Downton Abbey

[rodes]

I am curious about the views of my fellow Loungers on the attire of the characters. I am watching the series for the first time and find it very well done. My eye sees fine and authentic tailoring made from heavy cloth. Another question, can anyone be well dressed if dressed by another?

[Costi]

Another question, can anyone be well dressed if dressed by another?

Only in the movies...

[alden]

Only in the movies...

[carl browne]

The collar of Lord Grantham's tailcoat has a big gap. Very distracting.

[hectorm]

The hats are not worn properly because, if they were, they would cast a shadow on the face of the actors and that's a big no-no in television. Very distracting too, once you notice you can't stop looking at that. Maybe it's a distraction introduced on purpose so we don't notice all the absurdity and snobbery.

[couch]

Nothing much about the attire, but James Fenton has a delicious review of the series in the March 8 New York Review of Books. I suspect Fenton knows Julian Fellowes (Baron Fellowes of West Stafford etc.) who wrote the series, as he did the script of Gosford Park (or what remained of the script after Altman's patented improvs). In any case, a good read.

[Cufflink79]

Dear Rodes:

Have you seen this great web site and articles on Downton Abby?

http://www.gentlemansgazette.com/

http://www.gentlemansgazette.com/downto ... er-jacket/

http://www.gentlemansgazette.com/downto ... -huntsman/

Best Regards,

Cufflink79

[rodes]

Cufflink,
Thankyou for pointing this out. I was familiar with the website but had not checked it for some time and did not know about the fine articles. Would it not be good, if modernity could recapture the style and especially the courtesy of this era?

[Cufflink79]

You're welcome Rodes.

It would be nice indeed.

Best Regards,

Cufflink79

[Luca]

Nothing much about the attire, but James Fenton has a delicious review of the series in the March 8 New York Review of Books. I suspect Fenton knows Julian Fellowes (Baron Fellowes of West Stafford etc.) who wrote the series, as he did the script of Gosford Park (or what remained of the script after Altman's patented improvs). In any case, a good read.

I remember watchign Gosford Park. The people portrayed were so uniformly loathsome, so utterly lacking in gentility that it put me off compeltely. I think it was rather ideologically charged: "aren't the landed gentry utter sh!ts?"

[couch]

Quite. But I enjoy it as satire (on the country-house murder mystery genre, on the Masterpiece Theater-style costume-drama fetish, etc.) in any case. It's difficult to know to what extent the bad behavior among the upstairs crowd (though the downstairs crowd and the Yanks don't come off any better, really, as crowds) was a bit of the younger Fellowes getting his digs in at his own (as Stephen Fry has in his memoirs and comic novels), and to what extent either Fellowes or Altman intended seriously to de-romanticize world they depicted. To my mind, one of the movie's aesthetic weaknesses is the uncertainty of tone that moves from Fry's bumbling "Cluedo" Inspector Thompson--taken straight from the Dorothy Sayers/Agatha Christie tradition--to the gritty comparative realism of the plot elements surrounding the housekeeper Mrs Wilson (Helen Mirren). Shakespeare got away with it, but I wonder whether the amount of improv in the Altman film slackens the structure. Like many Altman films, it has luminous moments--clearly the amazing cast was having a field day--and a lot of noodling.

Of course plenty of enduring work has found matter for critique both in the worlds of the aristocracy and of the gentry. But as you say, the best find them not so uniformly loathsome. One of my favorite authors in this line is Nancy Mitford, whose "The Pursuit of Love" and "Love in a Cold Climate" are both gimlet-eyed and hilarious in their portrayal of a similar world.

[JIMD]

Gentlemen
Speaking as a "Yank" from the otherside of the pond, I wish that we had not descended into the mire of Gentlemanly Modernity. I wish we had kept the good sense of dressing for dinner, not the pajama class, sockless, cut off shorts, dirty tee shirt, scruffy hair & unshaven wonders that we have turned out to be. I watch this show with a bit of envy and sadness that once we were quote a civilized bunch, now we have befallen to a circus of counter culture freaks and mental midgets. I watch purely for the dash of sophiostication,good taste and your good sense of wit & spry British humor !

[loarbmhs]

Love the show. Sequestered myself with DVDs of Season I and II to get caught up.

Question re the clothing: I always thought that when wearing a wing collar, that the wings were supposed to go behind the bow tie, not in front of it. Yet, most times on the show, the wings are exposed. Is this: a) some subtle difference between white and black tie that I wasn't aware of or b) have the costume designers fouled up?

Either way, the show makes me want to dress for dinner, even if we're just having leftovers, and no staff to serve them to us.

[hectorm]

I always thought that when wearing a wing collar, that the wings were supposed to go behind the bow tie, not in front of it.

And you are right. The bow tie should be worn on the outside in front of the wings.
But problems arise when the collars are defectively cut with tiny little wings which cannot stay behind. A good detachable wing collar (like Budd`s) has substantial wings which would look great and stay always behind the bow tie.

[MRJ]

I read somewhere that in the first series Lord Grantham was dressed by costumiers but was not happy with the outfits and so for later series especially the formal dress Huntsman was used (or it may have been Henry Poole), this would explain the collar gap you highlight.