Great gowns, beautiful gowns
The Gilded Age, Downton Abbey, soap operas, and the smooth brain-ification of Julian Fellowes' work
I am almost ashamed to admit that a lot of what I learned about the peculiar period of history from the end of World War I until the dawn of the Jazz Age I learned from watching Downton Abbey obsessively on Sunday nights on PBS.
That’s not entirely true, but it feels true, likely because of how often during this pandemic I’ve referenced the sole episode that breezes through the horrific Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918 with a brevity that is both delusional and aspirational. The episode is actually really a convenient way for Julian Fellowes to punish and/or kill off yet another redhead1 on the show; this time sweet, dull Lydia who is standing in the way of Lady Mary (Michelle Dockery) and Matthew Crawley’s (Dan Stevens) happily ever after.
But I digress.
For better or worse, Downton Abbey brought this period of history to life in a way my high school textbooks never could. But unlike my favorite show Mad Men or the equally great Halt & Catch Fire—two shows that cover very specific time periods with an incredible level of detail—Downton Abbey is neither the most subtle or smooth in its mention or depiction of historical events and figures. Its new, garish American cousin, The Gilded Age on HBO is even worse. And yet, they’re still appealing in a reader’s digest version of history sort of way even if their sense and awareness of the actual history is sketchy and sometimes laughable. For someone like me who spent her childhood devouring American Girl and Dear America historical fiction books2 and also devotedly watching soap operas (All My Children, As the World Turns, Guiding Light - RIP!!!) every afternoon with my mom, Downton Abbey and The Gilded Age hits a sweet spot.3
But let’s get this out of the way right off the bat: The Gilded Age is not good.
Oh sure, almost every episode (correctly) ends with Donna Murphy as Mrs. Astor swanning into a scene to revered whispers from the rest of the cast full of also iconic Broadway actresses and saying something cutting/devastating and then the credits roll. Who can argue with that?! And Audra McDonald and Christine Baranski have both gotten to throw multiple withering looks at Meryl Streep’s daughter Louisa Gummer Jacobson.4 And then you have Carrie Coon and Morgan Spector making social-climbing, robber baron railroad tycoons way hotter/sexier than they literally have any right to be considering in reality these kinds of people directly contributed to and perpetuated the massive wealth gap we still have to this day. Nathan Lane is auditioning to be the next Colonel Sanders each week playing social arbiter Ward McAllister with a Foghorn Leghorn accent that makes Daniel Craig’s Foghorn Leghorn accent as Benoit Blanc in Knives Out sound subtle. Each episode has practically become a Broadway actor seek-and-find with me yelling their names (to the confusion of my software engineer boyfriend)—Michael Cerveris! Linda Emond! Bill Irwin!—like I am Tiffany “New York” Pollard.
The Gilded Age is a delight if you love seeing pretty much all of Broadway’s leading ladies5 in great gowns, beautiful gowns hemming and hawing at each other during charity functions like it is The Real Housewives of New York 1880s. In this sense, it is great and “good” and fun to watch. But I cannot call it actually good.
Part of The Gilded Age’s problem is that it reeks of money but has little in the way of actual substance; ironic given that its namesake historical period was so monikered because it too was a time of immense wealth masking serious social problems. Whatever money HBO used to spend on Game of Thrones, they clearly threw into transforming Troy, NY aka the town next door to the home of sex cult NXIVM6, into 1880s Manhattan. It is a lavish production that would make Merchant Ivory jealous. The costumes are just gorgeous and extremely thoughtful not only in terms of defining character but indicating status in a way that feels historically accurate. They’ve certainly gilded the show, but dramatically, it feels not just less cohesive than Downton Abbey, but also somehow less prestigious.
Fellowes has practically replicated his Downton upstairs/downstairs story formula on The Gilded Age, which would bother me less if the time periods of each show weren’t quite so close together7 and there were also less people to keep track of. A big reason Downton Abbey works is because the series focuses on one family and its staff with a handful of recurring and guest characters. Each one feels distinct, and we’re given time to actually get to know them. Fellowes’ knack for soap-style storyline writing can be dazzling and impressive when he’s really on his game; keeping track of multiple storylines and characters and getting you to care about them while somehow managing a breezy pace is not an easy feat.
