pbs Archive
Downton Abbey Is a Welcome Return Bound to Satisfy Long-time Fans
Written by Ian Thomas Malone, Posted in Blog, Movie Reviews
The series finale of Downton Abbey perfectly wrapped up the show in a way that left plenty of room for a return visit to the great country estate. For some, the film might seem superfluous, an unnecessary epilogue to a series that already saw a proper ending. The familiar sounds of Downton's theme song coupled with the first shot of the beloved castle are bound to warm the hearts of dedicated fans eager for a few more hours spent with these characters.
To creator & screenwriter Julian Fellowes' credit, he knows when to not tinker with a formula that already works. As a movie, Downton Abbey closely resembles the Christmas specials that capped off each series, a bit more of a cinematic feel than the average episode, but not much more. The extensive helicopter shots of Highclere Castle are just about the only aspect that set the film apart from its source material.
The film makes quick work of reassembling the pre-finale status quo of the series. Mr. Carson (Jim Carter) enjoys his retirement for all of five minutes before being summoned back to Downton. The post-service lives of Mr. Molesley (Kevin Doyle) and Mrs. Patmore (Lesley Nicol) are practically whisked out of memory. There are even kitchen maids present for the first time since the end of series five.
With the King and Queen set to visit Downton, the film finds itself a suitable plot to serve as the backdrop for all the side plots that make the series so beloved. As a show, Downton has always pulled off the big moments quite well, but the show has always been about the little moments. The film possesses all the trimmings of a feature while never losing sight of the smaller-scale magic between the characters that made Downton come alive.
As expected, there's a fair amount of over-the-top melodrama that seemingly comes out of left field. Fellowes finds a way to include subplots for seemingly every single character, some that work better than others. Even the new characters, particularly the King's attaché, find themselves with thoroughly fleshed out storylines.
There are a couple of plots that feel a bit stuffed in, clearly designed in service to the characters rather than the narrative. The Dowager Countess (Maggie Smith) is never short on one-liners, though, like series six's overly-drawn out hospital plotline, her talents might have been better spent on a nobler cause. The absence of Henry Talbot (Matthew Goode) from the bulk of the narrative left Lady Mary (Michelle Dockery) to focus primarily on the visit, bound to disappoint those who wanted to see a bit more from the show's leading actress. Lady Edith (Laura Carmichael), the often put-upon middle child of the Crawley family, supplies much of the emotional drama.
Like Lady Mary, Mr. Barrow (Rob James-Collier) finds himself looking like a bit of an odd-man-out despite being a central figure in the show's narrative. Much of this is a product of the film's desire to integrate his butler predecessor Carson back into the heart of Downton. Longtime fans of Mr. Barrow will undoubtedly find themselves smiling at the story carved out for the closeted servant.
Much of the narrative is totally over-the-top in a way that only seems fitting for a film designed solely to give longtime fans two more hours with the characters they love. There's absolutely no learning curve present for newcomers to Downton, or even casual fans who might not remember where Daisy (Sophie McShera) left things off with Andy (Michael C. Fox) or the fate of Lord Grantham's (Hugh Bonneville) valet Mr. Bates (Brendan Coyle) who spent much of the series accused of various murders.
The viewers who found the very idea of a Downton Abbey movie unnecessary will certainly remain unconvinced. For a show about change, the film seeks to uphold the status-quo as much as possible, only throwing a cursory glance toward the themes that drove the show. This story already has an ending.
For those of us who long for the Sunday evenings spent with the Crawley family and their servants, Downton Abbey hits practically every note. The narrative isn't perfect, but Fellowes and director Michael Engler know how to give fans exactly what they want. Revivals often tinker with the formula just to switch things up. Downton Abbey plays the tunes everyone wants to hear, an immensely satisfying follow-up to one of the great television programs of the twenty-first century.
Poldark Is More Than Just "The Next Downton Abbey"
Written by Ian Thomas Malone, Posted in Blog, Pop Culture
Note, I have seen all eight episodes of Poldark. This review does not have spoilers.
Did the world need a new Poldark adaptation? Given the success of the original, which aired two series in the 70s as well as the failure of the recent Upstairs, Downstairs remake (though to be fair, the failure falls on the second season which lacked Eileen Atkins), I'd say that's a no. Fortunately, we got one anyway.
For those of you unfamiliar with the story, Poldark is about Ross Poldark, a man who returns to run his late father's copper mines after serving for three years in the British Army during the American Revolution. Poldark finds his estate in near ruin and his sweetheart about to be married off to his cousin. Rather than pout about the changing times, Poldark goes to work putting the pieces of his life back together.
