"this isn't capitalism, it's feudalism, duhhh" No, it's not. The workers in Downton Abbey are wage laborers, not serfs. Serfdom is debt bondage and indentured servitude. The workers at the abbey are employed and dismissed as any wage laborer is. They can also quit. It's not serfdom. Wage labor is a feature of capitalism, not feudalism. Also, the Crawleys are engaged in other business ventures that firmly place them as capitalists. Being a "lord" by 20th century British standards is not the same as 15th century standards. The existence of a monarchy in a nation doesn't automatically make that nation's economics system feudalism. A monarchy exists in the UK now. That doesn't make it a feudal nation. The economics of feudal agriculture began to shift as early as the 16th century. Feudalism in Europe was effectively replaced no later than the mid-19th century. Downton Abbey takes place in the 20th century. Downton Abbey was created and written by a Tory in the 21st century. He's praising his politics, not the politics of the 15th century.
The worst part of that critique is that it is blindfolded to the fact that the economical disparity and accumulation of wealth in the higher strata will tend to generate something very reminiscent of feudalism. It is just shameless propaganda. Great video, thank you!
matt halsey I’m a USian who doesn’t think UK citizens are all rich. I don’t know anyone in my acquaintance who thinks that. My friends and I are horrified by the gutting of the NHS, and that so many of our UK counterparts are, or are likely to become, more medically and financially vulnerable in the same ways we are due to health issues. And the ax falling on local libraries? Horrible, and perpetuating class immobility.
@@Bermeslivre not a bad question... serfs didn't have a choice in who they serve, but really, is the ability to choose who is the lord you are bound to really that much of a distinction to not being able to choose? To not work is to starve, at least for the poor and middle class. Really, the working class are serfs to capitalism itself, and your boss is just an avatar of capitalism, in the same way the lords were avatars of feudalism. You only get to choose who exploits you, not whether you get exploited. And socioeconomic mobility in capitalism is illusory: if everyone becomes a member of the investor class (our modern analogy of the feudal aristocracy) then who does the important work, like growing food or building homes? And I appreciate the R&M reference and add the obligatory "oooo la la"
When I saw Parasite I felt like it was somehow a response to this movie. It has the same upstairs-downstairs dynamic and class in-fighting but it engages with the roots of these conflicts.
@@Airlane-rq9yd In Parasite the poor are actually very intelligent but can't get ahead. They only get succeed by applying their skills to fool the rich. The daughter is probably the most intelligent.
James Simpson Everything you have said is completely wrong. Everything. This is why you need to watch a movie before making a political statement about it. That’s called ignorance.
The father and mother aren't portrayed as particularly intelligent in Parasite. The father especially. The mother is a stereotypical foul mouthed ''common'' type character. It's the son and daughter that are smart and come up with the whole plan. I think in general Parasite did a good job not demonizing either the rich or poor. The rich do act dickish sometimes but are not out right nasty or bad people and the poor family are likable and I root for them but at the same time they do screw over other poor working class characters and at times act like immoral fools.
@@rodster6campingprepper The father tried many times as an entrepreneur, but failed. The son is stated as being smart and doing very well in admittance tests for college, but can afford it. The Daughter is the smartest. Their juxtaposed to the rich family's kids who aren't particularly smart or talented, but are treated as such and due to wealth, won't encounter difficulty enrolling in University and advancing in society. Meanwhile the parents don't need to be portrayed as "evil capitalists", but rather aloof and completely oblivious to the social dynamics that put them in a place of privilege. Meanwhile the infighting between the poor family and the previous housekeeper's, isn't as much to show that their bad or morally faulted, but rather illustrates that capitalism pits the poor against each other in a dog-eat-dog world. While the capitalists cruise through life and reap the benefits of class in-fighting.
Answers to two common messages I've received: “But there are parts about how women should have the right to vote and how homosexuality shouldn't be illegal. It's progressive!” Uhh...no? Women's suffrage and decriminalizing homosexuality were progressive causes in the UK in the 20th century. They aren't progressive causes now. They're status quo. An opinion that was normalized decades ago is not radical now or even mildly progressive now. It's status quo even among centrist and conservative politicians. Women's suffrage and decriminalization of homosexuality in the UK were settled last century. Paying lip service to causes from last century is not progressive. It's a way for conservatives to state that's as far as anyone needed to go ("You got the right to vote, what more ya want?") and for liberals to be placated, as they so easily are. Tories aren't pushing for men-only voting or criminalizing homosexuality in the year of our Lord 2020. They've moved on to new boogeymen and scapegoats like transgender people and refugees. Stop being so easily mollycoddled. "this isn't capitalism, it's feudalism, duhhh" No, it's not. The workers in Downton Abbey are wage laborers, not serfs. Serfdom is debt bondage and indentured servitude. The workers at the abbey are interviewed, employed and dismissed as any wage laborer is. They can also quit. It's not serfdom. The existence of a monarchy in a nation doesn't automatically make that nation's economics system feudalism. A monarchy exists in the UK now. That doesn't make it a feudal nation. The economics of feudal agriculture began to shift as early as the 16th century. Feudalism in Europe was effectively replaced no later than the mid-19th century. Downton Abbey takes place in the 20th century. Downton Abbey was created and written by a Tory in the 21st century. He's praising his politics, not the politics of the 15th century.
@@AlDo-pd8uc It is. Mollycoddling is treating someone in an overprotective, paternalistic way. That means if you allow yourself to be mollycoddled, you childishly and naively accept this paternalism to your detriment, which is what I'm talking about in the pinned topic and literally what I talk about in the video over and over again. All you had to do was Google it. mol·ly·cod·dle /ˈmälēˌkädl/ verb past tense: mollycoddled; past participle: mollycoddled treat (someone) in an indulgent or overprotective way. "I found school very difficult, and realized I'd been mollycoddled at home" Don't "Well, actually" me.
also like, can anyone REALLY definitively say that the writing was trying to push toward the """progressive""" decriminalization of homosexuality in the show with the absolute fuckin shitshow rollercoaster of how they treated thomas, constantly making him a villain for literally no other reason than "well, i mean, who else would cause drama like this"
I'll do you one better: the rich are the referees, the stadium AND the players. It's all a game to them. We're the ball they need to be able to play the game. Without us, there's no game, but the game's number one rule is that you need to kick the ball. Repeatedly, continually, and as hard as you can without breaking it.
@@Skimmy404 Yes, that’s the point. They don’t get to “give up” less of their ill-gotten (stolen) wealth when they pay their taxes like they should. The options shouldn’t be “pay taxes or do charity”, they should be “pay taxes OR GIVE UP YOUR WEALTH RIGHT FUCKING NOW instead of being a wealth hoarding piece of shit” (preferable the latter).
I remember when Lord Grantham said that the purpose of the nobility was to provide employment. But do they lose their titles if they stop providing employment? No, of course not.
@@CT_Phipps Interesting, I haven't seen the show so maybe you can tell me. Is it portrayed as a good thing or a bad thing when the wealthy aristocrats are replaced by those who gained wealth due to superior business acumen?
@@Jermbot15 I would say it's portrayed as a bad thing. The "new rich" business man that Mary almost weds is portrayed as an abusive asshole, and Crawley family often lement the changing times.
Burn Er you should be aware the House of Lords is not “only accessible to” [aristocrats]. About 10% of the members are still hereditary peers, true, but the vast majority are appointed to the Lords for accomplishments during their life. Most are, in other words, not aristocrats.
@@JasperJanssen I think a lot of that changed with Tony Blair....once the Dukes and whoever die their titles will die out because the titles only go to the sons ...no sons no titles ... However it is dying out ....
*Full Disclosure - I Am English* I've been telling people this about shows like Downton Abbey or the Crown for years. Leon you've articulated this so much better than I ever have, and I live this shit. I am sharing this with all the people who've laughed me off when i've said this before. The indoctrination in my country is REAL. I know people who are angry at Meghan Markle for getting out of dodge to Canada to escape papparazi because its a breach of her civic duty. Because 'the royals exist to serve us'. Genuinely. People believe this. Thank you Leon. Keep fighting the good fight.
@@doyleharken3477 Oh yeah Agree 100%. The treatment she receives was and is heinous. When it wasn't because she was mixed race it was because she was American, and when it wasn't for that it was because she was a divorcee, or 'just an actor'. The racism, classicm, and general prickishness is strong in the media here. I watch a lot of US Media (as does, i think most of the world) and whilst theyre still too fixated on the Royals for my taste, their takes are often refreshingly common sense. Recently Trevor Noah has been talking about it on the daily show and his view is basically yours, that they did the only reasonable thing when facing such unwarranted scrutiny and smearing, and fucked off. But I had a conversation with a friend recently who referred to them as 'selfishlessly abrogating their responsibilities and fucking everyone over' Post-Brexit England sucks. I'm not in a major metropolitan hub like London so the small-town mindset here is just infuriating.
Harry saw the game that killed his mother come back with a vengeance and peaced out with his wife and kid, good for them. I hope they get real jobs instead of coasting on those royal commonwealth hand-outs, tho.
@@adrianocounter Yeah but that's the thing. From what I've seen of The Crown it always came across to me as a very good demonstration that the whole thing is horrible for everyone involved, including the royals themselves. But somehow people seem to watch it with this mindset that this is all normal and how it has to be and the show only makes them "see the humanity" of the royals, and their struggles. Somehow it doesn't seem to connect that all their troubles are due to the horrible system and that it would be better if it didn't exist.
I actually did like Downton Abbey and I absolutely agree with you. I liked the characters and I'm a sucker for a good historical drama, but there were more than a few times when the show was weirdly self-congratulatory and I was laughing at parts where it almost seemed like a parody of uppity rich people but it was played straight every time.
It's not as though there hasn't been a healthy American equivalent to this sort of fantasy-fulfillment for the poor to be able to imagine they can peek into the lives of the more privileged. Shows like Beverly Hills 90201 and The OC have been flagrantly portraying the rich by way of love triangles and interpersonal drama - Given that the characters involved could realistically buy their way out of any other kind of problem.
Not to recap what another RUclipsr has said, but I do think there is something to the idea that American wealth fantasies do tend to look a little different from UK “aristo-trash,” because UK shows like DA tend to be a little more focused on, well, “nobility” than their US counterparts. We tend not to like “classy” wealth as much in America :)
Real life in service was an underpaid, exploitative and humiliating experience usually meant for women from poor and working class backgrounds who spent their lives scrubbing fireplaces and helping Rich pieces of meat dress themselves.
Shubham Bhushan I visited Biltmore Estate and he Vanderbilts were always held up as good to the employees and that they helped the area. Getting the tour guide aside I was told they worked 6 days a week, 16 hours a day, and were on call when not working. I found it disgusting.
I hate the movie the Queen too, it seems to suggest the idea that every single critic to the monarchy is a vicious personal attack to an older lady, instead of commentary over an institution that feels anachronic. Among other problematic points.
lala27 I am not a fan of The Queen, either. Political sleight of hand disguised as drama. However, I cannot get up any sympathy for Tony Blair. A Clintonite liberal who became George W. Bush’s pet monkey. Blair was like one of the stereotypical Hollywood houses - all facade, no depth. Compared with him and his equally oily wife, it’s easy to see how the Queen could come off sympathetically.
Heck, I remember parts of the British Press, especially the Daily Mail, lashing at "The Queen" for being too critical of the actions of the sovereign in the aftermath of Diana's death. There was also a section of the press who lambasted this movie for being too sympathetic towards the plight of Diana and her children (Christopher Hitchens being the head of this section of critics), so ending with a bizarre cacophony of voices about this movie.
What makes the character arc of Tom Branson even worse is that he’s Irish and by the end of the series - the movie - he’s licking the boots of his British colonisers.
Watching this series as a black woman, Tom was a favorite character of mine. He was the most relatable. His assimilation into the ruling class was troubling, but it's not like Julian Fellowes is Ken Loach right?
Funny how I always loved Downtown Abbey growing up, yet always felt disgusted and alienated by the terribly written 'upstairs' class. I guess I've sort of been hate-watching this whole time
Me too and I love how Thomas is supposed to be an antagonist at points of the series.He's rude and a shitty person but he doesn't have any power and makes some good points.We support mean gay butlers that despise the class system.
