Downton Abbey anachronisms

[really real]

I've started in at watching Downton Abbey and couldn't help notice, in
the first episode, that the characters occasionally talk in modern
idiom. Did I hear a character say "excuse me for living?" And there was
another anachronistic phrase at the end of the first episode.

Did the writers do this on purpose?

[moviePig]

With DA, I'd guess almost certainly. The trick would be to pick only
phrases whose utility has promoted them to the rank of near-
vocabulary, slipping around the audience's scrutiny.

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[John Dean]

"really real" <reall...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:s35mt.5509$kj3....@newsfe16.iad...

> I've started in at watching Downton Abbey and couldn't help notice, in the
> first episode, that the characters occasionally talk in modern idiom. Did
> I hear a character say "excuse me for living?" And there was another
> anachronistic phrase at the end of the first episode.

There has been a lot of discussion about anachronistic speech in Downton. In
almost every case, someone has been able to show that the phrase in question
was conemporary or that something so close to it was in use that there's no
real anachronism. Frinstance, a quick search of OED shows "Excuse me for
showing you the simple truth" from 1801 and "Pardon me?for the impertinence
of supposing that your enlightened mind can for a moment be unharmonious."
from 1796 so that sarcastic style was around 100 years before Downton.

>
> Did the writers do this on purpose?

Julian Fellowes has written almost all of Downton and I suspect he is
secretly amused when he finds a modern sounding expression in an early C20
source so he can use it to provoke this kind of debate.

--
John Dean

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 10:34:59 AM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:

>
> With DA, I'd guess almost certainly. The trick would be to pick only
> phrases whose utility has promoted them to the rank of near-
> vocabulary, slipping around the audience's scrutiny.
>

What I found were anachronisms of attitude. More often as they were expressed, rather than that they occurred. How else could a modern audience relate so "deeply" to a bunch of inbred Brit snobs?

[moviePig]

Otoh, I assure you that some of us who love 'Downton' dearly don't do
so "deeply". I know soap when I taste it...

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 2:34:01 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:

> Otoh, I assure you that some of us who love 'Downton' dearly don't do
> so "deeply". I know soap when I taste it...
>

I really liked the first season -- even with the overtly soapish aspects. The second season was okay but less snuff than the first. I watched the third season and wondered why. The same response I had to Mad Men. These things can just go on -- and still be creative -- for only so long, it seems. It's not that I think it's "bad" -- just to clear the water -- it's just that the hook gets dull after a while.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 2:58:16 PM UTC-4, SLGreg wrote:

> I agree. "Breaking Bad" is one of the few exceptions, IMO. Still
> excellent, after five seasons.
>
Haven't seen that yet. Waiting for the DVDs to show up at the library. Still working on The Wire.

[Tom]

This is why I couldn't get past the first couple of episodes of
VIKINGS.

The pre- teen son of the main characters was nothing more than a
petulant brat who sounded like he stepped out of a modern middle
school.

I suppose the reason this doesn't bother me as much with DA is that
the overall writing is exponentially better than that of VIKINGS.

Tom

[Russell Watson]

On 5/19/2013 9:40 PM, Tom wrote:
> On May 19, 9:10 am, really real <reallyr...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> I've started in at watching Downton Abbey and couldn't help notice, in
>> the first episode, that the characters occasionally talk in modern
>> idiom. Did I hear a character say "excuse me for living?" And there was
>> another anachronistic phrase at the end of the first episode.
>>
>> Did the writers do this on purpose?
>
> This is why I couldn't get past the first couple of episodes of
> VIKINGS.
>
> The pre- teen son of the main characters was nothing more than a
> petulant brat who sounded like he stepped out of a modern middle
> school.
>

I was a bit put off by that at first also, but I realized I might be
letting a bit of the late 1950s/early 1960s sensibilities I was raised
with of the "I'll slap the taste out of your mouth if you speak to me in
that tome of voice" variety creep into my thoughts about it. It was a
different time when kids became "adults" a hell of lot faster than they
now, as borne out by the fact that the kid officially became a warrior
either later in that episode or the next one. At any rate, "Vikings" is
all based on speculation of a culture that had no contemporary written
history (other than that thing Crichton dug up that was written by some
Arab) of its own and most of their lore wasn't recorded until after 2-4
centuries of oral hand-me-downs. DA is set recently enough that people
who were around then lived well into our own lifetimes.

> I suppose the reason this doesn't bother me as much with DA is that
> the overall writing is exponentially better than that of VIKINGS.
>

I've never seen DA so I can't speak to a comparison, but "Vikings" was
certainly not anything great. I was never sure if the writing was bad or
just the acting, though. Travis Fimmel looked about half psychotic most
of the time and the Skarsgaard dude looked straightjacket-ready. The
chick was hot though (the one who played Booth's gf on "Bones" a few
seasons back). She has a bit of a Scarlet Johanssen look going on.


> Tom
>

[Richard Brooks]

really real said the following on 19/05/2013 15:10:

If the pedant Julian Fellowes had anything to do with it, then I would
be surprised if many inaccuracies got past him without his head exploding.

[Janice]

On May 19, 11:34 am, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
.

> On May 19, 12:54 pm, wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:
.
> > What I found were anachronisms of attitude. More often as they were expressed, rather than that they occurred. How else could a modern audience relate so "deeply" to a bunch of inbred Brit snobs?

.

> Otoh, I assure you that some of us who love 'Downton' dearly don't do
> so "deeply".  I know soap when I taste it...

And tasty soap it is. The third season allowed us to watch the
entitled white male family patriarch brought to his knees by his own
stubborn and arrogant assumptions of elitist intelligence. It may be
soap, but it is replete with accurate history, especially regarding
attitudes of class and gender. God bless dem changes.


~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~