What is it about Polark that makes it such great television? Two words, Aidan Turner. In just about every scene, Turner captivates the audience, making you forget about the books and the previous series. It's rare that you have a leading man who seems equally appealing to both genders. Men want to be Ross Poldark, women want to be with Ross Poldark. It's hard to believe that TV's most captivating leading man was a supporting character in all three Hobbit movies, but that's Aidan Turner for you.
The production quality is also top notch. From the costumes to the scenery, Poldark impresses on just about every level. In what's up and away the best era for visually stunning period television, Poldark manages to separate itself from the pack.
Perhaps the most impressive thing about Poldark is that it feels fresh. Like Downton Abbey before it, the series waded into well trodden territory without feeling derivative. Comparisons are inevitable, but Poldark succeeds on its own merits and not just as an updated nostalgic romp through 18th century Cornwall.
Though Poldark deserves consideration as one of the best shows on television, its status as the best costume drama is unquestionable thanks to subpar showings from Downton Abbey and Game of Thrones (while I wouldn't call the second half of Outlander's first season a failure, it definitely didn't raise the bar). Aside from Hannibal, I'm not sure there's a show more deserving of the label, though True Detective will likely be a contender when it returns. With DA's swan song only a few months away, Poldark's timing couldn't have been much better.
The comparisons to Downton are inevitable and certainly not misguided, but it's important to note that Poldark is more than just the next placeholder for the label of "favorite costume drama." It's more than that. It's a great show in its own right and certainly surpasses DA's last two seasons by a wide margin.
It's also hard to imagine the comparisons being particularly beneficial to Poldark besides the publicity boost. Though the past two seasons haven't been top notch, Downton Abbey remains a worldwide phenomenon, a claim that very few shows can rightfully make. As good as it is, it's fairly unlikely that Poldark will join that exclusive club and be watched by hundreds of millions of people and that's okay.
Poldark doesn't need to come close to DA's viewership to be one of the best shows currently airing on television. The summer doesn't look too great for original programming. There are worse things you could be watching than a shirtless Aidan Turner. I'm not entirely sure there's anything better.
The Ramifications of Jimmy's Departure from Downton Abbey
Written by Ian Thomas Malone, Posted in Blog, Downton Abbey, Pop Culture
Note: I have seen all of series five of Downton Abbey, which has two more episodes to go in America. This article does not contain spoilers for those episodes. I recommend reading my article on the implications of Matthew's death as there's some overlap in subject matter.
At its core, Downton Abbey has always been about change. Lord Grantham, Lady Violet, and Mr. Carson fight this at nearly every corner, while many of the show's other characters welcome it. As we've seen from five series that cover a twelve year time span, even the British aristocracy cannot escape change. For the most part, that's a good thing.
The natural progression of this change is a shrinking servant staff as Earls learn to dress themselves and pour their own tea. Nearly every servant, young and old have explored this change in mentality as they ponder their places in the ever changing dynamic. Despite this, we saw the cast expand in series three with the arrivals of Alfred, Jimmy, and Ivy.
Seeing fresh faces at Downton coupled with the new aged business practices of Matthew and Tom breathed new life into the dynamic and suggested that Downton might be able to survive without sacrificing too much of the old world. Downton was hiring, not cutting back. Lord Grantham even created a new position for Thomas Barrow, creating the underbutler position to ensure that he could continue to be the man everyone loves to hate.
The youth movement was short lived. By the end of episode one of series five, Alfred, Ivy, and Jimmy were all gone. No new footmen were hired as Molesley was left to endure the wrath of Carson alone. The kitchen features the occasional character helping out, but Ivy was certainly not replaced from a storyline perspective.
This kind of makes sense. Alfred left to become a chef, aware that there wasn't much of a future in the service industry for a footman. Seeing Molesley struggle to find work despite having experience as both a butler and a valet must have reinforced that. Ivy similarly jumped ship for a new adventure, traveling to America to serve Cora's brother Harold. Jimmy was the only one whose departure wasn't linked to the changing times, having been dismissed after being caught in bed with Lady Anstruther.
Alfred's departure can be easily explained. He needed to go in order to make room for Molesley, who was without a position at Downton. Linking his leaving to the changing times was an added bonus. Ivy wasn't exactly in a position where she needed to go, but it's pretty clear that her character was expendable and likely a waste of screen time. She was boring.