@@redactedredacted6656 Sybil and Mr Barrow are the only reason to watch this The beautiful sets also made it an odd joy to hate watch The talented Mr Ripley, Bright Young Things and Brideshead Revisited are more entertaining tho
@@redactedredacted6656 Thomas had many good lines when it comes to serving and class. At one point, he said: I am the son of a worker, and I've had my fill of always getting trod on by those upstairs. When Cora was pregnant, Anna suggested the servants pitch in and buy the child a cup in memory of his baptism, but Thomas says: Upstairs can buy their own silver. -- One of his best lines was to Tom Branson. Tom is having breakfast on his own, with Thomas filling in for Carson, standing next to the breakfast buffet. Tom says that he does not want Tom to think ill of Miss Bunting (Thomas had caught the two of them in the upper floor, where the bedrooms are, the night before) and Thomas says: As your servant, I have to do what you say, but I don't think you can order me what to think.
Tbh looking back, I think I just got super attached to a handful of characters who kept me watching (Sybil, Anna, Mrs Hughes... I won't say Carson because really I don't much like Carson but Elsie Hughes is a delight and once she decided that he was to her taste I ended up watching for her happy ending all the way up to the final episode).
I love Downton as a guilty pleasure but have always been aware of it's flaws. Interestingly enough, Thomas Barrow is my favourite character. I always found Fellowes' treatment of him really cruel: he starts the series as a stereotypical "evil gay" but is outspoken about injustice and classicism. And the series beats him and beats him and beats him down until he's a quiet shadow of himself. But it's okay! Because the Crawleys know he's gay and do the bare minimum required of accepting his sexuality by NOT firing him and turning him into the police as according to the Labouchere Amendment! (also I'll never forgive Fellowes for writing Thomas as a predatory gay right out of nowhere in Season 3)
Yes, I completely agree. He was supposed to be so terrible at the beginning, and he could only redeem himself by ‘knowing his place’. The real bad characters were entitled snobs like lady Mary.
Know this response is a year late but yes my thoughts exactly! The writers act as if they are writing a sympathetic gay character but then show him being predatory out of nowhere and he is the only gay character in the whole show. Potentially interesting character ruined by shit writing :/
I'm also late to this party, but I enjoyed Downton as a guilty pleasure (and one I very much kept to myself) and you're spot on. Also, I just couldn't buy into the idea that the servants were friends with the aristos, either. That just wouldn't have happened.
@@izzah310 I think they're referring to when Mrs. O'Brien manipulated Thomas into thinking Jimmy was also gay and into him, so one night Thomas snuck into his bedroom and kissed him (while he was sleeping). Alfred witnessed this and Mrs. O'Brien convinced him to report it (can't remember what her deal was with Thomas at the time), which is how he almost got arrested. Though of course the police were arresting him for the "relations" being with another man, rather than the fact that they were non-consensual.
For me, watching Downton Abbey is an spectacle of alienation. It's truly like watching a show about aliens, the society they portray is so far away from reality, particularly from my reality... and there's also alienation in a marxist way.
They are Alien in a modern age. The whole point is that they are a dying feudalistic thingy. They are pig farmers and land lords just to keep things going.
It never occurs to people who say this that the aristocracy/billionaires are the very reason those people need jobs to survive in the first place. They are the capitalists who hoard resources so that everyone else must be employed by them (or other billionaires) to afford the resources to live. This is like thanking a kidnapper for putting a roof over your head.
As an Indian watching this show I never forgot what the British was doing in India during the time it was set in. I did like the show, but still it was hard to ignore the reality of what was being blatantly ignored.
Yeah, they didn't address colonialism at all. If I'm correct, the first African country was emancipated in 1957, but yeah let's heap praise on the British Monarchy/s
I watched Downton Abbey for the settings and costumes (I'm a sucker for fashion from decades and centuries past), but the Crowleys were always the most boring, insufferable part of the show, _especially_ Mary. It's _kind of_ hard to sympathize with someone who has literally EVERYTHING whinging about minor inconvieniences when it's juxtaposed next to people who are facing issues that can quite literally destroy their lives. Mary is the fucking worst.
Yeah, me too -- I watched maybe 2-3 seasons? (I don't remember tbh, it was a very forgettable show, I thought...) mainly for the clothes and to watch Maggie Smith chew scenery lol. I'll confess, it's embarrassing, but I always enjoyed Mary. Not because there was ever anything to actually like about her. Just like...because I kind of love horrible people in my media? Also because I thought the actress did a great job with the material. 🤷♀️
@@sweetpeabee4983 Maggie Smith is a treasure. She was, hands down, the best part of the show. There's no reason for it to be embarrasing. I _tottally_ get it- very often, I'm rooting for the absolute monster. Liking a certain trope in media shouldn't always reflect on a person. The actress was good, but there was just something about Mary that rubbed me so wrongly.
I like period costumes and set design as well -- it was interesting to watch how Downton was already electrified in 1912, when the show started, but electric appliances caught on only slowly, how horse-drawn carriages were replaced with automobiles. Edith was driven to her non-wedding by car, something that would not have happened ten years before. All females were still wearing corsets in the first season, from frail Daisy to portly Mrs. Patmore. Upstairs, as well, even forward-thinking Sybil wore a corset. They gradually disappeared, in the end, only the Dowager was wearing one. That alone was reason enough for me to watch the show. As far as the message goes...I'm ambivalent. I think Julian Fellowes (eff his litany of names and titles) did a good job characterizing the downstairs people, who have different attitudes when it comes to the purpose of their lives, whether they were born to serve the rich, whether it's a fate they cannot evade or if they want to break free. Carson is probably the most extreme. He's a staunch monarchist, a classist, and someone who even loves the Crawleys on an emotional level. He also basks in the glory of his employers. This is especially visible when he refuses to double as a valet to Tom Branson, who was part of the Crawley family then. He scoffs: A chauffeur ought to be able to dress himself. Sure, he ought to, but so does an Earl. Spratt also considers himself superior to Dr. Clarkson when he only offers the Dowager a piece of cake but not Dr. Clarkson. Other characters try to break free at various times, like Thomas and Daisy. There's a lot to hate Thomas for, but I always liked that he stood up for himself. I also think that becoming the butler at Downton Abbey was not a really happy ending for him -- this is the house he tried to commit suicide in, after all. And, like Tom said: Nobody is born to serve somebody else. -- I read Fellowes' script books for the first three seasons, and he muses a lot about his own personal bias. Born extremely privileged, he admits that it's easier for him to embrace a monarchist and capitalist worldview. But he also admits that if he'd been born under different circumstances, he'd have fought for his rights, too.
I wonder how P.G. Wodehouse and Jeeves and Wooster fits into Aristo-trash While the stories do generally focus on the upper class, they are portrayed as foolish, trivial, and shallow, while the servants are generally competent and educated. I'll have to read through again and double check.
Watching DA, I got a different opinion. I thought the show displayed how the landed gentry of the UK became less and less important. They lost their ancestral homes due to mismanagement, they did not know how to operate in the real world. All they did were 'keep up appearances' and look down on their social inferiors. The best line was from Shirley Mcclain's character. She said the " US did traditions, but they knew when to get rid of them.'
I agree entirely. Lord Grantham is an utter dimwit - at one point he essentially gambles away his American wife's fortune, which is all the money he has - and he has no marketable skills whatsoever. When the upheavals of the 1930s and certainly the Second World War occur, either he or his descendants will certainly lose that absurd castle, if not their entire wealth. The world shown in the series is not sustainable, and the Crowleys are a doomed family. All of this seems perfectly obvious to me, and I'm constantly surprised at the literalism of most critiques.
@@alannothnagle Downton Abbey will be a Bed and Breakfast and the Crawley descendants will be serving the unwashed masses by the time the 20th century is over.
@@alannothnagle none of your points makes the message of this video obsolete. The Crawleys, although it took some effort, eventually adjusted to their situation and accepted a changing world with them having a diminished place in it. This set the way for them to become the upper class of the future, like the one we have in the UK at the moment. It didn't take away their fortune or the influence their titles and money lent them, nor did it give them a more charitable view on the working class. All's to say, the changes they had to make didn't equalise their position to the other characters in the show. Still capitalist and still feeling they're entitled to what they were born into. They also still retained a position of moral superiority at the end of the series. There were a few characters that challenged them, but they were mainly portrayed as rude and ignorant to how their way of life actually was.
Some people say "but there's gay representation" but the only gay character is portrayed as a bad person and at the end of the series he's the only one who doesn't end up with a romantic partner (and also the only black character is there bc one of the wealthy women wanted to piss off her parents by dating him. Yikess.)
My mom loved this show and I feel like she would have seen the gay antagonist character and thought "well he's GAY so this show is PROGRESSIVE right" It's the kind of idea born from surface-deep awareness of these things.
At least they gave him a romantic interest in the film and a happy ending for once. And it’s nice to see he became a nicer, more sympathetic character towards the end of the series. But I agree they should’ve done more with the black jazz singer.
A) it's always amazed me that no one seems to point out that the Crawleys are literally the earls of Margaret Thatcher's home town, if a signpost to Fellowes' politics could be any clearer B) his writing in any project is always shallow rich people porn and I've always despised it C) Upstairs Downstairs did the exact same thing but was better (probably not politically, but the writing was better and wasn't so deathly dull)
What is downright incomprehensible about Fellowes is that even though he is a Tory Peer, he played a small role as a caricature of a fictional *Tory* "law and order" Home Secretary in a tv series called "Our Friends from the North". Which, as an aside, is a fascinating limited series from 1996 with a generation of up and coming actors (Mark Strong, Christopher Eccleston and Daniel Craig most notably).
The horrific business with Edith and her baby really showed the gap between the classes, more than anything in the show imo. She gave her baby away due to any "gossip" that might originate, then took her back from her adoptive families because she regretted her decision. You cannot just do that. Oh yes, I said families. Edith did this *twice.*
Meanwhile one of the working class women basically had her son ripped out of her arms because nobody would hire her for the scandal. Not even the God's gift to mankind Crawleys would hire her and let her keep her son. I also wanna say that she was temporarily forced into prostitution just to evade homelessness and starvation which also made getting a socially acceptable job damn near impossible after, but I can't remember if that's 100% what happened. Anyway the take away was basically, "wow, it sucks that she had to give up her son and be cut out of his life forever, but still least she can get a job in the next three towns over now!" And then Edith just sort of fucks around playing musical babies and gets everything she wants in the end due to privelige.
In that time period, there were no laws governing adoption. Edith had every legal right to take back her baby. Her actions definitely hurt others, but I think it more so was because she was naive and let herself be directed to give her baby up in the first place by her aunt. It's not like she ever wanted to give up her baby. I think Fellowes failed her in putting her into his little aristocratic boxes, negating all of her previous development. If Edith had gone to the US to live openly as morher to her baby, it would have been better. Edith's storyline definitely contrasted with Ethel's. Although I do think that Fellowes treated them, especially Ethel, with remarkable empathy considering his views. (And I want to make it clear that any mother has the right to raise her baby and walk back from an adoption plan if she wishes to. It does not 'destroy' those families, although of course it hurts. But no mother owes anyone her child.)
I remember being utterly shocked when I saw the scene where one of the young servants irons the lord's newspaper in the morning, it reminded me of a very similar scene in You Rang M'Lord where the servants actually comment on how stupid it is to do that and could not believe that in Downton Abbey it was done in all seriousness.
What I liked about Thomas' character in the beginning was that he was very aware that the "just be nice" narrative that everyone was trying to push on him wasn't going to get him anywhere in this system. And while i liked seeing him get a redemption arc, the fact that he got what he was striving for once he started being nicer was a bitter pill to swallow. The narrative that capitalism rewards niceness is false & utterly ridiculous.
well the little interest I had in this show was successfully purged by this vid, thanks for stopping me from wasting my time. great vid. I find it horrifying how much this show whitewashes the history of domestic servitude. Wrapping it up in some kitschy box. There shouldn't be servants in the first place... The 19th century is fully of notable literally works dealing with the harrowing life these people often had. Only if we take that was written in English, like Margaret Powell's works. Okay now I am angry
I couldn't watch 'Downton Abbey'. The first and only episode I saw was so completely unrealistic, and I'm simply tired of hearing how rich people are providential for the rest of us. 'Why, how could the world get along, without the rich?' Please....
