Rant: Mary’s Suitors

Now that we in the US have concluded this season of Downton Abbey, it’s time to talk about Mary’s “desire” of suitors. Let’s have a look, shall we?

On the left, we have Tony Gillingham (Tom Cullen) and on the right, Charles Blake (Julian Ovenden). Tony is an old family friend of the Crawleys, and Blake is a government administrator who is assessing the effect of large aristocratic houses on the overall economy. On paper, they both sound like more members of this post-war suitor drought/snoozefest endured by the ladies of this era. But both men are awarded a heap of interesting plus points when we discover they served in the Royal Navy together at Jutland, the largest naval battle of WWI. And of course, we hear nothing more of this past a mere mention. *sigh*

But let’s get back to what you’re here for: MY OPINIONS.

My honest initial reaction to Tony Gillingham was ~*SWOOOOOONNN*~ from the first promo clips that were released. They looked at each other (sometimes that all it takes) and their kiss out on the Downton grounds was hot (and Mary was totally into it). It was all very angsty and romantic. He was rash, shameless, and probably a little too forward, but at least he wasn’t a wet washcloth about the whole thing, and he still managed to be sweet and adorable amongst it all. The change of romantic pace felt nice, and it brought out things in Mary for which I am totally on board. She wrestles with her need to mourn Matthew for a while longer and her utter attraction to Tony; she can’t pretend for a second that she doesn’t like him, but she also can’t pretend she’s ready to jump off a cliff after him.

It would be nice to see him support Mary through the struggles of the estate, having come from a struggling aristocratic family himself. But I wonder if that kind of storyline isn’t laden with enough drama to keep up with the usual fare on this show. I do enjoy that he was all set for a sensible marriage to the fantastically rich Mabel Lane Fox (even her name is cool) to cure his own failing estate woes, but he throws over Mabel and her money for the one he can’t stop thinking about. Part of me wants this kind of person for Mary: the one who will do even the dumbest things for love. He’s a nice contrast to Matthew, whose false honor tripped him up at almost every opportunity to be with his one true love.

Ok, moving on!

My honest initial reaction to Charles Blake was a little (a lot) like Mary’s very honest reaction. I did not feel the romance/sparks between these two initially, but I enjoyed the writing for the progress of their relationship. Though I think I have more feelings about Mary scrambling eggs than about Charles himself, the development between Mary and Charles was a delight to watch. We like when characters change their minds about each other, and that’s something Downton does well. It’s more than reminiscent of her beginnings with Matthew, and that can be seen as something going for him or against him, depending on what you, as a viewer, want for Mary. I’m not necessarily in favor of a Matthew 2.0, but his presence brought out complicated feelings on Mary’s end, and I’m pretty much entirely here for that.

Something that changed the game for Charles — in his favor or against it, again depending on what kind of man you want Mary to end up with — in the final episode of this season. Mary learns that Charles has been playing down his social status: he’s actually the heir to a baronetcy and one of the largest estates in Ulster (in present-day Northern Ireland), making him an extremely eligible bachelor and much more on Mary’s social level, even over Tony. This deus ex machina happenstance (another regular Downton move) sort of dispels, in my opinion, what Charles had going for him: his underdog status. It seems now that Tony, with not much to offer Mary outside of his undying love, is the underdog, which is not how these two were originally presented to us. (Sidenote: 10 House points to Tony for being honest and disclosing Charles’s secret status, when he could have withheld it and continued to let Mary lean in his favor. You go, Tony!)

I couldn’t say at this point which one is more right for Mary or who should be “endgame,” because I just enjoy having these two men around to act opposite Michelle Dockery. Seeing as they’re not fully-developed characters, I’m not sure that Mary going to pick one of these two sorry schmucks who are totally over the moon for her. Julian Fellowes might thank them both for helping Mary’s heart heal and then start fresh! She likes/needs what she’s getting from each of them: someone who wants to marry her on top of a mountain and someone who bickers with her in a way that ignites on screen. I’m not going to reach for things and say that Mary touching Tony’s hand is fraught with meaning or that Charles holding George for .38 seconds means that he will be an impeccable father figure. I’m just thrilled that Mary has lots of dudes hanging around her (Evelyn too!) so that she can start working out how she wants to move forward from Matthew. So whatever way it goes, I expect that it will be compelling.