The only departure that didn't really have an obvious motive belongs to Jimmy. That's not to say that there wasn't one. Ivy and Alfred were the two characters he interacted with the most, but there was still Barrow, Daisy, and to a lesser extent Rose. Problem is, there isn't a lot that could have been done with them from a storyline perspective.
I suppose Jimmy could have had a relationship with Daisy, but that wouldn't have made much sense. A relationship with Rose would've been too similar to Sybil/Tom (not that Fellowes is against repetitive storylines). There are limitations for how much Jimmy could do with Barrow as well. It's not really hard to see why he was viewed as expendable.
The implications of their departures seem to matter more than the loss of them as characters. Not hiring a new second footman means that Downton has cast aside formality for practicality. They didn't need two footmen, but does that mean there shouldn't be two footmen?
A side effect of their departure was that it removed Downton as a future centerpiece of prosperity. The young people moved on and the old people need to make arrangements for retirement. Daisy's storyline has been all about this, undoubtedly provoked by the departures of her peers.
This is where I think getting rid of Jimmy was a mistake. Even if there wasn't a clear storyline for him, he was still worth keeping around for the sake of appearances. He made Downton look like less of a retirement community.
Fellowes has had no trouble going long periods of time without giving characters like Patmore and the Bates anything to do. Instead of doing that with Ivy and Jimmy, he sent them away. In doing so, he cast a rather premature spotlight on the inevitable direction Downton is headed toward. We know what's coming. We just didn't need to see it this early.
Series 6 is widely considered to be the last for Downton Abbey. My next DA themed article will talk about why that's a good idea, but it's important to understand why losing Alfred, Ivy, and Jimmy made series 7 such an improbability. Killing the youth movement sped everything else up, a problem that will be further exacerbated by Rose's presumed departure as the actress is filming Cinderella. There isn't much else left to do but wrap things up. I'm not convinced that had to be the case all along.
Analyzing the Impact of Matthew's Death on Downton Abbey
Note, while I dislike spoiler notes immensely, as Downton Abbey is currently airing in America, I thought it was polite to note that this article contains minor spoilers through season five as it's completed its run in England already.
It's hard to believe it's been two years since the abrupt car accident took Matthew Crawley away from Downton Abbey at the tail end of the season three Christmas Special. Perhaps it feels longer because of the drop in quality since the heir to Downton left the show. The excellent season five Christmas special shows that DA does have some life left, making now an appropriate time to take a look at how Matthew's death changed the show.
Downton Abbey, being an ensemble drama, means that it's hard to argue that Matthew's death changed the storylines for every single character on the show, even though he was a main character. Matthew didn't frequently interact with everybody on the show, making it hard to really say that his death impacted everyone equally. You could argue that he might have played a part in Mrs. Patmore's dead nephew storyline, but you wouldn't really say that his death altered her arc in any substantial way.
I've organized the impact of Matthews's death on the cast by five tiers. I'm going to exclude Lord Gillingham, Charles Blake, and the rest of Mary's suitors who were introduced post season three as it's unlikely they would have been even introduced had Matthew stayed on the show.
Tier 1 (Major): Mary, Molesley
Tier 2 (Secondary): Lord Grantham, Isobel Crawley
Tier 3 (Unknown): Lady Rose, Tom Branson, John Bates, Anna Bates
Tier 4: Everyone else.
Tier 1 is fairly straightforward. Mary's entire storyline was completely altered because of her husband's death. No Matthew means no suitors. It's possible that either Lord Gillingham or Charles Blake could have been introduced in a similar fashion to Simon Bricker, but most of her storylines would be in conjunction with Matthew's. Maybe she would be a better mother.
Molesley is the other one whose entire storyline was impacted by Matthew's absence. Matthew's death caused Molesley's complete fall from grace, going from valet to second footman. This might have been for the best from a screen time perspective, but he was already comic relief. He might have been in a better positon to court Miss Baxter, but Fellowes has always found ways to screw Molesley. Matthew's death took much of his dignity, but perhaps it made him more endearing to the audience.
Tier 2 might be a point of debate for some, especially considering that Isobel is Matthew's mother. But his move to Downton set up Isobel's relationship with Violet quite nicely and I think that would have happened regardless of whether or not Matthew died. Obviously there were grief moments that wouldn't have happened, but I don't think her storyline took the drastic turn that Mary and Molesley experienced.
