deaths.
Susan E. Richardson » Good point, Susan.
I think they had to show the blood and the staring eyes for people like me, who were still expecting him to get up and dust himself off.
Elizabeth George did something similar, Janet, when she killed off Thomas Lynley’s wife a few books back in the Inspector Thomas Lynley series.
Good point, Judy. And readers weren’t pleased with that loss.
Such a great topic…and fabulous discussion! I have a confession…I usually read the ending first…and if I don’t like it, I don’t waste time reading the entire book! (LOL)
I thank the Lord He has told us the ending…no surprises with Him! That being said, I think the death of Matthew is quite realistic. Who is ever prepared for the death of a loved one? Who has time to get our feelings in order to anticipate a looming tragedy?
In our own family we started out one Saturday morning traveling from our hometown to the town where my parents and siblings live to gather for our daughter’s baby shower. In route, we received a call my brother had been taken by ambulance to the hospital. Ten minutes later, my nephew called sobbing, to tell me his father had died.
Our hearts were pierced! Ambushed. Betrayed. You name it, we felt it.
Now, I know we love to read to be transported…and the beauty of authorship is the power to control, to create magic.
Perhaps we are all disappointed and upset, because Downton Abbey is beginning to represent reality with all of it’s inconsistencies, tragedies and messiness. Hmmm…why tune in for an hour or two when we’re already living it?
Well, must get another cuppa tea and get back to my manuscript where I have some authority.
Kathryn, as viewers we were shocked, dismayed and maybe even depressed when Sybil died. But we saw how the writer spun the remaining characters in interesting directions after that death. We were okay with it.
I think the problem isn’t that Matthew died but that the writer was rehashing a plot idea he had used just a few episodes before. In my opinion, it was unimaginative.
The saying that life is stranger than fiction reminds all of us that novels aren’t retellings of what happens in life but are finessed tellings of life’s occurrences, designed to move the reader emotionally and mentally in certain directions. The events add up to a story and characters with arcs. My complaint about the season’s finale is that the choice was wrong-headed, and as writers, we can learn how to avoid that mistake.
My fear is that if the writer is recycling plots only three seasons in, what does he have left in him? The loss of a parent on the day/night of the first child’s birth isn’t the only reused plot.
With the introduction of Edna, we had a relationship between a servant and a member of the house, just like we did with Jane and Lord Grantham. Susan’s lady’s maid spiked a drink meant for O’Brien, and though the results were funny, this was done to Tom in an earlier season. During the war, Edith was a little too friendly with a married man, and now we find her possibly entering into an affair with the very married Gregson. And the sparring between Mary and Edith that had cooled down after Sybil’s death is back. At least the last one makes a tiny bit of sense. We can assume Mary is a cranky pregnant woman, but we also know when Sybil died and Edith asked if they would get along better now, Mary said she doubted it. A year has passed, so maybe that was all the time Mary could control her digs.
It also sets an interesting stage for who Mary will become in Season 4 now that the love of her life is gone.
Cheryl Malandrinos » Thanks for the reminders of the plot redux we seem stuck in. I had forgotten some of these, but they were all came back to me as I read your comment.
I agree Janet…Matthew’s death was an unimaginative exit from the show. Perhaps he should have traveled to America, to stay with Cora’s mother and investigate animal husbandry and farming…on the pretext of improving tenant farmer income. (I wanted more Shirley MacLaine scenes anyway) No telling what might have happened in America. Death by…?
In reading about Julian Fellowes, I have wondered if, as a writer, this series thing isn’t simply outside his realm. It’s extremely difficult to sustain a story over that many seasons/episodes, no matter the gifts of the creator, and I wonder if Fellowes’ gift hasn’t been misappropriated with this type of demand. I don’t see that he’s ever written a series before–at least not one that goes on and on as has Downton. For those of you having withdrawal, watch the Fellowes film From Time to Time. It’s WWI in England, features a manor … and time travel. I loved it. Maggie Smith is in it, too … all good things.
Stephanie, I’ve been wondering the same thing about Fellowes; might it be time to bring in some writerly support? Keeping characters growing and the story arc strong over so many episodes would be very challenging. Sometimes it’s good to know one’s limits.
Thanks for the recommendation for the Fellowes’ film.
Thanks for posting this, Janet. The ending of this season of Downton annoyed me almost as much as the ending of A Horse Whisperer when I read it years ago. When the main character goes back to her husband, taking her baby with the blue eyes just like her lover’s with her, expecting that all would now be right with the world, I almost threw the book across the room. As someone who has seen way too many families torn apart by infidelity I wanted to ask the writer, “What planet do you live on?”
I’ve only thrown one book in my life–that was Cold Mountain. But that action is the ultimate, “I can’t believe you did that!”
I don’t watch the show, but regarding killing off a character too soon, I recall Dallas (another show I didn’t watch) and what those writers needed to do to bring back a character they killed off before the fans were ready to let go of him.
Dallas is too far back in my memory banks to recall a resurrected character, but it’s encouraging to know that the viewers won out.
Bobby Ewing!!
Hello? A bad dream??
I was, uhh, in pre-school and even I knew it was bad writing.
Yep, pretty bad stuff. I have to agree. Though in the recharged Newhart show from the 1980s, a dream worked very well. Does anyone remember Bob Newhart and his wife running the inn and how he woke up next to his wife from The Bob Newhart Show at the end of the new series in 1990 with everything at the inn being a dream?
Although I agree with almost everything that’s been said here, and I’m sure I was as annoyed with the ending and parts of the entire last season as anyone else, I have to admit I’ll watch the 4th season … well, unless it’s a total, dismal fail, I’ll watch it. Why? In no small part because of Mr. Carson, Mrs. Patmore, “Granny,” and Mrs. Hughes. For me, they make up for a lot of the dreck.