But in his desire for even MORE grandiose storytelling on The Gilded Age, Fellowes has, like, tripled the number of people he’s trying to write for. The result is that there are simply too many characters to keep track of, and I don’t remember most of their names and thus have taken to calling them by either nicknames or just Audra McDonald, Cynthia Nixon, Celia Keenan-Bolger, etc. This is especially noticeable in the “downstairs” characters who are less interesting and conniving than the ones living at Downton Abbey thus far.8 I pride myself on my comprehension and information retention skills, but even someone like me who can somehow differentiate between multiple blondes on The Bachelor and also keep track of which Skarsgård offspring is which cannot keep track of who everyone is on The Gilded Age. I’m truly trying, but at this point, I’m going to have to make flashcards like this is a low budget version of one of my favorite board games, Guess Who.
The thing is, the actual Gilded Age is one of the most interesting and influential periods of American history. Overlapping with the post-Civil War Reconstruction era, the Gilded Age gave rise to the wealthy class and expanded the country westward via the railroad boom and mining. Out of its excesses, corruption, and inequalities came many of our labor and social reforms like child labor laws, the 8-hour work day, women’s suffrage, more rights for people of color, etc in the period that followed. You can almost draw a straight line from the Gilded Age to our current era in terms of inequality and political corruption; many of the problems plaguing us now are the same as those 140 years ago. It is a period ripe for study and discussion.
Unfortunately, if you are looking for real examinations of that history and/or its various inequalities, Julian Fellowes is not the man to do it. If you are looking for soap opera-style period entertainment that sweeps through historical events and figures with a swiftness you wish your history teachers had used, Julian Fellowes is absolutely the man to do it. Just don’t look for subtlety. The man is about as subtle as Nathan Lane’s southern accent.
Julian Fellowes is himself a member of the House of Lords as a Conservative (or more colloquially, a Tory) and his wife (who also was a story editor on Downton Abbey) is a lady-in-waiting to the Princess of Kent. Needless to say his monarchist, upper class views couldn’t be more apparent in both of his series. Downton Abbey somewhat grapples with the changing class landscape of the early 20th century—where many landowners downsized their large estates after the first World War—but mainly, it is a paean to a glamorous way of life that upholds class divisions even as some of its downstairs characters push back against them. For example, Tom Branson (Allen Leech), the socialist Irish chauffeur to the Crawleys, manages to marry youngest daughter Sibyl (Jessica Brown Findlay) but once she dies, his once prominent and vocal anti-monarchist politics all but disappear in favor of him assimilating into the family. When he later strikes up a romance with a vocal socialist teacher in the village, she causes so many uncomfortable scenes in front of the Crawley family, Tom breaks up with her and the audience is cheering it on because she’s so annoying. I mean, LOL, Julian.
Not to mention in both Downton Abbey and the Gilded Age, we frequently see scenes of downstairs staff expressing exaggerated support for and interest in the lives of their upstairs employers or even thanking them for their “graciousness.” While there certainly were wealthy families who treated their household staff kindly and generously, these kinds of scenes perpetuate an idea that there are “good” versions of inequality9 rather than the truth which is that class divisions do more harm than any possible good. Fellowes might agree on a surface level, but his own moneyed upbringing keeps him from not only fully understanding (and thus accurately portraying) the lives of lower-income/working class people but pushing back against it in a meaningful way in his work. Downton does a better job of it (perhaps because Fellowes better understands the complexities of Britain’s sociopolitical climate/history than America’s), but at its heart, it’s still monarchist porn.
The Gilded Age should highlight the haves and have-nots of society even more since Americans never do anything, including inequality, half-assed and in some respects, it does. There’s certainly a difference between the “old” money white families and Peggy Scott’s (Denee Benton) wealthy black family. The series makes a point of showing just how clueless Marian (Louisa Jacobson) is about racial and economic divides when it comes to her friend/aunt’s secretary, Peggy. It’s not exactly handled ungracefully, but it’s not handled gracefully by Fellowes either. And because Fellowes cannot contain his gleeful enthusiasm for writing wealthy characters, the show has us all rooting for literal robber barons because they’re the most interesting, well-written characters on the show. You can almost feel Dame Maggie Smith’s Dowager Countess rolling her eyes.