Lord Grantham fits largely under the same category. Aside from the will stuff, Robert's storylines would have happened anyway. Matthew would have been involved with the business matters, but you can mostly swap Mary out with him to see what would have happened there. I don't think Matthew's death necessarily precluded him from any particular storyline.
We can split up the Tier 3 Unknowns into two categories. Lady Rose and Tom likely experienced slightly larger roles due to Matthew's death. But I don't think it's fair to say that Matthew's presence would lead to any major changes for either one. Rose could have still come to Downton to represent the younger side of the aristocracy. There was the role of Sybil to be replaced as well, though she was hardly a major character in season three.
Tom is a bit trickier. There's no denying that he filled some of Matthew's role, both in Lord Grantham's eyes and the viewer's. But would Matthew's presence prevent his relationship with Miss Bunting or interfere with his desire to move to America? I don't think so. Matthew meant a great deal to Tom, but his path wasn't blocked by having a friend and similar (relative) outsider.
As for the Mr. and Mrs. Bates, they seem like an interesting choice to put in the mix considering neither shared much screen time with Matthew. But Matthew's death lead to Lord Gillingham, which led to Mr. Greene and Anna's subsequent rape. If Greene hadn't done it, there's certainly the possibility that someone else could have. But Matthew's presence and the need to give him something to do might have cancelled that one out entirely. We don't know. Hence the unknown.
Which is sort of the same for the rest of the cast. You could say that Matthew might have developed a rapport with Carson, but that's pure speculation that isn't really rooted in anything. He could have gotten caught up in a Barrow plot or maybe not.
One element worth speculating on is whether or not Alfred, Ivy, and Jimmy would have left if Matthew hadn't died. While Matthew didn't really have anything to do with those three, he was at the forefront of Downton's "youth movement" in season three, as he and Tom worked with Lord Grantham to modernize things from a business perspective. Entering season six, that youth moment is largely gone, though there's a new footman in Andy who could bring down the servant's average age by quite a bit.
One could point to Matthew's death as indirectly causing Alfred's departure as Molesley took his place as footman. I wouldn't say that necessarily needed to be the case and the subsequent departures of Ivy and Jimmy suggest that if that hadn't have happened, something else might have. Unless you want to make the argument that Matthew's death elevated the importance of Molesley as a character, rendering some of the servants redundant since there's only so much screen time to go around.
Which isn't an unfair point. Matthew's death took much of the "let's bring Downton into the modern times" away and instead created a sort of holding pattern that did the show no favors in its lackluster forth season. It's fair to suggest that the show would have been more business related if for any other reason than it would've needed something to take the place of all the grieving over Matthew's death.
Matthew's death may not have created much of a visible "void" considering Downton's large cast, but it had a tremendous impact. Shows like DA tend not to get better with age, but much of the complaints over the past two years fall on Mary's storylines and the stunting of the plot that was forced by his death. That was avoidable, but it still happened because Dan Stevens wanted off the show before Fellowes could figure out how to adjust properly.
Celebrity Apprentice Recap: Episode One
Written by Ian Thomas Malone, Posted in Blog, Celebrity Apprentice
It's hard to believe it's been two years since Celebrity Apprentice All-Star. Which means it's been three years since we were introduced to an entirely new cast of D list "celebrities" to participate in Donald Trump's faux reality competition. With stars like Kevin Jonas, Gilbert Gottfried, Shawn Johnson, and Terrell Owens on board, this season looks to be a strong one for the venerable rigged contest.
First episodes are always more about the contestants than the task itself, which makes fundraising challenges the perfect type to start with. It's important to note that at no point was pie making a central focus of the task. The money is the only thing that matters.
Over the years, we've seen Trump and the show itself try to circumvent the fact that the battle of the rolodex doesn't exactly make for suspenseful television. The past two seasons have featured project managers Paul Teutul Sr. and Trace Adkins bring in such large donations that they barely cared about the task itself at all.
This is where naivety can really come to bite you in the ass. It was pretty clear about thirty-five minutes into the two hour show that not only would the women lose, but that Keisha Knight Pulliam would be the one to go. What was unusual was how blatant Piers Morgan was in essentially telling her that social media didn't matter at all. Not very Celebrity Apprentice-like to be upfront about it being all about the big money.
Starting off with a money challenge also shows the audience who the real players are right off the bat. It's an unwritten rule that the PM has to pull most of the weight in a money challenge since his/her team is the only beneficiary of the money that people are presumably saving for themselves. Lorenzo Lamas isn't going to hit his mother up for two hundred dollars if it's going to Geraldo Rivera. Surviving a task like this is all about bringing in enough to not draw attention without wasting any of your own high rollers.
