downton abbey: a new era

“Downton Abbey” has always been a very specific flavor of popular entertainment, a comfort food for those who like their programming to be reliably pleasant and not too challenging. A given season of the show usually consisted of the same elements. There would be multiple subplots buzzing along, some highlighting the ‘upstairs/downstairs’ contrast between the aristocracy and the working class, some focusing on the overall struggles of the Abbey to stay relevant as the world moved forward around it.  Melodrama permeated every character’s life to some degree, with plenty of simmering tensions beneath the stiff British upper lips. No matter how extreme the characters’ ordeals however—blackmail, adultery, umpteen other forms of betrayal—you could always count on things to work out in the end.  There were exceptions that proved the rule, of course. But for every fatal car crash, Spanish flu death, or rape (yep, the show went there!), there were a million instances in which characters more or less recognized a common good in each other and set aside their differences. This is part of why the show was so hugely successful in spite of its occasionally problematic politics and glorification of the aristocracy. The show was followed by a surprisingly capable 2019 film adaptation, Downton Abbey, which saw the clan weathering the excitement and challenges of (gasp!) a royal visit.  Three years later, the Crawley family have reunited for Downton Abbey: A New Era, which is not altogether as groundbreaking as its title would suggest.

It’s 1928, a year after the events of the previous film. Tom Branson (Allen Leech), the widowed son-in-law of Robert Crawley (Hugh Bonneville), is tying the knot with Lucy Smith (Tuppence Middleton), Lady Bagshaw’s (Imelda Staunton) ‘maid’ who was revealed to be her illegitimate daughter in the earlier film. The newly married couple, along with Lady Bagshaw, then join Robert and his wife Cora (Elizabeth McGovern) as they journey to the south of France to investigate a villa that is being left to Violet, the Dowager Countess (Maggie Smith) by a man whom she had a dalliance with in the 1860s. (One plot thread involves the Crawleys trying to figure out whether Robert is his son, i.e., whether Violet had sex with this man—it’s as unintentionally hilarious as it sounds.) Meanwhile, a film crew plans to use Downton to shoot a new silent film; Robert is initially opposed, but his daughter, Lady Mary (Michelle Dockery) argues that they can use the money to repair the Abbey’s leaking roof. And all the while, the Crawley clan is grappling with, and preparing for, Violet’s impending demise, a plotline first alluded to at the end of the previous movie.  If this sounds like a lot of plot, that’s because it is! And this doesn’t even mention the smaller subplots involving the various staff—Mr. Molesley’s (Kevin Doyle) filmmaking aspirations, Thomas (Robert James-Collier) yet again grappling with his closeted sexuality, and so on. But much like the series, these are all handled with a deft enough touch that it never becomes overwhelming and the plot never quite flags.

Despite the many wheels in motion however, this is the first entry in the Downton ‘franchise’ that feels a bit leaden. One scene bleeds into the next, and aside from a few small sparks, the proceedings lack the bubbliness and vitality typically associated with the show. Even the film’s first shot of the Abbey is noticeably less impressive than before, less grand. Part of the problem is that, after six seasons and a movie (the battle cry of “Community” fans), it becomes more difficult to keep things fresh, to stay relevant.  In its final season, the show smartly tackled head-on the issue of the Abbey’s relevance in the modern world. With the rise of the middle class and decline of the British aristocracy, the Crawleys had to take action to stay afloat, downsizing their staff significantly. Now, as the Abbey is on the cusp of the 1930s, it feels disingenuous in A New Era to not even acknowledge this issue. Aside from the leaky roof, no one appears to be concerned about financial stability or longevity. 