That scene in the last season of downton when anna pleaded to lady crawly that she needed her to helm downton abbey, that the estate was a diamond for the County, and that it was needed to sustain everyone's lives. It disgusted me when I watched it, despite that I do love the show, and even if it is propaganda, it is very entertaining propaganda, and got excited when i heard news the show was renewed for one more final season
There was a classic Mexican soap-opera called "Los ricos también lloran", which literally means "Rich people cry too". You'll be surprised how even among quite, lest call it "left-wing" audiences, those are popular. I know it could sound inconsecuential and almost dumb, but in societies with really strong inequalities, like latin american countries, some people develop certain "suspension of disbelief" in front of the TV and learns to enjoy the soap drama without remotely considering it close to "real life". It becomes like watching talking animals on cartoons: a very enjoyable fantasy experience. As a Spaniard from inmigrant Chilean parents myself, I've always been familiar with that kind of fictionalized and sugar coated version of the upper class. Even as a kid, my parents warned me about the lack of realism and "socioeconomic trickery" those dramas showed, as they warned me about 80s action movies and their "american way of life hyper macho saviours" protagonists. I have really no criticism againts any of your points presented in the video, in fact I mostly agree with it. I just wanted to add a particular observation: The same Jullian Felowes who wrote Downton Abbey is the one who wrote the script to Robert Altman's "Gosford Park". It is a period drama that, while not being "subversive", portraits aristocrats as lazy, overprotected people. One line it stuck with me is when the footman addresses all the other butlers before some bird hunt/shooting contest they're having: "Remember not to correct or point any mistakes this people make (during hunting) even if they seem stupid. They get offended very quickly and you could lose you jobs". I don't know Fellowes personally, of course, but comparing that movie to Downton, I think he's clever enough to discern quite well which elements to keep and which ones to left out in order to create a compelling soap-opera that people could digest confortably. I do love Downton Abbey, really love it as what it is: a soap-opera. Maybe not that different from the Dallas and Falcon Crest (or the BH90210s or The OCs of their time) and again I reiterate: I don't disagree with any of the points you made. I'm not telling it shouldn't be critisized "because it is trivial fantasy", just stating that, as many really flawed products from mass media, it could be enjoyed without remotely taking it seriously as "historic". A series I also love, "Modern Family", is really really fun for me personally when it comes to comedic skits, though their gay characters are "well behaved", not politically active and middle class, and the old white man who marries a latin girl is getting Sofia Vergara, a famous colombian top model, not any regular average brown woman from the valley. They do well on realstate investment and could afford houses that I'm sure many L.A. residents could not dream of. Is it more progressive than "Duck Dinasty" ? ... Maybe ;) Is it really showing that "ABC Television is 100% WOKE"? Not at all. Mass media are in the hands of the ruling class and will almost always defend their points of view. Maybe the internet give some dissonant voices a small space for self expression but the illusion of "new equality of influence through social media" is just a basic control mechanism. On the other hand, even us "dissidents and cynics" want to have some fun for a while following fictionalized drama and fake love triangles :) Thank you for your videos and your clever insight. I've devoured many of them in a row since I (recently) discovered your channel. Cheers from Spain!
That also reminds me of an episode of Kitchen Nightmares where this guy played Sherlock Holmes for murder mystery party, and he got to just play around and act while his wife had to wear a bonnet and slave away in the kitchen cooking for free for like 12 people.
Because they're obsessed with celebrity and wealth I guess. Does it even matter how you became rich and famous? You can be famous for being a celebrity like Kim Kardashian.
Ahaha I only started to pay attention to the royals when the American black feminist married in. Now that she has thankfully made her escape, I can peacefully go back to ignoring and loathing them.
I'd say it's partly because they're celebrities and celeb culture is huge, but also because American culture still has reverence for royalty. I mean, see Disney princess movies. Hence why the royal weddings are so popular - it's like a fairytale.
I always saw the show as a kind of satire/soap opera, laughing at it instead of with it, but I totally see the point you make about the intention of the series as a piece of capitalist propaganda.
This is why I loved the Pythons (Monty Python), they always took every opportunity available to lambaste the wealthy British aristocracy. In fact their "Upper Class Twit of the Year" sketch should be mandatory viewing after each Downton Abby episode.
I think most people just enjoy romanticising the period. The clothes, the language, the traditions. You're very much in your own world when watching Downton Abbey, it's nice.
Thank you. This is music to my ears. The number of people who ignore the social message and "why can't you just lie back and enjoy" is depressing. Also, those who, would pull "death of the author" card.
My wife loves this show and we live in Norway. I hate the show but I couldn’t articulate the reason to my wife. Thank you, you hit every single point. Fantastic video!!
The main problem with DA is that it benefits from superficial attributes from two of the greatest classical British writers while pushing a socially disgusting narrative : it's Austen's miniaturism without the cynicism and Dickens's pauper sentimentalism without any socio-economic perspective.
My mother looooooooooooooves Downton Abbey and I despise it with the fire of a thousand suns ("awwwww, look at those nice rich people generously providing for their grateful servants! The servants who aren't grateful are, of course, evil) so watching this was incredibly cathartic, thank you. Also, can we talk for a second about the way the show handled sexual assault? Apparently the biggest threat to servant women wasn't the masters who preyed on them with impunity - it was the OTHER SERVANTS.
I fully acknowledge the monarchist propaganda inherent in the show (and a lot of the period genre), and how terrible the class system actually was. I am under no illusions that the aristocracy were good people that had purpose through "providing employment". However, I love Downton Abbey and always will; my white ass has a huge soft spot for period pieces and this show was a favorite as I was growing up. I hope it doesn't make me a shit person for liking the show, like I said, I fully acknowledge all its issues and am under no illusions of its message.
I caught The Crown quite a bit here and there when my parents were watching it and I'm just left with the feeling that this is a horrible system that leaves nobody well off, including the royal family themselves. It's somewhat baffling to me that it's supposed to make you like the idea of the royal family. I mean sure it makes the royal family more sympathetic but mostly only in the way that they are also trapped in a horrible system in a lot of ways.
Hope a "West Wing" episode is coming real soon before the general election. If any television creator deserves an intellectual smackdown everyday of the week, it's Aaron Sorkin.
"...the rich are just like us, and therefore would always have our best interests at heart." Which makes less and less sense the more you think about it.. Most people don't even have their own best interests at heart let alone their peers'.
It’s not the only example of this in recent years. Gentleman Jack is extraordinarily classist. Sure, Anne is a lesbian, but she’s from wealth and privilege and has the ability to throw people from their homes at a moments notice and DOES SO. She throws an old man out of his home because she doesn’t think he can make the output she wants on the farm because he’s too old. The person she was based on did EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to secure the status quo for the nobility and their “rights.”
Even before I became leftist this show made my skin crawl. Sometimes when my family was watching it and I was working in the living room I’ld have to put headphones one. I hate what they did to the radical Irish dude.
In the UK us common types rarely even see an aristocrat in normal life. They don't engage with normal life as most people experience it, and for them, the vast majority of the time, the majority of ordinary people they have any interactions with will be their own servants, cleaners, children's nannies etc and a succession of servers, cashiers and waiters etc in shops and restaurants - who are also all, by the nature of the way things work in retail and catering, in a subservient role. Obviously we may very well pass on the street or country path but these can't be counted as interactions. They don't live in the same places we live. They also don't, the vast majority of the time, send their children to the schools our children attend. And the 'commoners' they do meet in social situations generally will be those who's wealth has taken them into the same realm - first or second generation wealth from a retail empire or very successful music or acting career. Anyway it does mean that often our only knowledge of them comes from TV shows and therefore these can be extremely powerful narratives propaganda-wise. But there was a time when I worked in a shop in Pimlico in London. There, in some of the old, grand houses, were genuine Lords and Ladies. I honestly could not though ever bring myself to use their titles. I just could not. Even though I was in a service role and had to politely call them up to pick up orders as with any customer, I couldn't do it. Instead I used full names - which is a fairly easy get-out. So instead of calling to speak to Lord Gregory, for example, I'd say William Gregory. Or instead of asking for Lady Bryant I'd say Margaret Bryant.
Thank you so much for this. As someone who was born in the U.K. and remains a U.K. “subject” (yes that is what we’re called, miserably enough) but who has lived outside of the U.K. for decades I find it deeply confounding to see the popularity of media such as Downton Abbey and The Crown. They are unquestionably propaganda and they are seen as defining what it means to be British. If you are British you’re seen as a kind of oddball or crank for not enjoying them or pointing out the evils these IPs represent and promote. Coming from what I would assume from everything I can tell is a generationally UK republican background in which no one has voted Tory in generations I find it bizarre when non-British people assume I must absolutely love the royal family or enjoy media like Downton Abbey. No my family are and probably always have been working class or poorer. Our lives have been blighted and destroyed for hundreds of years by crowned heads and blue bloods. They exploited us for labour, extorted us for taxes and threw us to our deaths in their wars and let us live in disease, ignorance, hunger and abject poverty for at least a thousand years. These people are my enemy, they have made themselves the enemy of me and anyone of my class and they have seen to it by every means possible that they should always be absolved of their hatred of me and people like me.
“Superstore” on NBC is a good example of displaying income inequality. It has had several episodes where the “They let them dance, sometimes” act is done for satirical purposes to show how the super rich use it as another means of control and not an actual act of benevolence or generosity.
I've always loved Downton Abbey. At first, watching this video made me feel extreme shame in the fact that I enjoyed watching it for these past years. Looking back, I realized what attracted me to the show, and what attracts me to other shows such as The Crown. As a middle-class American from Texas, watching things like Downton Abbey and the Crown is so far removed from my modern reality. The fact that these people have a whole staff of people just to wake them up in the morning, get their newspaper, and fix their coffee is mind baffling. I can turn on the television and for a moment be transported to a totally different world than my own. It is the same reason why I love fantasy and science fiction. The level of escapism these types of entertainment present to me is fascinating and probably will always be. Regardless, this show is not one that should be championed or glorified. I don't agree with the monarchy or aristocracy. I would consider most of my political leanings to be left centered and rather socialist. I think there are other narratives we can create and observe about history that can both humanize and critique the aristocracy. And the show is not in any way groundbreaking on its political views, acting, cinematography, style, or even dramaturgy. Will I ever watch Downton Abbey again? Probably. Will I enjoy it? No Side Note: I watched a roundtable of show-runners with the writer of Downton on it. He's a total dick. He always interjected his opinion when it wasn't asked or when someone was talking. His treatment of marginalized experience in media was beyond ignorant. He was a cis upper-class white man who took up too much space.
I watched this originally when it came out and thought it was harmless and uplifting. Since turning socialist, every single scene has an irremovable dark tone.
I wasn't expecting him to come up as I'm only really familiar with him as an actor/comedian and he's been much less prominent since the scandal came out. That being said it makes a lot of sense that he'd really have his finger on the pulse given how much HIGNFY has declined since they forced him out.
I used to fundraise for PBS and I got an awful lot of older people to donate money after I built repour through their interest in this show. I kinda shrugged and figured it was just some high budget British soap opera. Now I feel a little uncomfortable...
The difference between US and UK employment laws was accurate when this was written and produced. But now in 2022, when a couple of months ago the entire staff of a major ferry company called P&O were fired in the UK without any consultation or notice. It's probably no longer the case, and because the UK government have done next to nothing to challenge it, I expect a precedent has been set and other companies will be thinking that they can do the same without any repercussions.
I haven't watched The Crown or Downton Abbey in a while now, but somehow it never occurred to me to be critical of the creators intentions as a form of propaganda until the opening of this video. And you know what? That's totally a result of being Canadian. It reminds me of how, while watching something about American Imperialism, I caught myself thinking 'Well at least my country didn't expand beyond it's borders,' forgetting that our 'borders' are a result of imperialism itself. As much as I criticize the idea of Canadian Wholesomeness, I guess I internalized it deeper than I knew.