The task was pretty straight forward. No one expected Pulliam to beat Rivera. The boardroom was a little more interesting than expected. The Rivera/Jonas dynamic is one to watch out for, especially when Rivera is no longer PM next week. But there was a ton of potential for a Pulliam battle with Kate Gosselin, who had the weirdest boardroom rants since Lou Ferrigno and his 110%.
Raising chump change on a money task when you're the project manager gets you fired plain and simple. But Gosselin could have been taken down by a savvy player like Omarosa. Problem was that Pulliam was boring. Gosselin had a chance to sink her own ship, but she's entertaining and that's what matters. There's a reason why the show keeps people like Gary Busey, Dennis Rodman, and Rod Blagojevich around as long as humanly possible. They make for good TV.
It's hard to see who the real frontrunners will be moving forward. Rivera's attitude doesn't seem like it will help him in the long haul. He looks destined for more of a Gene Simmons type tenure. Jonas is the most complete package of any of the contestants. He's outspoken and has a lot of money. Johnny Damon could be a darkhorse, but the men don't appear to have a ton of juggernauts on their team. It remains to be seen whether Sig Hansen will resemble Paul Teutul or Jesse James in terms of usefulness.
The women's team is complicated. With two Real Housewives, two Olympic Gold Medalists, and two has-been TV personalities weighing down the team with contestants who have neither star power nor rich backers, Team Infinity doesn't look very strong.
I don't think the money will flow quite like it has without a deep roster of money laden celebrities. But the personalities are certainly there. Gottfried delivered right off the bat, looking like savvier Adam Carolla. Snowboarder Jamie Anderson showed charisma and personality. Even Gosselin was surprisingly likable until she started rambling in the boardroom. It should be a very exciting year for The Celebrity Apprentice.
Recaps will continue every Monday throughout the season. The best way to insure you never miss a post is to subscribe to ianthomasmalone.com or to like my Facebook page. Thanks for reading!
Season 5 of Downton Abbey Bides Its Time While Waiting for the End
Change has always had a consistent presence on Downton Abbey. Being a period drama, we have a fairly good idea of where the show is going to go as it creeps closer to its inevitable finale. Despite this, the show has done a remarkable job in breathing new life into the old house and decaying aristocratic society.
We saw this particularly in season three with the arrivals of Alfred, Jimmy, and Ivy, which gave the show's dynamic a breath of fresh air. The youth movement did wonders to negate the feeling that from here on out, life at Downton would veer from the extravagant to the simplistic. With Alfred's departure in series four, Ivy's after the Christmas Special, and Jimmy's after the first episode of series five, that youthful energy is all but gone, leaving Daisy in a similar holding pattern she was in at the start of the show.
The absence of the three of these characters isn't a big loss from a story perspective. Eight episodes is hardly enough time to adequately address the show's ensemble cast anyway. Their departures address something that we'd all rather avoid. Things are winding down and now it's starting to show.
The future was a predominant theme is season five. Carson, Hughes, Patmore, and the Bates all made arrangements for their retirements while Tom continued to grapple with his desire to leave for America while taking Sybbie's best interests into consideration. Lord Grantham continued to weigh the interests of the village against his obligation to preserve the way of life that can be threatened by those whose interest lie solely in monetary game. Mrs. Crawley debates a marriage proposal to the disdain of Lady Violet, who fears losing her treasured companion as selfish as that may be.
Problem is, this is all familiar territory. Edith and Tom's storylines are merely continuations of plots from last season that could, and probably should have been wrapped up. Lady Rose's late-season courtship with Atticus is just about the only fresh plotline to be had other than Mrs. Crawley, who unexpectedly found herself in possession of one of the show's better stories.
The Bates remain the biggest thorn in Julian Fellows' paw. He has never really known what to do with them. Sadly, this has resulted in yet another murder plotline that's even droller and tedious as the first. It's hard to imagine that #freebates was ever a legitimate fan rally as the couple hasn't had a positive moment in years.
Fan sentiment also provides a roadblock for Lady Edith and her illegitimate child. It's sad story. It isn't a particularly interesting one and Edith's years of being an annoying/whiney character didn't do the plot any favors. After five seasons of watching her mope around, it's hard to care.
