Downton Abbey observation and Crusoe
Mar. 6th, 2011 04:19 pm
It's been interesting to watch posts filter through the last couple months since Downton Abbey was released in the US and has now aired on PBS (I think?) been released on DVD, and is apparently streaming on Netflix, and compare them to posts and conversations from pre-US release (whether it was watched in the UK itself or people who...uhm...lacked patience, or didn't know if it would be released yet. *whistles*) because there's this...theme, I guess, that seems to boil down to character preference alignment between Mary and Sybil (In general. It certainly isn't universal.) I think Sybil has generally always been the fandom favorite, but people who watched it pre-US release seem to think Mary is the most interesting of the Crawley women, regardless of which they liked more, whereas most who've watched what aired in the US seem to prefer Sybil all around.
For my fault, I like Sybil plenty, but find her the least interesting of the Crawley women. She's very much a straightforward, modern heroine with spunk and "pluck," and is clearly written to appeal to audiences who want a gutsy proto-feminist to root for as she bucks the system. Which, as we all know, is not something I have a problem with at all, but the other women in the family are, in differing ways, much more constrained and bound by the biases and rules of the time, both their own and the ones they're on the receiving end of, and so I find watching them much more interesting. In particular, Mary and Edith would usually be antagonists who had to learn their lessons, as opposed to sympathetic, if frequently difficult, protagonists. So it's kinda...Sybil is a romance novel heroine (If you've read relatively recent historical romances, you know what I mean, and I do not mean anything bad!), and Mary and Edith are Austen's Other Women as sympathetic protagonists.
In general, though I kind of...wonder if there's something that causes that divide, not that there's anything wrong with either "side". I haven't watched my DVDs yet, but I'm told there are very few changes, andthat what changes there were were mostly formatting. It could be partly cultural, but I think that the pre-US airing folks online who saw it had as many people who watched it on TV as who *whistle*-d it, but maybe not.
Meanwhile, for TV that only has being a historical drama in common with Downton Abbey, I picked up Crusoe, the series from a couple years ago based on Robinson Crusoe, for $10 at Wal-Mart a while back, and have been watching it the last few days. I've never had an interest in reading the book and still don't, even though a copy came with the DVDs. I have a weakness for cheap DVD sets, and pretty much always get enough entertainment out of them to be worth my money. (The only exceptions are Surface, which was generally dull and sometimes awful, and a collection of Rock Hudson movies, where I only liked one of them.) Anyway, Crusoe is generally entertaining in a "fun to multitask with" way, but it has a bad habit of being blissfully ignorant of the fact that it's pretty much drowning in white privilege. (They had Friday speaking in an awful near-caricature way in the first episode that...well, I thought we were at least past that, and it thankfully much improved after.) It's not bad, but not incredibly great, either. But I'm equal parts surprised that it didn't take off, as shows focused on the eternal BFF-ness of 2 male leads are generally successes, and puzzled as to why someone thought it'd work as an ongoing, as the status quo is..very limited (about midway through, they clearly realized cancelation was looming and reworked it into and impromptu long miniseries or something) and the flashbacks to Crusoe's life pre-island, and then when we start seeing the people in his life back in England in the present are consistently way more interesting than the island adventures.
Also, needs more Sean Bean and Anna Walton, and whoever plays Olivia.