On top of that, the stakes in this film are objectively lower, more modest. The previous movie featured a visit from King George V and Queen Mary.  This one features a visit from…a film crew? No offense to Hugh Dancy who capably plays the film’s director, Jack Barber (every scene he’s in makes one yearn for more “Hannibal”), but it just doesn’t compare.  Perhaps if the filmmakers used the film-within-a-film as an analogy, a meta commentary on the Abbey or even the franchise itself.  Granted, I’m not sure how much overlap there is in the Venn diagram between fans of “Downton Abbey” and those who appreciate Being John Malkovich-level self-referential antics. And it would probably cause mass hysteria in the theater if, say, Maggie Smith broke the fourth wall and suddenly started addressing the camera. But in any case, the film shoot subplot feels like a missed opportunity for something.  At one point, the plight of The Gambler (Barber’s film) almost begins to mirror that of the Abbey. They’re confronted with the declining popularity of silent films and are forced to rejigger the movie into a talkie in order to stay relevant. This development is treated the same as any other in the film, however, and the audience isn’t given much time to consider its implications before the plot hurtles forward once again. (Similarly, the Crawleys’ extended stay in France could be read as a tacit admission that the Abbey is no longer the center of the characters’ universe. But one has to strain to infer this.) It’s also worth mentioning tha, at one point, The Gambler’s unpaid extras walk out and the Abbey’s staff step in for them without qualms. This anti-union sentiment will undoubtedly leave a bad a taste in some viewers’ mouths.

The other main issue is that one of the biggest subplots, Violet’s declining health, feels wholly anticlimactic. Maggie Smith has been invaluable to the show, masterfully mixing upper-class disdain and biting wit with (of course) a heart of gold. And saying goodbye to her character should be a monumental event.  The trouble is that she already had a lovely send-off at the end of the previous movie, confiding to Mary that she may not have much time left.  It would’ve been a bold, yet appropriate move, to have that be her final scene.  It was succinct, heartbreaking, and most importantly, entirely on Violet’s terms. How gutsy would it have been to have the character pass between films, to have A New Era be about the characters mourning her demise? To keep Violet alive in this film and to prolong her death smacks of cowardice. It doesn’t help that the script is significantly weaker this time around and Smith doesn’t get to deliver the same trademark quips.  In several scenes, the camera lingers on her as if she’s just said something incredibly witty. (She hasn’t.)

There are pleasures to be had for long-term fans, specifically in the many gratifying character moments. It’s adorable and gratifying to watch Mr. Molesley advocate for himself, helping to re-write the script for The Gambler at a crucial moment.  James-Collier is again masterful at displaying Thomas’s restraint, his inner turmoil. And he again brings out the best in his castmates. When Mrs. Hughes (Phyllis Logan), quietly comforts him, saying “Your path in life is a hard one,” the line lands with a gut punch.  His scenes opposite Guy Dexter (Dominic West) are also suffused with an aching, welcome warmth. The most touching moment, however, easily belongs to Hugh Bonneville. At one point, faced with the loss of his mother, his name, and potentially his wife, who is being worked up for a mysterious illness, Robert’s façade crumbles and he breaks down crying. It’s a heartbreaking moment, one that will likely outlive the rest of the movie in the filmgoer’s memory.

Cinephiles will probably also get a kick out of watching The Gambler’s production; the process is laid out in impressive detail, down to the ADR. Other than these small pleasures, the movie has frustratingly little to say. Despite the title, the movie has no grand ambitions to speak of, and other than Violet’s death, does nothing to move the Crawley clan forward.  It doesn’t help that the direction and editing range from competent to amateurish; some scenes run over-long and you sense the actors, especially Smith, struggling to elevate the anemic script. There are a few mystifying choices as well; at one point, the filmmakers insert a choppily edited montage of the children playing which has no relevance to the bookending scenes. As such, this is a hard movie to recommend for anyone but “Downton Abbey” completists. It’s an enjoyable enough way to spend a lazy Sunday afternoon, but is unlikely to linger in your memory. That being said, it’ll be interesting to see whether there are any future installments. It would be exciting, for instance, to see Lady Mary truly take the helms of Downton. But that would require a boldness and clarity of vision that are entirely lacking in this entry.