This season had a few shining moments worth remembering. Miss Bunting quickly became of the most hated characters in the show's history and Fellow's timed her depature perfectly as to not allow her to overstay her welcome (or rather unwelcome). Thomas received redemption of sorts from Dr. Clarkson in one of the season's most touching moments. Molesley was Molesley and as such, got his own article.
I watched an old season two episode in between episodes to see the contrast between then and now. It's to be expected that shows drop off a bit as they get older. Even a worldwide phenomenon like Downton.
The problem is that Downton has an identity crisis, a problem that's existed since the World War I storyline ended but was exacerbated by Matthew's death. The show knows where it's going, but it doesn't know what to do with itself in the meantime. It seems to be a fairly safe assumption that next season will be the final one, which may not be such a bad idea.
Downton Abbey is certainly more entertaining the most of what's on TV, but it's also clear that the show is well past its prime. Fellows overindulged in repetitive storylines and drew out others unnecessarily. It's hard to call season five bad, but when the bar was raised so high from previous years, the drop in quality is a tad unfortunate. The Dowager would certainly not be impressed.
Mr. Molesley: The Man, The Myth, The Legend
From his first appearance in episode two, it would be hard to tell that Joseph Molesley would become one of Downton Abbey's most endearing characters. From butler to valet to laborer to footman, Molesley has a list of occupations rivaled only by Thomas. The backwards progression of these jobs naturally lead to a consistent suffering matched only by Lady Edith. Yet as season five comes to a close, Molesley goes on, earning both the adoration and respect of his fellow workers and viewers alike.
Molesley begins his time on Downton as the butler to Mrs. Crawley, a job that appears to have been organized by either Robert or Violet as Molesley was away from the area at the start of the show. He continued to be a minor character and occasional comic relief throughout the first season. His standout moment was perhaps when Matthew struggled to embrace his services, creating a unique moment where the lavish excess of the upper class is countered by the pride that a person like Molesley takes in his duties.
We see this evolve in season two as Molesley finds himself with little to do in Mrs. Crawley's absence. Rather than sit around twiddling his thumbs, Molesley makes himself useful at the big house. This is overshadowed by his accidental drunkenness brought on by wine tasting and his failed romantic overtures directed at Anna. Season two establishes Molesley as the good-natured Mr. Bean like klutz destined to be Julian Fellows' whipping boy.
This "Molesley must suffer" mentality continues in season three. With Matthew engaged to Lady Mary, it makes sense that Molesley would be destined for the big house as the valet to the heir of Downton. Problem is that Matthew doesn't want a valet. But then he gets one for some strange reason, only it's not Molesley. It's Alfred. Without the interference by a jealous Thomas, who insisted that Alfred was not ready for such duties, Molesley might still be in the service of Mrs. Crawley.
Molesley's high status as Matthew's valet was short lived. While Mary and Mrs. Crawley could recover their statuses following Matthew's death, there was no one for Molesley to valet for. Season four showed Fellows' love of making Molesley suffer as convenient landing destinations for his services were foiled using spotty logic. Mrs. Crawley could've easily taken him back as butler and Spratt could have been kicked to the curb following his sabotage of Molesley's audition. So poor Joesph had to settle for the lowly job of second footman.
The problem is that the positive outcomes would've taken him away from the big house, which at this point is where he belongs. The staff has taken quite a beating over the past two years, seeing O'Brien, Alfred, Jimmy, and Ivy all leave. The latter three weren't exactly replaced by new characters, making Molesley even more important.
There are two distinct versions of Molesley that the viewer gets to see. There's the drunken bumblehead who loses at cricket and can't seem to catch a break. But then there's the man who shows a genuine desire to help others like Baxter and Daisy and of course, the strong man victory in the season three Christmas special.
Mrs. Patmore's scolding of Daisy for her treatment of Molesley was what prompted me to write this article. In telling Daisy to be nice to people who are kind, Patmore reminds us why people like Molesley are special. They're rare.
Molesley has had his fair shares of ups and downs, but besides his reluctance to accept the footman position, which received a rather rude response from Carson, he takes his fortunes in stride (even his strong man carnival victory). How many of us can say the same?
Through five seasons, Molesley has grown from a background comic relief figure to the heart and soul of Downton Abbey. He's an older worker facing uncertain times without the capital of Carson, Hughes, Patmore, and the Bates, who can all invest in retirement options. But you wouldn't know that just by looking at him. He's neither the best looking nor the most interesting person on the show, but his consistent good nature sets him apart from the rest of the cast and earns him a place in the viewer's hearts.