Rant: Mary Crawley was Raped

As we draw closer to the premiere of Downton Abbey for its fourth season, I wanted to reflect (and rant a little bit) about a key moment for Lady Mary Crawley (Michelle Dockery) in the first season which unquestionably altered her life: her sexual encounter with Kemal Pamuk (Theo James), the son of a Turkish diplomat and a guest at Downton. I hope this will be the first of several scene studies primarily focused on Mary’s journey, as she is my favorite character (sorry Daisy/Matthew/Violet/everyone).

I, like many other viewers, glossed over the details of this incident — in the wake of Pamuk’s demise immediately following — but realized the depravity of his actions upon repeat viewings. But before moving on, we must, for academic purposes, agree that he and Mary did actually have sex before his ill-timed death, which was not obvious to some viewers.  A note from writer/executive producer/creator Julian Fellowes clears the air on the subject:

“In the edit, the Powers made a cut we all came to regret. After commenting that Mary ‘could still be a virgin for your husband’, which stayed in, Kemal was supposed to say: ‘A little imagination, a phial of blood hidden beneath the pillow, you wouldn’t be the first.’ But this was excised. Despite arguing fairly passionately, I could not convince them the lines were needed. I explained that, without them, it was anyone’s guess what Kemal was doing to Mary that would leave her virginity intact. But they were confident that no one would make any untoward connection. ‘Nobody will think that,’ they said. But everyone thought it.”

We also must set aside any perceptions we have of Mary before this interaction with Pamuk. As she comes on very strong in early Downton days, a person’s perception of Mary can be a barrier for fully understanding what happened to her. She is not a frigid bitch deserving of her fate, nor is she an angel whose wings have been ripped from her back. She is simply, for these purposes, a woman in 1913.

As I’ve said, I re-watched this scene a few times in various settings before I realized the true nature of this incident, perhaps because we don’t dwell on “Mary’s indiscretion” for too long before having to deal with a dead body in the room. Of course, we revisit that issue later when Cora reprimands Mary and holds said indiscretion over her head for quite some time, but our initial processing of the whole situation is interrupted by Pamuk’s death, and we really forget what happens.

Earlier this year, a fan of the show created a breakdown of this scene, which can be seen here, to demonstrate the perversion of this encounter and to display Mary’s duress and coercion. Breakdowns like these are extremely helpful, but I wonder at the extent to which we have to go to shed light on what we should see as clearly depraved. Do we have to tally up every time she says no or pushes him away? Fifteen “no’s” before a “yes” is not consent. One “no” before a “yes” is still not consent. 

The argument that it was “more complicated than rape” is one I hear often. It was complicated, but it was also rape; they’re not mutually exclusive. Mary chose to have sex with Pamuk, but she made that choice under duress. She could not give true consent because she no longer had an option to refuse his advances. The element of coercion — the fact that he was not going to take “no” for an answer — makes it rape.

In the interest of historical context, let’s note that the understanding of rape in 1913 was different than ours in 2013. Traditionally, rape was a crime in English law in that the victim was required to “prove a continued state of physical resistance”. The penalty of rape was death, as outlined in the 1828 Offenses Against the Person Act. In 100 years, we’ve learned that rape is not just about physical force. Mary tells her mother Cora she wasn’t “forced” and accepts “responsibility,” but Mary doesn’t have the framework to understand coercion or anything other than physical-force-as-rape. We, however, with our advanced understanding, cannot write it off.

Now, acknowledging that she was coerced — that she had only the illusion of choice — is not erasing her agency or her attraction to Pamuk (though her attraction to him and/or desire to sleep with him is irrelevant). The fact that she vaguely claims agency afterwards — to her mother, to Matthew, to anyone — does not change the fact that she couldn’t consent beforehand, and consent can’t be given retroactively.