You should review 'The Gilded Age'. Basically 'Downtown Abbey'... in the U.S., a few decades earlier (and also by Lord Julian Alexander Kitchener-Fellowes, Baron Fellowes of West Stafford).
A friend of mine from Kenya, who had studied abroad in England, and eventually emigrated to the States summed up the distinctions between the US and Great Britain: class distinction. The US gave her a better sense of the economic divide apparent in England. The former is worse at hiding their machinations, whilst the latter, England, only survives to this day due to their uplifting propoganda of the rich and powerful.
I've watched all the episodes and the movie. I was an anti-monarchist then, and I'm still an anti-monarchist now. I was, a 'left leaning, tax the rich, liberal' before watching D.A. And by golly, I'm still a 'left leaning , redistribute the wealth, liberal' now. But, I still liked the show. It would be a sad day when I let a few hours of entertainment make me blind to what is happening in the real world.
Or the episode where the rich were fucking around in servant rooms and when one of thr servant yelled at them for being in their room they were seen as wrong....the poor weren't even allowed to have their own privacy
What really makes me wonder - the comments here amounting to the great deal the time spent by self-identified leftists willing to overlook the propaganda and endorse it in continuing to watch because "great drama". I have friends, folks with whom I have stood shoulder to shoulder with on the streets or engaging in the more bureaucratic aspects of leftist activism who are deeply engaged in the drama of this show. The power of storytelling. Fascinating and informative. Thanks RC. Well presented as always :)
There are also better british shows that are great drama, like call the midwife while deals with issues of the past manages to still be in touch with issues of today. While it has similar propagandistic look how far we've already come feel good liberalism in it, its leagues ahead. Also the drama in the show are always pretty heartfelt and not #nobilityproblems.
Indeed. I am not judging anyone for their taste in art. It is the power of the text to hide the subtext that is remarkable in well crafted stories. I am not saying the propaganda here is subtle. It is interesting in that even as open capitalist apologetics we are capable of ignoring the agenda of it's creators and watch. The only corruption here is in such good story spreading the wrong lesson to be learned.
Watching Downton Abbey is like an addiction I hate. As an Indian watching the show, so many times I have felt physically pained by their apathy to my country's suffering. The Dowager countess casually mentioning that Mary's great grandmother loaded guns in Lucknow, the constant references to the racist poem "You're a better man than me, Gunga Din" and Rudyard Kipling, Rose's dad casually working in Bombay, the prince's tour, and the superficial mention of Jallianwalah Bagh incident boiled my blood. I hated it. It disgusted me. I wished some woman with a saree would charge in and slap Mary on the face.
To clarify to those unfamiliar with the House of Lords, Fellowes is a life peer rather than a hereditary peer - most of the hereditary peers are removed from the Lords under Tony Blair. So appointed a member of the House of Lords by government patronage rather than due to birth.
I love the replayability of this channel. When new episodes come out I watch them like I'm at a lecture. When I'm looking for something to add flavor to the background while performing tasks, rewatching a variety of Renegade Cut videos gives me informative fuel for my soul that I can dip in and out of and never lose the thread.
Guess I wasn’t angry enough. For some reason this video really set me off. Making US poors think it’s our fault and we deserve what we’ve got is the worst thing they have done
I have always referred to the show as "white people problems, but make it edwardian" and I stand by that. It's still one of my favorite shows of all time. It's gorgeous, it's engaging, and there is no ethical consumption under capitalism so why not enjoy some small escape from the reality of a miserable life
Ugh. I live in a "Right to Work" state. It should really be named "Right to Fire because We Want to Save Money by Hiring New People to Replace Older Ones who Earn More".
I hate to say "as a British person" because it makes me sound like a fool... but... as a British person.... I definitely recognise this genre of fiction on UK television. Everything you say about rising inequality in the UK is correct and this country just likes the taste of boot far too much for my tastes. I could name examples of similar shows going back to the 1970s or earlier. But the reason these shows made it across to the US is because they are considered "classically British." They exist in a mythical sanitised version of history which is particularly accessible to people who don't have to live here. The soap operas, sitcoms and dramas with working class families don't succeed in the US, because there is a presumption that US working class citizens can't empathise with UK working class citizens. But they CAN buy into this false version of history presented by Downton and shows of that nature, because it's about taking an interest in a culture we would never be permitted access to. A large part of the appeal of these shows for networks is the fact they have an audience abroad. None of this should detract from the fact that the UK is deep in the hole of neo-liberal capitalism and white supremacy and our media is mostly trash written by upper and middle class people.
I don’t get how anyone could watch this show and come away with a feeling of admiration for the Crawley’s. My wife and I are 3 seasons in and the upstairs characters are garbage. Useless, entitled, spoilt, whiny, irritating, uninteresting…the only good things they do are all obviously historically inaccurate, which I would think anyone could see.
I liked Downton Abbey but I never felt that it was anywhere close to realistic but I can imagine certain people, mainly youngsters, taking it in a bit too much. Our species already loves to romanticize the past but it's imperative that we're aware of this. I once saw a group of men that thought Leave it to Beaver was more or less an accurate portrayal of the time. These men interviewed Ken Osmond (Eddie Haskell) and it was hilarious. At times Ken was genuinely disturbed by these men who weren't alive back then opining how life was better back then, more wholesome etc.
This was annotated wonderfully. I'm a fan of Downton Abbey, but for other reasons, entirely. I teach my students how to annotate the intentions and implications of an author/creator's writing, be it a play, book-segment, tv broadcast, film, etc. You've (as usual) done a wonderful job modelling what annotation-writing is, except you've done it as video commentary. Again, many know how to do this, but rarely recognize how to put it directly to paper. Again, excellent work. -- Glennie @ MGPIS (in Vermont)
Wow, it's almost as though someone who has the money to produce, write (and I'm not sure on directed though) a very high-end tv show, purely for the sake of showing how good the rich are might just be a little slanted in how they view things. Hmmmmm.
I always thought of Downtown Abbey as a variation of Upstairs, Downstairs. Many of Downtown Abbey's ideas, themes, and motifs come from Upstairs, Downstairs. A lot of the things you critique about Downtown Abbey was in Upstairs, Downstairs. The Crowleys status as benevolent gentry comes from the Bellamys from Upstairs, Downstairs, though the Bellamys are a little more dysfunctional than the Crowleys. Upstairs, Downstairs even had an episode where King Edward VII visits the Bellamy household, and at same time has subplot where a former servant girl drops by and is about to give birth to the Bellamy son's child. I suspect Thomas Barrow was inspired by the footman Alfred Harris from Upstairs, Downstairs. I recommend checking out the U,D episode, "A Suitable Marriage," and comparing it to DA's episode 3 from season 1. I'm very curious as to how you'd interpret Upstairs, Downstairs, Lord Renegade Cut. There's a lot of material in both U,D and DA that are worth analyzing and comparing.
@@Cephalopod51 I know you're joking, but please stop that. I don't like it when my audience gives me pet names or anything like that. This is just my job.
The problem on the UK employment contracts isn't that they still sack you for anything then get away with it. It's actually quite hard to be fired if you are employed directly by the company with set hours. The problem comes from agencies where the employer just tells the agency they don't want them anymore. Not a sacking as the agency employees them and tells them not to go there anymore. The other is zero hours contracts where they can give you as little as no hours per week and stop asking you to come in. Still on the books though and not counted in the unemployment numbers either. Guys who gets these shitty contracts? Minimum wage slaves. There's always a way they fuck the poor.
I think a lot of the comments miss that this is not about people but about systems. The question is not whether the Crawley's, or the royal family, or Jeff Bezos, or whoever, are nice people, the problem is the system that incentivizes and rewards selfish behaviour for those in power. The Crawley's can be perfectly nice people, that's fine, the problem is pretending that makes them deserving of their position and that that's the way their whole world works.
I have to admit I loved this show, though I did feel uncomfortable with some of the premise and could never quite put it into words. Thanks for the video! I was very excited to see the upload.
If you want to watch a more accurate portrayal of British aristocracy set in the 1920s, You Rang M'Lord is a good satirical sitcom on the matter which doesn't pull its punches and doesn't put the working class on a pedestal either.
"this isn't capitalism, it's feudalism, duhhh"
No, it's not. The workers in Downton Abbey are wage laborers, not serfs. Serfdom is debt bondage and indentured servitude. The workers at the abbey are employed and dismissed as any wage laborer is. They can also quit. It's not serfdom. Wage labor is a feature of capitalism, not feudalism. Also, the Crawleys are engaged in other business ventures that firmly place them as capitalists. Being a "lord" by 20th century British standards is not the same as 15th century standards. The existence of a monarchy in a nation doesn't automatically make that nation's economics system feudalism. A monarchy exists in the UK now. That doesn't make it a feudal nation. The economics of feudal agriculture began to shift as early as the 16th century. Feudalism in Europe was effectively replaced no later than the mid-19th century. Downton Abbey takes place in the 20th century.
Downton Abbey was created and written by a Tory in the 21st century. He's praising his politics, not the politics of the 15th century.
I already liked this video while the ad was playing because of this comment.
The worst part of that critique is that it is blindfolded to the fact that the economical disparity and accumulation of wealth in the higher strata will tend to generate something very reminiscent of feudalism. It is just shameless propaganda. Great video, thank you!
matt halsey I’m a USian who doesn’t think UK citizens are all rich. I don’t know anyone in my acquaintance who thinks that. My friends and I are horrified by the gutting of the NHS, and that so many of our UK counterparts are, or are likely to become, more medically and financially vulnerable in the same ways we are due to health issues. And the ax falling on local libraries? Horrible, and perpetuating class immobility.
What if, in fact, capitalism IS feudalism with extra steps?
@@Bermeslivre not a bad question... serfs didn't have a choice in who they serve, but really, is the ability to choose who is the lord you are bound to really that much of a distinction to not being able to choose? To not work is to starve, at least for the poor and middle class. Really, the working class are serfs to capitalism itself, and your boss is just an avatar of capitalism, in the same way the lords were avatars of feudalism. You only get to choose who exploits you, not whether you get exploited. And socioeconomic mobility in capitalism is illusory: if everyone becomes a member of the investor class (our modern analogy of the feudal aristocracy) then who does the important work, like growing food or building homes?
And I appreciate the R&M reference and add the obligatory "oooo la la"
When I saw Parasite I felt like it was somehow a response to this movie. It has the same upstairs-downstairs dynamic and class in-fighting but it engages with the roots of these conflicts.
@@Airlane-rq9yd In Parasite the poor are actually very intelligent but can't get ahead. They only get succeed by applying their skills to fool the rich. The daughter is probably the most intelligent.
James Simpson Everything you have said is completely wrong. Everything. This is why you need to watch a movie before making a political statement about it. That’s called ignorance.
The father and mother aren't portrayed as particularly intelligent in Parasite. The father especially. The mother is a stereotypical foul mouthed ''common'' type character. It's the son and daughter that are smart and come up with the whole plan. I think in general Parasite did a good job not demonizing either the rich or poor. The rich do act dickish sometimes but are not out right nasty or bad people and the poor family are likable and I root for them but at the same time they do screw over other poor working class characters and at times act like immoral fools.
@@Airlane-rq9yd did you watvh it yet?
@@rodster6campingprepper The father tried many times as an entrepreneur, but failed. The son is stated as being smart and doing very well in admittance tests for college, but can afford it. The Daughter is the smartest. Their juxtaposed to the rich family's kids who aren't particularly smart or talented, but are treated as such and due to wealth, won't encounter difficulty enrolling in University and advancing in society. Meanwhile the parents don't need to be portrayed as "evil capitalists", but rather aloof and completely oblivious to the social dynamics that put them in a place of privilege. Meanwhile the infighting between the poor family and the previous housekeeper's, isn't as much to show that their bad or morally faulted, but rather illustrates that capitalism pits the poor against each other in a dog-eat-dog world. While the capitalists cruise through life and reap the benefits of class in-fighting.
Answers to two common messages I've received:
“But there are parts about how women should have the right to vote and how homosexuality shouldn't be illegal. It's progressive!”