There’s also something about the disparate tone between each of these shows. Downton Abbey could lay on the drama pretty thick when it wanted10 but even its lighter scenes felt grounded and serious in a way The Gilded Age has so far yet to replicate. The latter series often feels like it has TOO light a touch to the point its most dramatic scenes have sometimes, I’m sorry to say, made me laugh. I also happen to think it’s completely over-scored musically, but that’s a topic for another day. The point is I have yet to really lock into The Gilded Age in the same way.11
But look, this is allllllllll beside the point, because Fellowes is as delusional and revisionist about history as the rest of us who tune into his shows week after week. We’re not watching either of these shows because they address history or gaping inequalities in any real or accurate way. We’re watching them because we love the gowns and the actors and the quippy bon mots and societal faux pas. We’re watching them because they present a smooth-brain version of history that feels more distant and pleasant to drop into than our present one. I do not expect Julian Fellowes to suddenly examine his own privilege and channel that into his work. I don’t even expect The Gilded Age to just be “American Downton Abbey”12 even though it’s clear Fellowes is gonna just keep recycling storylines from his most popular work13.
I would very much like to watch a series that actually examines the Gilded Age in all its complexities (within the confines of good drama!). Maybe The Gilded Age will eventually accomplish some of that while also giving Broadway’s best actors steady employment and snide dialogue! But even if it just continues in its current super soapy version, I will still tune in every Sunday night at 8 pm14 Monday night at 9 pm for it for as long as it’s on whether I know any of the characters’ names or not. I certainly watched my daily afternoon soaps without fail regardless of their believability. Hell, I even fervently follow Susan Lucci’s instagram account if only because she clearly is posting everything herself with hilariously mixed results.
The unfortunate truth that Julian Fellowes understands perhaps better than anyone is that facts do not always make for the best fiction. That is, drama demands some twisting of the truth to satisfy our need for good, compelling stories and entertainment. If it is historical fact you’re looking for, it’s best to stick with the textbooks or Ken Burns’ entire oeuvre, because one should also never mistake fiction for fact either. You can certainly learn about the 1918 pandemic from a television show about upper class Brits, but as you’ll quickly realize, the reality of actually living through one is far less glamorous.
Julian, what redhead(s) hurt you? Relatedly, why do all the women who have sex out of wedlock—many who are also redheads—on your shows get “punished”??? Do they get punished because they are redheads, horny, or both???
also a big fan of one I read in eighth grade that is now out of print but I snagged a used copy called Ruffles & Drums about a budding romance between a young American woman and a wounded British soldier who she nurses back to health lmao
Is it any wonder that when I went to see the first Downton Abbey movie in theaters, my entire audience was gay men, Boomer moms, and Millennial women? My desired demographic!
it’s cute how she thinks dropping her dad’s last name will throw people off the scent that she is, in fact, Don & Meryl’s daughter. As if those high cheekbones and the slender nose aren’t a dead giveaway, babe!!!
BUT WHERE IS BERNADETTE PETERS, JULIAN FELLOWES?! And is Patti LuPone too busy being held hostage by Ryan Murphy and his half-baked projects to have filmed this?
Remember the five seconds of the pandemic we were all watching The Vow on HBO and wondering how people were duped into joining an MLM turned sex cult and intramural volleyball league partially led by a bunch of Canadian WB/CW stars?
Downton Abbey starts in 1912. The Gilded Age starts in 1882. A lot happens in the 30 years between these two, but in terms of the wealthy class who Fellowes is so obsessed with depicting, there’s not too much that changes beyond fashions.
It is interesting that Fellowes only writes conniving, closeted gay characters though. What’s up with that? But in his defense, it does makes sense Christine Baranski would birth a dashing, snippy gay man.
Gone With the Wind does a similar thing with racism. In the film, there are “bad” racists and “good” ones, which is Scarlett and her family who treat their black slaves with kindness but if pressed, would obviously still uphold racial divisions and white supremacy.
was there ever a tale of more woe than Anna & Bates? Jfc he put those two through the wringer season after season
I am loathe to say that perhaps the biggest difference is the gravitas of British actors vs. the American ones, but…
Though I DO think it is poorer for not having Laura Linney introduce it week after week like she did with Downton Abbey on Masterpiece Classic
and yes I WILL be seeing the second Downton Abbey movie this spring and any other movie sequels for as long as they all want to make them; the point of which seems to be revealing that the Dowager Countess was a huge slut in her youth. Can’t stan hard enough!!!
this is truly the most Sunday night at 8 pm show to have ever existed and why it is on at 9 pm on Mondays is a head-scratcher
Why does he hate redheads?!?!?!