In his footnotes on this scene in the Downton Abbey season one script book, Julian Fellowes doesn’t explicitly write, “and this is where Pamuk rapes Mary.” But it doesn’t matter whether Fellowes wrote it specifically to be — and look like — rape. It doesn’t matter that Michelle Dockery isn’t talking about it in every interview or industry panel about this show. If you understand what rape is, you understand that this is rape, and no matter what, that it isn’t okay. Let’s call a spade a spade.

Rave: The Sound of Music Live!

Oops, I loved this. I didn’t mean to, didn’t really try to. And that’s a testament to the power of musical theater. I did not set out to love The Sound of Music Live!, but I sat down to watch it knowing a couple of things that I think helped me enjoy it more fully: 1.) this event was not trying to be the movie, and 2.) this event would not have happened without Carrie Underwood at the helm. As a result, I ended up loving and adoring this show for what it was (it’s not the movie!) and thanking Carrie Underwood for stepping way outside of her wheelhouse to help bring a beautiful production and a great message to over 21 million viewers. So here is my very first Rave, in time for tonight’s re-broadcast of the first live television musical production in over 50 years.

Before seeing Live!, I had seen (and did not love) the original musical, but I think NBC’s choice to make a departure from the movie was wise. The use of the original arrangement and selection of songs in the live TV production was a huge complaint of most critics, but NBC was in a lose-lose situation. People love and fiercely protect the 1965 film, and rightly so; it is a classic, iconic film. But even if NBC had decided to keep all of the changes that the movie made from the stage show, viewers would still nitpick and complain that it wasn’t exactly like the movie. No one can recreate a film beat-for-beat… that is a ridiculous request. So rather than put themselves in a position to be criticized on such details, the network chose to bring back and immortalize the original 1959 Broadway musical. I now have a new respect and love for the original format, including film-omitted songs “How Can Love Survive?” and “No Way to Stop It” (or as I like to call them, “lol money #firstworldproblems” and “What’s the Big Deal About Nazi’s?”, respectively).

Now, on to our star, Carrie Underwood. What a brave, joyous, loving woman. It’s pretty hard for me to criticize a person who I have come to respect immensely. NBC needed to mount this production on the shoulders of a superstar, because how else were they going to sell a live musical theater event (have you seen the ratings for the Tony Awards lately?) during the Thursday 8-11pm slot, arguably the three most important hours of primetime television in the week? And Carrie took it all in stride. Asking a country star to become a polished actor and to change the way she’s been singing her whole life – the way of singing that made her famous – is a tall order, to say the least. She was asked to jump into the proverbial pool of musical theater, and she did a cannonball. Her co-stars were stunned when she showed up to the first day of rehearsal completely memorized and have had nothing but the best to say about her humility and work ethic. Anyone who watched that adorable behind-the-scenes special in the week leading up to the show could see the truth in those testimonials.

I’m a firm believer that an actor’s (or anyone’s) work ethic informs the end result. Natural talent is awesome, but there is something beautiful to me about an actor who clearly puts every bit of his/her soul into the job and something similarly very ugly about an actor who is phoning it in. Carrie’s work ethic informed a lovely end result. This role is written for a lyric soprano, and Carrie’s vocal style is pretty belt-heavy, so she worked to reconcile the two without losing the warmth in her voice, resulting in something fresh and lovely. The cadence of her speaking voice was not that of an actor’s, but given what little time she had to transform herself into an actor, I’ll let it slide. And if we learned anything from Jenna Maroney on 30 Rock (and we learned much) it’s that having an actor’s cadence of voice isn’t everything. Carrie’s emotion and facial expressions were all spot-on, especially as the show went on and she visibly relaxed. The characterization differed from what most are used to, but it was actually a great fit.

A short casting aside/rant: I’m sure any Broadway vet who people say would have been “more right” for this role would have been even more heavily criticized. Megan Hilty? Laura Bell Bundy? Sutton Foster? Kelli O’Hara? Poor Ashley Brown, who played a maid in the Von Trapp house in this production and had half of a line? (But maybe that half of a line got her a SAG card! Yay Ashley!) All would have been crucified at the altar of Mary Martin and Julie Andrews, because most critics of Carrie Underwood don’t REALLY care about her level of talent. They care about their elitist opinions of women in musical theater, and they care about their right to be snarky. None of the women listed above can do right by those critics, regardless of their talent.