Uhh...no? Women's suffrage and decriminalizing homosexuality were progressive causes in the UK in the 20th century. They aren't progressive causes now. They're status quo. An opinion that was normalized decades ago is not radical now or even mildly progressive now. It's status quo even among centrist and conservative politicians. Women's suffrage and decriminalization of homosexuality in the UK were settled last century. Paying lip service to causes from last century is not progressive. It's a way for conservatives to state that's as far as anyone needed to go ("You got the right to vote, what more ya want?") and for liberals to be placated, as they so easily are. Tories aren't pushing for men-only voting or criminalizing homosexuality in the year of our Lord 2020. They've moved on to new boogeymen and scapegoats like transgender people and refugees. Stop being so easily mollycoddled.
"this isn't capitalism, it's feudalism, duhhh"
No, it's not. The workers in Downton Abbey are wage laborers, not serfs. Serfdom is debt bondage and indentured servitude. The workers at the abbey are interviewed, employed and dismissed as any wage laborer is. They can also quit. It's not serfdom. The existence of a monarchy in a nation doesn't automatically make that nation's economics system feudalism. A monarchy exists in the UK now. That doesn't make it a feudal nation. The economics of feudal agriculture began to shift as early as the 16th century. Feudalism in Europe was effectively replaced no later than the mid-19th century. Downton Abbey takes place in the 20th century.
Downton Abbey was created and written by a Tory in the 21st century. He's praising his politics, not the politics of the 15th century.
Honestly, I don't even watch Downton Abbey. I never wanted to since I knew it was only going to appeal to the snooties in the world.
I don't think that's what mollycoddled means.
@@AlDo-pd8uc It is. Mollycoddling is treating someone in an overprotective, paternalistic way. That means if you allow yourself to be mollycoddled, you childishly and naively accept this paternalism to your detriment, which is what I'm talking about in the pinned topic and literally what I talk about in the video over and over again. All you had to do was Google it.
mol·ly·cod·dle
/ˈmälēˌkädl/
verb
past tense: mollycoddled; past participle: mollycoddled
treat (someone) in an indulgent or overprotective way.
"I found school very difficult, and realized I'd been mollycoddled at home"
Don't "Well, actually" me.
@@AlDo-pd8uc What do you think parents tell their children?
also like, can anyone REALLY definitively say that the writing was trying to push toward the """progressive""" decriminalization of homosexuality in the show with the absolute fuckin shitshow rollercoaster of how they treated thomas, constantly making him a villain for literally no other reason than "well, i mean, who else would cause drama like this"
*"The rich are not just players in the game, they are the referees, that's why they always win."*
-Renegade Cut
Fucking iconic.
AliceDiableaux to quote Logan Roy “Money wins”.
Was going to quote this too. It's a very good point.
worse still, they write the rulebook
I'll do you one better: the rich are the referees, the stadium AND the players. It's all a game to them. We're the ball they need to be able to play the game. Without us, there's no game, but the game's number one rule is that you need to kick the ball. Repeatedly, continually, and as hard as you can without breaking it.
"If a rich man wants to help the poor he should pay his taxes, not dole out money at a whim,"-Clement Attlee, UK Prime Minister from 1945.
Rich people always use charity as a means of controlling people. They like that they can choose who gets the money, and they get favors in return.
The taxes would cost them more than just donations to the poor.
@@Skimmy404 Yes, that’s the point. They don’t get to “give up” less of their ill-gotten (stolen) wealth when they pay their taxes like they should. The options shouldn’t be “pay taxes or do charity”, they should be “pay taxes OR GIVE UP YOUR WEALTH RIGHT FUCKING NOW instead of being a wealth hoarding piece of shit” (preferable the latter).
Absolute legend, easily the best pm we ever had
Wasn’t he the PM who was so bad at the job, they re-elected Churchill one election later?
I remember when Lord Grantham said that the purpose of the nobility was to provide employment. But do they lose their titles if they stop providing employment? No, of course not.
@@CT_Phipps Interesting, I haven't seen the show so maybe you can tell me. Is it portrayed as a good thing or a bad thing when the wealthy aristocrats are replaced by those who gained wealth due to superior business acumen?
@@Jermbot15 I would say it's portrayed as a bad thing. The "new rich" business man that Mary almost weds is portrayed as an abusive asshole, and Crawley family often lement the changing times.
That’s what they had to tell themselves to not feel like assholes for having a 300-room palace with dozens of servants
Burn Er you should be aware the House of Lords is not “only accessible to” [aristocrats]. About 10% of the members are still hereditary peers, true, but the vast majority are appointed to the Lords for accomplishments during their life. Most are, in other words, not aristocrats.
@@JasperJanssen I think a lot of that changed with Tony Blair....once the Dukes and whoever die their titles will die out because the titles only go to the sons ...no sons no titles ... However it is dying out ....
*Full Disclosure - I Am English* I've been telling people this about shows like Downton Abbey or the Crown for years.
Leon you've articulated this so much better than I ever have, and I live this shit. I am sharing this with all the people who've laughed me off when i've said this before. The indoctrination in my country is REAL. I know people who are angry at Meghan Markle for getting out of dodge to Canada to escape papparazi because its a breach of her civic duty. Because 'the royals exist to serve us'. Genuinely. People believe this.
Thank you Leon. Keep fighting the good fight.
@@doyleharken3477 Oh yeah Agree 100%. The treatment she receives was and is heinous. When it wasn't because she was mixed race it was because she was American, and when it wasn't for that it was because she was a divorcee, or 'just an actor'.
The racism, classicm, and general prickishness is strong in the media here. I watch a lot of US Media (as does, i think most of the world) and whilst theyre still too fixated on the Royals for my taste, their takes are often refreshingly common sense.
Recently Trevor Noah has been talking about it on the daily show and his view is basically yours, that they did the only reasonable thing when facing such unwarranted scrutiny and smearing, and fucked off. But I had a conversation with a friend recently who referred to them as 'selfishlessly abrogating their responsibilities and fucking everyone over' Post-Brexit England sucks. I'm not in a major metropolitan hub like London so the small-town mindset here is just infuriating.
Harry saw the game that killed his mother come back with a vengeance and peaced out with his wife and kid, good for them.
I hope they get real jobs instead of coasting on those royal commonwealth hand-outs, tho.
I'm confused by the Crown example. The show pretty much shows why the royal house is useless and how the traditions destroys people.
@@adrianocounter Yeah but that's the thing. From what I've seen of The Crown it always came across to me as a very good demonstration that the whole thing is horrible for everyone involved, including the royals themselves.
But somehow people seem to watch it with this mindset that this is all normal and how it has to be and the show only makes them "see the humanity" of the royals, and their struggles. Somehow it doesn't seem to connect that all their troubles are due to the horrible system and that it would be better if it didn't exist.
I actually did like Downton Abbey and I absolutely agree with you. I liked the characters and I'm a sucker for a good historical drama, but there were more than a few times when the show was weirdly self-congratulatory and I was laughing at parts where it almost seemed like a parody of uppity rich people but it was played straight every time.
It's not as though there hasn't been a healthy American equivalent to this sort of fantasy-fulfillment for the poor to be able to imagine they can peek into the lives of the more privileged. Shows like Beverly Hills 90201 and The OC have been flagrantly portraying the rich by way of love triangles and interpersonal drama - Given that the characters involved could realistically buy their way out of any other kind of problem.
I would think that's because aristocracy is much more rooted into British society than American
Not to recap what another RUclipsr has said, but I do think there is something to the idea that American wealth fantasies do tend to look a little different from UK “aristo-trash,” because UK shows like DA tend to be a little more focused on, well, “nobility” than their US counterparts. We tend not to like “classy” wealth as much in America :)
Let's not forget how many people in the US essentially worship the Kardashians.
Elle C exactly what I was thinking let’s not forget the youngest self made billionaire
@@weirdone6966 haha she was stripped of that title recently for faking tax returns
Real life in service was an underpaid, exploitative and humiliating experience usually meant for women from poor and working class backgrounds who spent their lives scrubbing fireplaces and helping Rich pieces of meat dress themselves.
Shubham Bhushan
Also being the bed warmers for rich pieces of meat, involuntarily.
Shubham Bhushan I visited Biltmore Estate and he Vanderbilts were always held up as good to the employees and that they helped the area. Getting the tour guide aside I was told they worked 6 days a week, 16 hours a day, and were on call when not working. I found it disgusting.
I hate the movie the Queen too, it seems to suggest the idea that every single critic to the monarchy is a vicious personal attack to an older lady, instead of commentary over an institution that feels anachronic. Among other problematic points.
lala27 I am not a fan of The Queen, either. Political sleight of hand disguised as drama. However, I cannot get up any sympathy for Tony Blair. A Clintonite liberal who became George W. Bush’s pet monkey. Blair was like one of the stereotypical Hollywood houses - all facade, no depth. Compared with him and his equally oily wife, it’s easy to see how the Queen could come off sympathetically.
Heck, I remember parts of the British Press, especially the Daily Mail, lashing at "The Queen" for being too critical of the actions of the sovereign in the aftermath of Diana's death. There was also a section of the press who lambasted this movie for being too sympathetic towards the plight of Diana and her children (Christopher Hitchens being the head of this section of critics), so ending with a bizarre cacophony of voices about this movie.
What makes the character arc of Tom Branson even worse is that he’s Irish and by the end of the series - the movie - he’s licking the boots of his British colonisers.
Aw ffs
exactly this. the way tory fucks portray irish people is just so insidious, and as an irish person and leftist it wakes me want to vomit.
@@AmunDeus fuck that makes me mad and I've never watched an episode of Downton Abbey
Watching this series as a black woman, Tom was a favorite character of mine. He was the most relatable. His assimilation into the ruling class was troubling, but it's not like Julian Fellowes is Ken Loach right?
Also, the most relatable, forward-thinking, free-spirited, progressive of the sisters, who's also Tom's GF, dies early on. Because of course she does.
Funny how I always loved Downtown Abbey growing up, yet always felt disgusted and alienated by the terribly written 'upstairs' class.
I guess I've sort of been hate-watching this whole time
MissPronounced Same here.
Me too and I love how Thomas is supposed to be an antagonist at points of the series.He's rude and a shitty person but he doesn't have any power and makes some good points.We support mean gay butlers that despise the class system.
@@redactedredacted6656 Sybil and Mr Barrow are the only reason to watch this
The beautiful sets also made it an odd joy to hate watch
The talented Mr Ripley, Bright Young Things and Brideshead Revisited are more entertaining tho
@@redactedredacted6656 Thomas had many good lines when it comes to serving and class. At one point, he said: I am the son of a worker, and I've had my fill of always getting trod on by those upstairs. When Cora was pregnant, Anna suggested the servants pitch in and buy the child a cup in memory of his baptism, but Thomas says: Upstairs can buy their own silver. -- One of his best lines was to Tom Branson. Tom is having breakfast on his own, with Thomas filling in for Carson, standing next to the breakfast buffet. Tom says that he does not want Tom to think ill of Miss Bunting (Thomas had caught the two of them in the upper floor, where the bedrooms are, the night before) and Thomas says: As your servant, I have to do what you say, but I don't think you can order me what to think.
Tbh looking back, I think I just got super attached to a handful of characters who kept me watching (Sybil, Anna, Mrs Hughes... I won't say Carson because really I don't much like Carson but Elsie Hughes is a delight and once she decided that he was to her taste I ended up watching for her happy ending all the way up to the final episode).
I love Downton as a guilty pleasure but have always been aware of it's flaws.
Interestingly enough, Thomas Barrow is my favourite character. I always found Fellowes' treatment of him really cruel: he starts the series as a stereotypical "evil gay" but is outspoken about injustice and classicism. And the series beats him and beats him and beats him down until he's a quiet shadow of himself. But it's okay! Because the Crawleys know he's gay and do the bare minimum required of accepting his sexuality by NOT firing him and turning him into the police as according to the Labouchere Amendment!
(also I'll never forgive Fellowes for writing Thomas as a predatory gay right out of nowhere in Season 3)
Yes, I completely agree. He was supposed to be so terrible at the beginning, and he could only redeem himself by ‘knowing his place’. The real bad characters were entitled snobs like lady Mary.