Good point, BJ. Anna and Mr. Bates belong in that grouping, too. Now that you’ve reminded me of all these stellar characters, I feel my resolve not to watch weakening.
That grocer was supposed to be a ladies’ man? Uh huh. And I’m in Riverdance. Poor Mrs Patmore.
But didn’t you love Mrs. Patmore all the more for the relief she experienced in discovering he was a cad?
Oh my word, that was funny! Mrs Hughes being all concerned, then Mrs Patmore nearly weeping in relief. Does anyone else notice the lack of mention of their “Misters”? Was this a cultural thing to elevate the respect of the downstairs staff? Also, did you notice Daisy and the new (insert name of position here) are now besties??
I sense a romance brewing between Mr. Carson and Mrs. Hughes. If only Mr. Carson would lighten up a bit!
You gotta love Daisy, the assistant cook, too. She’s a spunky thing!
Anyone ever read The Horse Whisperer? Beautiful book, I thought…until the ending. Haven’t watched Downton Abbey, but I’ve heard so much about it.
Laurie, you and Marcia, who left a comment earlier, share the misery of having read The Horse Whisperer. I never read it, and now I’m glad I didn’t.
“The Horse Whisperer” was the first book I ever read that prompted an immediate and overwhelming desire to burn it after I turned the last page. Of course, it was a borrowed copy, so I merely returned it to my friend with the suggestion to dispose of it in a satisfyingly creative manner.
I hope the person from whom you borrowed the book obliged. I’d hate to think others were exposed to that same level of disappointment.
. . . not much shocks me – I’m a hound – but what a stinker of an ending.
Had I written the season ending episode (if the producer would have let me and was looking for the dramatic) – (spoiler alert!)
I would have let Matthew be eaten by *Nessie.
*The Lock Ness Monster.
Donnie, I don’t think having Matthew eaten by the Loch Ness Monster would have had any more of an edifying effect than the ending we’ve already endured. Although I do have to give you credit for creativity.
I’d watch that! I’ve ridden on Loch Ness. i prayed that if Nessie exists, I’d see her, and that if I saw her, she wouldn’t eat me. Well, she didn’t eat me, so that much was answered. :/
It was enough to make this fan feel like I’d been run off the road and left for dead. A television hit and run of the worst order.
It really bothered me that Matthew died an idiot’s death.One would be happy about the birth of a son, but he looked like such a fool staring happily into space while speeding down a country road. Matthew was a reasonable character. His life was apparently measured and comfortable prior to his arrival at Downton Abbey. He managed to live through a horrible war, but died as a giddy new parent. The finale was so out of character for Matthew. He was too reasonable to be driving like a “dumb blonde”. Perhaps that was more the acting, than the script. Regardless, Downton is slipping. They should have quit while they still had some dignity! Just saying…
patrice » The hair in the breeze and all were part of our being setup for his “idiot’s death,” as you so aptly put it.
I had been hoping that the Scottish ladies’ maid would poison O’Brien. O’Brien is a character who should vanish. Maybe in season 4.
May Bates and Anna have a long long marriage.
Many great comments here, but am I the only one that feels bad for the writer right now? Yikes!
With Anna and Bates, I was thinking, ‘Oh great, they’re too happy, what’s going to happen to them now?’
Angela Mills » Angela, I think we have group agreement that Fellowes needs to recognize his limits and call in other writers to help keep the characters growing and the storyline fresh. As writers, everyone who’s made comments is sympathetic to the challenges he faces.
True, and since he’s a successful writer, he’s probably got a much thicker skin than I do
Yes, more ideas from more writers. And the season is so rushed, it seems. Too much to telescope. It all requires a little more willing suspension of disbelief than usual. But it has so much going for it, it’s worth it, to me. Nice people, nice manners, great hats! What more could one ask for?
Amen, Janet! The film Tin Cup is another example. A sports film is supposed to inspire us all to achieve at our greatest potential. The Kevin Costner character never changes–he’s just as much of an arrogant idiot at the end as he was at the beginning, except without the charm. Good stories inspire us to be better and give us hope that we can.
Janet McHenry » That’s a good point about Tin Cup. The inherent problem with that film was that the character didn’t grow and become more self-aware.
Another movie that left me feeling like I had been taken advantage of emotionally was Atonement. I still have a bad taste in my mouth from that one.
Even though I knew that Matthew had to be killed off in the last episode, the timing could not have been more heartless. Julian Fellowes milked it for all it was worth with that closing scene of Mary so happy with their new baby. Not even a twinge of knowledge that something might be terribly wrong. Whatever happened to soul mates having premonitions?
Hope such plots do not contribute to making us all more cynical and less romantic.
Jeannette » I think I’ve blogged the ending of Atonement from my memory, but that whole film (and book) was pretty dark.
I am so very glad I jumped off the Downton Abbey bandwagon at the end of season 1, when the first death in the show completely soured me on watching it. It was a cheap trick for the writers to build up a pregnancy that could solve everything so easily that it was obvious something tragic would happen to the baby; it made me ill every time I saw a scene with pregnant Cora, knowing it was purely a setup to torture tears from the viewers. From what I gather, it is a trick they fall back on repeatedly.
I stopped watching “24″ after season 1 for the same reason. In both cases, the writers patted themselves on the back for being willing to “go there” (watch the audio commentary on the dvds).
I”m so mad at that ending! I watched it last night. We’d been in Cambodia and I hadn’t seen it. I wish they just would have replaced Matthew with another actor. I could have been perfectly happy with that.