It’s patently unfair to compare Carrie to Julie for several reasons: 1.) Julie’s vocal chords were pretty much a human anomaly, 2.) she was ruthlessly trained as a child by her stepfather and many tutors to be a dancing, singing, elocutionary monkey, 3.) she was not the actual original and does not have any real ownership over the role, 4.) the film’s music team raised the keys of a few songs to showcase her vocal range, and she threw in a few of her own high notes to show off a bit, 5.) she HERSELF lent her support to Carrie and knows what it feels like to have a live musical event mounted on her shoulders for national television. And back in 1997, did everyone compare Brandy’s Cinderella to Julie’s actual original? And Brandy-rella wasn’t even live! If you’re saying, “You’re silly, Elizabeth. Brandy’s Cinderella was AMAHZING,” then perhaps consider that I similarly loved this production. Why ruin the fun by drawing unfair comparisons?

Going back to our show,  some other things that were great: thrilling scene transitions (in particular, Maria leaving the Von Trapp villa to return to the Abbey, and the Von Trapp Family Singers leaving the villa for the festival), the always delightful Christian Borle as Max Detweiler, Laura Benanti turning in a pretty great performance as Frau Elsa Schrader (as much as it pains me to admit it… but my opinion of her is mostly unrelated to her talent and her performance in this show), the absolutely darling Liesl portrayed by Ariane Rinehart (who I hope to see in more projects soon) and, of course, THE KIDLETS! What an adorable clan of little humans. I think my favorites were Kurt and Brigitta, but they all were solid as the group of smiling, singing, nuggety children. Memorable moment: their hurt little faces as Capt. Von Trapp ordered them out of their play clothes and back in marching order.

I was pleased to see some familiar Broadway faces amongst the stellar Nuns Chorus (24 women closing out the show! Fantastic!), but let’s talk about our Head Nun in Charge, the incomparable Audra McDonald. With “Climb Every Mountain,” the woman redefined an American musical theater classic in the comfort of your living room, delivering a performance worthy of at least a $200 ticket price. She took us on a journey, singing the beginning mostly straight, focusing on the truth of those words, before moving into her fantastic vibrato. But I was particularly and primarily struck by how well she connected with Carrie and lifted her up in that moment. Near the end of Audra’s show-stopping number, Carrie was visibly moved to tears – possibly, one could say, because Audra F-ing McDonald was directly singing to her some of the most inspiring music ever written, all while lovingly embracing her. But I believe that the power of Audra’s performance helped Carrie find the honesty in that moment, which is what acting is really all about. I love those moments, as a performer and a viewer, when you can feel something otherworldly taking over. Thank you, Queen Audra!

I can’t get over what an enormous undertaking this was for the network. NBC may have lots of experience with live television, but even Beth McCarthy-Miller, the director of the telecast (and director of SNL for 11 years and both of 30 Rock‘s live episodes) said that much could go very wrong and that this endeavor was a huge risk. Thankfully there were only a few missed lines, no missed musical cues, one little slip on the side of the hill, and one dress stepped on.

Want to talk about the things I didn’t like? Yes, let’s, so that we can say I didn’t gloss over the mistakes but chose to focus on more important things. The lighting was tricky, and the sound was wonky at times, with some weird white noise and the orchestra a bit too high in the mix. Stephen Moyer (Capt. Georg Von Trapp) has a fair amount of theater and music experience, so his mistakes and difficulties in connecting with Carrie are all on him. Also, Rolf looked like he was 35, and his vibe was a little rape-y. I’m sure the dark woods and the cleft in his chin didn’t help any of this.

But I really don’t want to be another elitist, snarky asshole when the Broadway community already has enough of those. I shamelessly enjoyed this show and thought it was delightful. Productions like these can always find room for technical improvement, but at the end of the day, a successful musical is one in which something visceral and otherworldly takes over, where we sing because no other action is adequate in that moment. And all that I truly care about is that this production exposed that visceral goodness to so many people who are new to musical theater, and that is never a bad thing.

Up. Running. Rolling.

Hello Internet! I’m about to blow you up with a lot of words. You’re going to be sorry you let me in here.

Commence rants!