Know this response is a year late but yes my thoughts exactly! The writers act as if they are writing a sympathetic gay character but then show him being predatory out of nowhere and he is the only gay character in the whole show. Potentially interesting character ruined by shit writing :/
I'm also late to this party, but I enjoyed Downton as a guilty pleasure (and one I very much kept to myself) and you're spot on. Also, I just couldn't buy into the idea that the servants were friends with the aristos, either. That just wouldn't have happened.
@@bethanjones9667 i kinda stopped watching at some point but how did they make him predatory like what did he do
@@izzah310 I think they're referring to when Mrs. O'Brien manipulated Thomas into thinking Jimmy was also gay and into him, so one night Thomas snuck into his bedroom and kissed him (while he was sleeping). Alfred witnessed this and Mrs. O'Brien convinced him to report it (can't remember what her deal was with Thomas at the time), which is how he almost got arrested. Though of course the police were arresting him for the "relations" being with another man, rather than the fact that they were non-consensual.
For me, watching Downton Abbey is an spectacle of alienation. It's truly like watching a show about aliens, the society they portray is so far away from reality, particularly from my reality... and there's also alienation in a marxist way.
They are Alien in a modern age. The whole point is that they are a dying feudalistic thingy. They are pig farmers and land lords just to keep things going.
When I started talking to my mom about how bad the aristocracy was, she started telling me about how "They employed so many people..."
Many of them children.
They deserve to be served because they allow us to serve them.
Well yes. But they also pay them less than they can afford.
Damn, we never really left England, did we?
It never occurs to people who say this that the aristocracy/billionaires are the very reason those people need jobs to survive in the first place. They are the capitalists who hoard resources so that everyone else must be employed by them (or other billionaires) to afford the resources to live. This is like thanking a kidnapper for putting a roof over your head.
As an Indian watching this show I never forgot what the British was doing in India during the time it was set in. I did like the show, but still it was hard to ignore the reality of what was being blatantly ignored.
Yes! And they just casually referenced Amritsar and then go back to their dinner like it’s no big deal
Exactly!!!!💯
Yeah, they didn't address colonialism at all. If I'm correct, the first African country was emancipated in 1957, but yeah let's heap praise on the British Monarchy/s
Ya harder to enjoy the show when you learn more about the crimes by the British empire
Yes that's what I think watching the show "Indian Summers" is good companion show to Downton Abbey.
I watched Downton Abbey for the settings and costumes (I'm a sucker for fashion from decades and centuries past), but the Crowleys were always the most boring, insufferable part of the show, _especially_ Mary. It's _kind of_ hard to sympathize with someone who has literally EVERYTHING whinging about minor inconvieniences when it's juxtaposed next to people who are facing issues that can quite literally destroy their lives. Mary is the fucking worst.
Yeah, me too -- I watched maybe 2-3 seasons? (I don't remember tbh, it was a very forgettable show, I thought...) mainly for the clothes and to watch Maggie Smith chew scenery lol.
I'll confess, it's embarrassing, but I always enjoyed Mary. Not because there was ever anything to actually like about her. Just like...because I kind of love horrible people in my media? Also because I thought the actress did a great job with the material. 🤷♀️
@@sweetpeabee4983 Maggie Smith is a treasure. She was, hands down, the best part of the show.
There's no reason for it to be embarrasing. I _tottally_ get it- very often, I'm rooting for the absolute monster. Liking a certain trope in media shouldn't always reflect on a person. The actress was good, but there was just something about Mary that rubbed me so wrongly.
I'm a sucker for the great Maggie Smith but also the entire Downstairs crew. Love Mrs Hughes, Patmore & Daisy.
I like period costumes and set design as well -- it was interesting to watch how Downton was already electrified in 1912, when the show started, but electric appliances caught on only slowly, how horse-drawn carriages were replaced with automobiles. Edith was driven to her non-wedding by car, something that would not have happened ten years before. All females were still wearing corsets in the first season, from frail Daisy to portly Mrs. Patmore. Upstairs, as well, even forward-thinking Sybil wore a corset. They gradually disappeared, in the end, only the Dowager was wearing one. That alone was reason enough for me to watch the show. As far as the message goes...I'm ambivalent. I think Julian Fellowes (eff his litany of names and titles) did a good job characterizing the downstairs people, who have different attitudes when it comes to the purpose of their lives, whether they were born to serve the rich, whether it's a fate they cannot evade or if they want to break free. Carson is probably the most extreme. He's a staunch monarchist, a classist, and someone who even loves the Crawleys on an emotional level. He also basks in the glory of his employers. This is especially visible when he refuses to double as a valet to Tom Branson, who was part of the Crawley family then. He scoffs: A chauffeur ought to be able to dress himself. Sure, he ought to, but so does an Earl. Spratt also considers himself superior to Dr. Clarkson when he only offers the Dowager a piece of cake but not Dr. Clarkson. Other characters try to break free at various times, like Thomas and Daisy. There's a lot to hate Thomas for, but I always liked that he stood up for himself. I also think that becoming the butler at Downton Abbey was not a really happy ending for him -- this is the house he tried to commit suicide in, after all. And, like Tom said: Nobody is born to serve somebody else. -- I read Fellowes' script books for the first three seasons, and he muses a lot about his own personal bias. Born extremely privileged, he admits that it's easier for him to embrace a monarchist and capitalist worldview. But he also admits that if he'd been born under different circumstances, he'd have fought for his rights, too.
I haven't watch Downton Abbey (saw the first episode and found it boring), but I'm glad I'm not the only one who watches period dramas for costumes!
I wonder how P.G. Wodehouse and Jeeves and Wooster fits into Aristo-trash
While the stories do generally focus on the upper class, they are portrayed as foolish, trivial, and shallow, while the servants are generally competent and educated. I'll have to read through again and double check.
Watching DA, I got a different opinion. I thought the show displayed how the landed gentry of the UK became less and less important. They lost their ancestral homes due to mismanagement, they did not know how to operate in the real world. All they did were 'keep up appearances' and look down on their social inferiors. The best line was from Shirley Mcclain's character. She said the " US did traditions, but they knew when to get rid of them.'
I agree entirely. Lord Grantham is an utter dimwit - at one point he essentially gambles away his American wife's fortune, which is all the money he has - and he has no marketable skills whatsoever. When the upheavals of the 1930s and certainly the Second World War occur, either he or his descendants will certainly lose that absurd castle, if not their entire wealth. The world shown in the series is not sustainable, and the Crowleys are a doomed family. All of this seems perfectly obvious to me, and I'm constantly surprised at the literalism of most critiques.
@@alannothnagle Downton Abbey will be a Bed and Breakfast and the Crawley descendants will be serving the unwashed masses by the time the 20th century is over.
@@alannothnagle none of your points makes the message of this video obsolete. The Crawleys, although it took some effort, eventually adjusted to their situation and accepted a changing world with them having a diminished place in it. This set the way for them to become the upper class of the future, like the one we have in the UK at the moment. It didn't take away their fortune or the influence their titles and money lent them, nor did it give them a more charitable view on the working class. All's to say, the changes they had to make didn't equalise their position to the other characters in the show. Still capitalist and still feeling they're entitled to what they were born into. They also still retained a position of moral superiority at the end of the series. There were a few characters that challenged them, but they were mainly portrayed as rude and ignorant to how their way of life actually was.
Some people say "but there's gay representation" but the only gay character is portrayed as a bad person and at the end of the series he's the only one who doesn't end up with a romantic partner
(and also the only black character is there bc one of the wealthy women wanted to piss off her parents by dating him. Yikess.)
Exactly!
My mom loved this show and I feel like she would have seen the gay antagonist character and thought "well he's GAY so this show is PROGRESSIVE right"
It's the kind of idea born from surface-deep awareness of these things.
At least they gave him a romantic interest in the film and a happy ending for once. And it’s nice to see he became a nicer, more sympathetic character towards the end of the series. But I agree they should’ve done more with the black jazz singer.
@@jonasbrothersluver73 oh that's cool, I haven't seen the movie so I didn't know. Still feel like they should have done more
Also we're in the 21st century. Having a gay (or black) character isn't "subversive" or "progressive" anymore lol.
A) it's always amazed me that no one seems to point out that the Crawleys are literally the earls of Margaret Thatcher's home town, if a signpost to Fellowes' politics could be any clearer
B) his writing in any project is always shallow rich people porn and I've always despised it
C) Upstairs Downstairs did the exact same thing but was better (probably not politically, but the writing was better and wasn't so deathly dull)
Fellowes is a Peer (Baron) and is a member of the Tories… the politics we’re pretty clear from the get-go
What is downright incomprehensible about Fellowes is that even though he is a Tory Peer, he played a small role as a caricature of a fictional *Tory* "law and order" Home Secretary in a tv series called "Our Friends from the North".
Which, as an aside, is a fascinating limited series from 1996 with a generation of up and coming actors (Mark Strong, Christopher Eccleston and Daniel Craig most notably).
I'd honestly rather watch a show called Downtown Arby's.
You mean a show about working in fast food? i can think of an anime like that but its not common.
@@CORV3TT33 the devil is a part timer?
Diners, Drive Ins, and Dives but its all Arby's
So, like Are You Being Served? in a fast food joint? I'd watch.
The lights above the Arby's
But the super rich were chosen by God to rule over the dirty peasants...
/s
The horrific business with Edith and her baby really showed the gap between the classes, more than anything in the show imo. She gave her baby away due to any "gossip" that might originate, then took her back from her adoptive families because she regretted her decision.
You cannot just do that.
Oh yes, I said families.
Edith did this *twice.*
Meanwhile one of the working class women basically had her son ripped out of her arms because nobody would hire her for the scandal. Not even the God's gift to mankind Crawleys would hire her and let her keep her son. I also wanna say that she was temporarily forced into prostitution just to evade homelessness and starvation which also made getting a socially acceptable job damn near impossible after, but I can't remember if that's 100% what happened. Anyway the take away was basically, "wow, it sucks that she had to give up her son and be cut out of his life forever, but still least she can get a job in the next three towns over now!" And then Edith just sort of fucks around playing musical babies and gets everything she wants in the end due to privelige.
In that time period, there were no laws governing adoption. Edith had every legal right to take back her baby. Her actions definitely hurt others, but I think it more so was because she was naive and let herself be directed to give her baby up in the first place by her aunt. It's not like she ever wanted to give up her baby.
I think Fellowes failed her in putting her into his little aristocratic boxes, negating all of her previous development. If Edith had gone to the US to live openly as morher to her baby, it would have been better.
Edith's storyline definitely contrasted with Ethel's. Although I do think that Fellowes treated them, especially Ethel, with remarkable empathy considering his views.
(And I want to make it clear that any mother has the right to raise her baby and walk back from an adoption plan if she wishes to. It does not 'destroy' those families, although of course it hurts. But no mother owes anyone her child.)
No one:
Renegate Cut: *JULIAN ALEXANDER KITCHENER-FELLOWES, BARON FELLOWES OF WEST STAFFORD*
I remember being utterly shocked when I saw the scene where one of the young servants irons the lord's newspaper in the morning, it reminded me of a very similar scene in You Rang M'Lord where the servants actually comment on how stupid it is to do that and could not believe that in Downton Abbey it was done in all seriousness.
If I'm remembering what I read correctly, it's because the ink is still wet and they were using the iron to dry it.
It’s not to remove creases, but to set the ink so milord doesn’t get smudgy fingers.
What I liked about Thomas' character in the beginning was that he was very aware that the "just be nice" narrative that everyone was trying to push on him wasn't going to get him anywhere in this system. And while i liked seeing him get a redemption arc, the fact that he got what he was striving for once he started being nicer was a bitter pill to swallow. The narrative that capitalism rewards niceness is false & utterly ridiculous.
well the little interest I had in this show was successfully purged by this vid, thanks for stopping me from wasting my time. great vid.
I find it horrifying how much this show whitewashes the history of domestic servitude. Wrapping it up in some kitschy box. There shouldn't be servants in the first place...
The 19th century is fully of notable literally works dealing with the harrowing life these people often had. Only if we take that was written in English, like Margaret Powell's works. Okay now I am angry
don't worry, the "gig economy" is just servitude making a comeback.
Dwarf fortress thought me that lords barons and kings are annoying asshole and only deserved to be dropped in lava.
I couldn't watch 'Downton Abbey'. The first and only episode I saw was so completely unrealistic, and I'm simply tired of hearing how rich people are providential for the rest of us. 'Why, how could the world get along, without the rich?' Please....
That scene in the last season of downton when anna pleaded to lady crawly that she needed her to helm downton abbey, that the estate was a diamond for the County, and that it was needed to sustain everyone's lives. It disgusted me when I watched it, despite that I do love the show, and even if it is propaganda, it is very entertaining propaganda, and got excited when i heard news the show was renewed for one more final season
Oh gosh, me too
There was a classic Mexican soap-opera called "Los ricos también lloran", which literally means "Rich people cry too". You'll be surprised how even among quite, lest call it "left-wing" audiences, those are popular. I know it could sound inconsecuential and almost dumb, but in societies with really strong inequalities, like latin american countries, some people develop certain "suspension of disbelief" in front of the TV and learns to enjoy the soap drama without remotely considering it close to "real life". It becomes like watching talking animals on cartoons: a very enjoyable fantasy experience.
As a Spaniard from inmigrant Chilean parents myself, I've always been familiar with that kind of fictionalized and sugar coated version of the upper class. Even as a kid, my parents warned me about the lack of realism and "socioeconomic trickery" those dramas showed, as they warned me about 80s action movies and their "american way of life hyper macho saviours" protagonists. I have really no criticism againts any of your points presented in the video, in fact I mostly agree with it. I just wanted to add a particular observation:
The same Jullian Felowes who wrote Downton Abbey is the one who wrote the script to Robert Altman's "Gosford Park". It is a period drama that, while not being "subversive", portraits aristocrats as lazy, overprotected people. One line it stuck with me is when the footman addresses all the other butlers before some bird hunt/shooting contest they're having: "Remember not to correct or point any mistakes this people make (during hunting) even if they seem stupid. They get offended very quickly and you could lose you jobs". I don't know Fellowes personally, of course, but comparing that movie to Downton, I think he's clever enough to discern quite well which elements to keep and which ones to left out in order to create a compelling soap-opera that people could digest confortably.
I do love Downton Abbey, really love it as what it is: a soap-opera. Maybe not that different from the Dallas and Falcon Crest (or the BH90210s or The OCs of their time) and again I reiterate: I don't disagree with any of the points you made. I'm not telling it shouldn't be critisized "because it is trivial fantasy", just stating that, as many really flawed products from mass media, it could be enjoyed without remotely taking it seriously as "historic".
A series I also love, "Modern Family", is really really fun for me personally when it comes to comedic skits, though their gay characters are "well behaved", not politically active and middle class, and the old white man who marries a latin girl is getting Sofia Vergara, a famous colombian top model, not any regular average brown woman from the valley. They do well on realstate investment and could afford houses that I'm sure many L.A. residents could not dream of. Is it more progressive than "Duck Dinasty" ? ... Maybe ;) Is it really showing that "ABC Television is 100% WOKE"? Not at all.
Mass media are in the hands of the ruling class and will almost always defend their points of view. Maybe the internet give some dissonant voices a small space for self expression but the illusion of "new equality of influence through social media" is just a basic control mechanism.
On the other hand, even us "dissidents and cynics" want to have some fun for a while following fictionalized drama and fake love triangles :)
Thank you for your videos and your clever insight. I've devoured many of them in a row since I (recently) discovered your channel. Cheers from Spain!
Damn I wish I'd stuck around long enough to see Daisy read some Karl Marx
Great video! If anyone cares, Bob’s Burgers did episode parodying the class inequality of this show in a Downtown Abbey-esque Larp (Zero Larp Thirty)
That also reminds me of an episode of Kitchen Nightmares where this guy played Sherlock Holmes for murder mystery party, and he got to just play around and act while his wife had to wear a bonnet and slave away in the kitchen cooking for free for like 12 people.
Lol I remember that!
I loved that episode.
This is great stuff. I’d love to hear your take on why the American news media is so obsessed with the royal family.
A celebrity in celebrity culture is a celebrity. The origins of American celebrity culture would be necessary in such and analysis.
Because they're obsessed with celebrity and wealth I guess. Does it even matter how you became rich and famous? You can be famous for being a celebrity like Kim Kardashian.
Ahaha I only started to pay attention to the royals when the American black feminist married in. Now that she has thankfully made her escape, I can peacefully go back to ignoring and loathing them.
I'd say it's partly because they're celebrities and celeb culture is huge, but also because American culture still has reverence for royalty. I mean, see Disney princess movies. Hence why the royal weddings are so popular - it's like a fairytale.
I always saw the show as a kind of satire/soap opera, laughing at it instead of with it, but I totally see the point you make about the intention of the series as a piece of capitalist propaganda.
This is why I loved the Pythons (Monty Python), they always took every opportunity available to lambaste the wealthy British aristocracy. In fact their "Upper Class Twit of the Year" sketch should be mandatory viewing after each Downton Abby episode.
If you overlook that is is incredibly ableist... Which I can't
Brilliant video! It always amazes me how many people are eager to worship the rich and powerful rather than hold them accountable
I want to hold them accountable, but I don't want them in guillotines. And I'm worried many do.
@@obliviousotterI So you DON'T want to hold them accountable.
I think most people just enjoy romanticising the period. The clothes, the language, the traditions. You're very much in your own world when watching Downton Abbey, it's nice.
Oof, this was hard to get through since I really loved the show but it is necessary to be blunt with the capitalists themes the show gives. Good video
Thank you. This is music to my ears. The number of people who ignore the social message and "why can't you just lie back and enjoy" is depressing. Also, those who, would pull "death of the author" card.
It's funny cause when I saw the movie I thought Daisy was supposed to be the Only Sane Character.
My wife loves this show and we live in Norway. I hate the show but I couldn’t articulate the reason to my wife. Thank you, you hit every single point. Fantastic video!!
The main problem with DA is that it benefits from superficial attributes from two of the greatest classical British writers while pushing a socially disgusting narrative : it's Austen's miniaturism without the cynicism and Dickens's pauper sentimentalism without any socio-economic perspective.
Was "Aristocrap" too much? good vid!
My mother looooooooooooooves Downton Abbey and I despise it with the fire of a thousand suns ("awwwww, look at those nice rich people generously providing for their grateful servants! The servants who aren't grateful are, of course, evil) so watching this was incredibly cathartic, thank you.
Also, can we talk for a second about the way the show handled sexual assault? Apparently the biggest threat to servant women wasn't the masters who preyed on them with impunity - it was the OTHER SERVANTS.
@Music & Whistle msk that wasn't the point OP was making...
Damn now he's coming for my favorite show about white people
I fully acknowledge the monarchist propaganda inherent in the show (and a lot of the period genre), and how terrible the class system actually was. I am under no illusions that the aristocracy were good people that had purpose through "providing employment". However, I love Downton Abbey and always will; my white ass has a huge soft spot for period pieces and this show was a favorite as I was growing up. I hope it doesn't make me a shit person for liking the show, like I said, I fully acknowledge all its issues and am under no illusions of its message.
You are talking past tense. This is still reality.
There's no ethical consumption under capitalism, you're not a bad person for liking a problematic thing
I caught The Crown quite a bit here and there when my parents were watching it and I'm just left with the feeling that this is a horrible system that leaves nobody well off, including the royal family themselves. It's somewhat baffling to me that it's supposed to make you like the idea of the royal family. I mean sure it makes the royal family more sympathetic but mostly only in the way that they are also trapped in a horrible system in a lot of ways.
"There are no Crowleys coming to save us."
Anthony J. Crowley would like to disagree
Omg I did not expect to find a GO person here
Hope a "West Wing" episode is coming real soon before the general election. If any television creator deserves an intellectual smackdown everyday of the week, it's Aaron Sorkin.
The West Wing shaped how we the public think about how politics should be performed or how they think politics is performed for the worst.
I love how anti-rich this channel is. Like, I always knew I hated the rich but the reasons have never been summarized quite so eloquently before
"...the rich are just like us, and therefore would always have our best interests at heart."
Which makes less and less sense the more you think about it.. Most people don't even have their own best interests at heart let alone their peers'.
Sooooooo... eat the rich?
(I never liked this show, lol.)
Eh, you'd have to prepare the rich like fugu or all the toxins will kill you.
Ew, inbred meat 🤢
Now I'm going to be using Aristo-Trash in my everyday lingo.
I grew up liking this show in a weirdly escapist way, but I never sympathised with the Crawleys for a second, and that makes a lot more sense now.
It’s not the only example of this in recent years. Gentleman Jack is extraordinarily classist. Sure, Anne is a lesbian, but she’s from wealth and privilege and has the ability to throw people from their homes at a moments notice and DOES SO. She throws an old man out of his home because she doesn’t think he can make the output she wants on the farm because he’s too old.
The person she was based on did EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to secure the status quo for the nobility and their “rights.”
Even before I became leftist this show made my skin crawl. Sometimes when my family was watching it and I was working in the living room I’ld have to put headphones one. I hate what they did to the radical Irish dude.
In the UK us common types rarely even see an aristocrat in normal life. They don't engage with normal life as most people experience it, and for them, the vast majority of the time, the majority of ordinary people they have any interactions with will be their own servants, cleaners, children's nannies etc and a succession of servers, cashiers and waiters etc in shops and restaurants - who are also all, by the nature of the way things work in retail and catering, in a subservient role.
Obviously we may very well pass on the street or country path but these can't be counted as interactions. They don't live in the same places we live. They also don't, the vast majority of the time, send their children to the schools our children attend. And the 'commoners' they do meet in social situations generally will be those who's wealth has taken them into the same realm - first or second generation wealth from a retail empire or very successful music or acting career.
Anyway it does mean that often our only knowledge of them comes from TV shows and therefore these can be extremely powerful narratives propaganda-wise.
But there was a time when I worked in a shop in Pimlico in London. There, in some of the old, grand houses, were genuine Lords and Ladies. I honestly could not though ever bring myself to use their titles. I just could not. Even though I was in a service role and had to politely call them up to pick up orders as with any customer, I couldn't do it.
Instead I used full names - which is a fairly easy get-out. So instead of calling to speak to Lord Gregory, for example, I'd say William Gregory. Or instead of asking for Lady Bryant I'd say Margaret Bryant.
Thank you so much for this. As someone who was born in the U.K. and remains a U.K. “subject” (yes that is what we’re called, miserably enough) but who has lived outside of the U.K. for decades I find it deeply confounding to see the popularity of media such as Downton Abbey and The Crown. They are unquestionably propaganda and they are seen as defining what it means to be British. If you are British you’re seen as a kind of oddball or crank for not enjoying them or pointing out the evils these IPs represent and promote. Coming from what I would assume from everything I can tell is a generationally UK republican background in which no one has voted Tory in generations I find it bizarre when non-British people assume I must absolutely love the royal family or enjoy media like Downton Abbey.
No my family are and probably always have been working class or poorer. Our lives have been blighted and destroyed for hundreds of years by crowned heads and blue bloods. They exploited us for labour, extorted us for taxes and threw us to our deaths in their wars and let us live in disease, ignorance, hunger and abject poverty for at least a thousand years. These people are my enemy, they have made themselves the enemy of me and anyone of my class and they have seen to it by every means possible that they should always be absolved of their hatred of me and people like me.
You are a God, I hate this show
This. So much this. I feel like I take crazy pills when I talk to family members with whom I mostly agree with on other topics but who love this show.
I despise the show so much
i am so grateful for your work, leon, and i'm honored to support you on patreon. thank you for sharing your knowledge.
So do I! Downright shabby.
“Superstore” on NBC is a good example of displaying income inequality. It has had several episodes where the “They let them dance, sometimes” act is done for satirical purposes to show how the super rich use it as another means of control and not an actual act of benevolence or generosity.
I've always loved Downton Abbey. At first, watching this video made me feel extreme shame in the fact that I enjoyed watching it for these past years. Looking back, I realized what attracted me to the show, and what attracts me to other shows such as The Crown. As a middle-class American from Texas, watching things like Downton Abbey and the Crown is so far removed from my modern reality. The fact that these people have a whole staff of people just to wake them up in the morning, get their newspaper, and fix their coffee is mind baffling. I can turn on the television and for a moment be transported to a totally different world than my own. It is the same reason why I love fantasy and science fiction. The level of escapism these types of entertainment present to me is fascinating and probably will always be. Regardless, this show is not one that should be championed or glorified. I don't agree with the monarchy or aristocracy. I would consider most of my political leanings to be left centered and rather socialist. I think there are other narratives we can create and observe about history that can both humanize and critique the aristocracy. And the show is not in any way groundbreaking on its political views, acting, cinematography, style, or even dramaturgy. Will I ever watch Downton Abbey again? Probably. Will I enjoy it? No
Side Note: I watched a roundtable of show-runners with the writer of Downton on it. He's a total dick. He always interjected his opinion when it wasn't asked or when someone was talking. His treatment of marginalized experience in media was beyond ignorant. He was a cis upper-class white man who took up too much space.
I watched this originally when it came out and thought it was harmless and uplifting.
Since turning socialist, every single scene has an irremovable dark tone.
That Angus Deaton quote is chilling. Great video.
I wasn't expecting him to come up as I'm only really familiar with him as an actor/comedian and he's been much less prominent since the scandal came out.
That being said it makes a lot of sense that he'd really have his finger on the pulse given how much HIGNFY has declined since they forced him out.
@@casanovafunkenstein5090 Angus Deaton (economist) and Angus Deayton (comedian) are different people.
I used to fundraise for PBS and I got an awful lot of older people to donate money after I built repour through their interest in this show. I kinda shrugged and figured it was just some high budget British soap opera. Now I feel a little uncomfortable...
The difference between US and UK employment laws was accurate when this was written and produced. But now in 2022, when a couple of months ago the entire staff of a major ferry company called P&O were fired in the UK without any consultation or notice. It's probably no longer the case, and because the UK government have done next to nothing to challenge it, I expect a precedent has been set and other companies will be thinking that they can do the same without any repercussions.
I haven't watched The Crown or Downton Abbey in a while now, but somehow it never occurred to me to be critical of the creators intentions as a form of propaganda until the opening of this video. And you know what? That's totally a result of being Canadian. It reminds me of how, while watching something about American Imperialism, I caught myself thinking 'Well at least my country didn't expand beyond it's borders,' forgetting that our 'borders' are a result of imperialism itself. As much as I criticize the idea of Canadian Wholesomeness, I guess I internalized it deeper than I knew.
My history teacher forced us to watch this in high school and would pause it every five seconds to explain how awesome it was
You should review 'The Gilded Age'. Basically 'Downtown Abbey'... in the U.S., a few decades earlier (and also by Lord Julian Alexander Kitchener-Fellowes, Baron Fellowes of West Stafford).
A friend of mine from Kenya, who had studied abroad in England, and eventually emigrated to the States summed up the distinctions between the US and Great Britain: class distinction. The US gave her a better sense of the economic divide apparent in England. The former is worse at hiding their machinations, whilst the latter, England, only survives to this day due to their uplifting propoganda of the rich and powerful.
I've watched all the episodes and the movie.
I was an anti-monarchist then, and I'm still an anti-monarchist now.
I was, a 'left leaning, tax the rich, liberal' before watching D.A. And by golly, I'm still a 'left leaning , redistribute the wealth, liberal' now.
But, I still liked the show.
It would be a sad day when I let a few hours of entertainment make me blind to what is happening in the real world.
Or the episode where the rich were fucking around in servant rooms and when one of thr servant yelled at them for being in their room they were seen as wrong....the poor weren't even allowed to have their own privacy
Bob's Burgers did a great satirical take on Downton Abbey in "Zero Larp Thirty"
The Monarchy is Britain 's Disney Land....... A tourist attraction.
What really makes me wonder - the comments here amounting to the great deal the time spent by self-identified leftists willing to overlook the propaganda and endorse it in continuing to watch because "great drama". I have friends, folks with whom I have stood shoulder to shoulder with on the streets or engaging in the more bureaucratic aspects of leftist activism who are deeply engaged in the drama of this show. The power of storytelling. Fascinating and informative.
Thanks RC. Well presented as always :)
There are also better british shows that are great drama, like call the midwife while deals with issues of the past manages to still be in touch with issues of today. While it has similar propagandistic look how far we've already come feel good liberalism in it, its leagues ahead. Also the drama in the show are always pretty heartfelt and not #nobilityproblems.
Indeed. I am not judging anyone for their taste in art. It is the power of the text to hide the subtext that is remarkable in well crafted stories. I am not saying the propaganda here is subtle. It is interesting in that even as open capitalist apologetics we are capable of ignoring the agenda of it's creators and watch. The only corruption here is in such good story spreading the wrong lesson to be learned.
In the words of Baldrick "Death to the Aristos!"
Watching Downton Abbey is like an addiction I hate. As an Indian watching the show, so many times I have felt physically pained by their apathy to my country's suffering. The Dowager countess casually mentioning that Mary's great grandmother loaded guns in Lucknow, the constant references to the racist poem "You're a better man than me, Gunga Din" and Rudyard Kipling, Rose's dad casually working in Bombay, the prince's tour, and the superficial mention of Jallianwalah Bagh incident boiled my blood. I hated it. It disgusted me. I wished some woman with a saree would charge in and slap Mary on the face.
Are you right? Yep
Am I gonna continue my re-binge of the show. Also yep.
lmao I literally just finished a rewatch last month so I feel this
Watching rich people whine about their trivialities while pushing propaganda is a guilty pleasure of mine. 😩
I wonder if you'll do a second aristotrash for The Gilded Age
To clarify to those unfamiliar with the House of Lords, Fellowes is a life peer rather than a hereditary peer - most of the hereditary peers are removed from the Lords under Tony Blair.
So appointed a member of the House of Lords by government patronage rather than due to birth.
I love the replayability of this channel. When new episodes come out I watch them like I'm at a lecture. When I'm looking for something to add flavor to the background while performing tasks, rewatching a variety of Renegade Cut videos gives me informative fuel for my soul that I can dip in and out of and never lose the thread.
Guess I wasn’t angry enough. For some reason this video really set me off. Making US poors think it’s our fault and we deserve what we’ve got is the worst thing they have done
I have always referred to the show as "white people problems, but make it edwardian" and I stand by that. It's still one of my favorite shows of all time. It's gorgeous, it's engaging, and there is no ethical consumption under capitalism so why not enjoy some small escape from the reality of a miserable life
Never having watched Downtown Abbey
Jeeeesus
Now I never want to.
The secretary bit made me go WHAT so loud that I think I woke up the neighbours.
I like the Downtown Abby episode of Bob's Burgers where Bob and Linda win a larp context and ends up as servants in Downtown Abby and have a revolt
Ugh. I live in a "Right to Work" state. It should really be named "Right to Fire because We Want to Save Money by Hiring New People to Replace Older Ones who Earn More".
I hate to say "as a British person" because it makes me sound like a fool... but... as a British person.... I definitely recognise this genre of fiction on UK television. Everything you say about rising inequality in the UK is correct and this country just likes the taste of boot far too much for my tastes. I could name examples of similar shows going back to the 1970s or earlier.
But the reason these shows made it across to the US is because they are considered "classically British." They exist in a mythical sanitised version of history which is particularly accessible to people who don't have to live here. The soap operas, sitcoms and dramas with working class families don't succeed in the US, because there is a presumption that US working class citizens can't empathise with UK working class citizens. But they CAN buy into this false version of history presented by Downton and shows of that nature, because it's about taking an interest in a culture we would never be permitted access to. A large part of the appeal of these shows for networks is the fact they have an audience abroad.
None of this should detract from the fact that the UK is deep in the hole of neo-liberal capitalism and white supremacy and our media is mostly trash written by upper and middle class people.
I always figured "Why should I watch Downton Abbey when I've already seen Gosford Park"
His series “The Gilded Age” does a similar thing.
I'm interested to see if Leon will watch The Gilded Age, which is also written by Fellowes and is described as an American "Downton Abbey".
I don’t get how anyone could watch this show and come away with a feeling of admiration for the Crawley’s. My wife and I are 3 seasons in and the upstairs characters are garbage. Useless, entitled, spoilt, whiny, irritating, uninteresting…the only good things they do are all obviously historically inaccurate, which I would think anyone could see.
It’s always funny hearing an American (?) say British words, your videos are the best and they have always taught me a lot thank you!
I liked Downton Abbey but I never felt that it was anywhere close to realistic but I can imagine certain people, mainly youngsters, taking it in a bit too much. Our species already loves to romanticize the past but it's imperative that we're aware of this. I once saw a group of men that thought Leave it to Beaver was more or less an accurate portrayal of the time. These men interviewed Ken Osmond (Eddie Haskell) and it was hilarious. At times Ken was genuinely disturbed by these men who weren't alive back then opining how life was better back then, more wholesome etc.
This was annotated wonderfully. I'm a fan of Downton Abbey, but for other reasons, entirely. I teach my students how to annotate the intentions and implications of an author/creator's writing, be it a play, book-segment, tv broadcast, film, etc. You've (as usual) done a wonderful job modelling what annotation-writing is, except you've done it as video commentary. Again, many know how to do this, but rarely recognize how to put it directly to paper. Again, excellent work. -- Glennie @ MGPIS (in Vermont)
Wow, it's almost as though someone who has the money to produce, write (and I'm not sure on directed though) a very high-end tv show, purely for the sake of showing how good the rich are might just be a little slanted in how they view things.
Hmmmmm.
I always thought of Downtown Abbey as a variation of Upstairs, Downstairs. Many of Downtown Abbey's ideas, themes, and motifs come from Upstairs, Downstairs. A lot of the things you critique about Downtown Abbey was in Upstairs, Downstairs. The Crowleys status as benevolent gentry comes from the Bellamys from Upstairs, Downstairs, though the Bellamys are a little more dysfunctional than the Crowleys. Upstairs, Downstairs even had an episode where King Edward VII visits the Bellamy household, and at same time has subplot where a former servant girl drops by and is about to give birth to the Bellamy son's child. I suspect Thomas Barrow was inspired by the footman Alfred Harris from Upstairs, Downstairs. I recommend checking out the U,D episode, "A Suitable Marriage," and comparing it to DA's episode 3 from season 1. I'm very curious as to how you'd interpret Upstairs, Downstairs, Lord Renegade Cut. There's a lot of material in both U,D and DA that are worth analyzing and comparing.
No, thanks.
@@renegadecut9875 I'm very honored to receive your reply, Lord Renegade Cut!
@@Cephalopod51 I know you're joking, but please stop that. I don't like it when my audience gives me pet names or anything like that. This is just my job.
The problem on the UK employment contracts isn't that they still sack you for anything then get away with it. It's actually quite hard to be fired if you are employed directly by the company with set hours.
The problem comes from agencies where the employer just tells the agency they don't want them anymore. Not a sacking as the agency employees them and tells them not to go there anymore.
The other is zero hours contracts where they can give you as little as no hours per week and stop asking you to come in. Still on the books though and not counted in the unemployment numbers either.
Guys who gets these shitty contracts? Minimum wage slaves. There's always a way they fuck the poor.
I think a lot of the comments miss that this is not about people but about systems. The question is not whether the Crawley's, or the royal family, or Jeff Bezos, or whoever, are nice people, the problem is the system that incentivizes and rewards selfish behaviour for those in power. The Crawley's can be perfectly nice people, that's fine, the problem is pretending that makes them deserving of their position and that that's the way their whole world works.
I have to admit I loved this show, though I did feel uncomfortable with some of the premise and could never quite put it into words. Thanks for the video! I was very excited to see the upload.
If you want to watch a more accurate portrayal of British aristocracy set in the 1920s, You Rang M'Lord is a good satirical sitcom on the matter which doesn't pull its punches and doesn't put the working class on a pedestal either.