Support the Café

Search our Site

Downton Abbey and the Car-Wreck of Fiction

Downton Abbey and the Car-Wreck of Fiction

by Kurt Wiesner

SPOILER ALERT: Stop reading now if you have not seen Downton Abbey through Episode 3 of Season 4.

If you do not watch Downton Abbey, you may be wondering why your Downton watching friends are either angry or horribly depressed.

You see: there are these characters that we’ve really grown to care about…

We see them in part as friends and family. Yes, we know they are fictional characters, but they and their relationships with other characters reflect some of the things that we either value in our own relationships, or wish that we had in our real lives.

When characters become “really good”, it usually means that they so reflect humanity that we invest fully in their fates. Be it triumphant or tragic, we want to witness what happens to them. We want to know their story, good or bad, with only one real requirement.

It has to ring true.

But the problem with these characters is that they are subject to the real lives of the actors who play them, and the writers and producers who ultimately decide their fate.

Season Three killed two prominent characters in Sybil Branson, and Matthew Crawley.

While there was great grief at Sybil’s death, it was completely believable. She died giving birth to her daughter. Then and now, it is a tragic reality that women die in childbirth. It happened this way mostly because the actress wanted to leave the show, but it was not obtrusive to the plot. It fit the story.

Matthew Crawley, on the other hand, died while “daydream driving” after the birth of his son, crashing and upending his car on top of him.

Any Downton watcher will tell you how much of a stretch this was on the believability scale: the event as it happened seems completely out of Matthew’s character, and the events prior to it…making “everything perfect” just before it all gets blown to hell…makes it completely contrived.

And it was contrived: the actor who played Matthew insisted on leaving the show.

I’m not without sympathy for those who are charged with telling the story. There were only so many options, and I am aware that the actor gave them little notice. But the primary thing I ask of story writers is that they are faithful to the story they tell. Yes: we all would have endless complained if they had replaced the actor with another. But we would have understood. Perhaps season four needed to begin with something like the final Frank Burns episode in M*A*S*H: a story writing him out, even as they did not have access to the actor. Yes, car accidents can happen to anyone, but the way it happened made us call foul.

The same thing happened to us in the latest episode shown here in the US, when the character of Anna was viciously raped.

I can handle shows going dark. I’ve long been an advocate for the dark season six of Buffy the Vampire Slayer: a season many loyal viewers balked at for the downward spiral the whole cast took. It was tough to watch characters we cared about struggle so greatly, but I found it to be real. In life, bad things certainly do happen.

But is this plot concerning Anna believable story?

Strong women certainly do get raped: there is no doubt about that. The choice and circumstances of Anna’s attack, however, rings false for a few reasons.

Anna and Bates have had one thing after another happen to them to “destroy their happiness”. A marriage that can’t be dissolved (an idea now recycled for poor Edith), the marriage finally gets dissolved, they get married…only to have Bates convicted of murdering his ex-wife. And now that Bates is free from prison, the attack on Anna. It seems absurd that all of this would happened to them, especially concerning the circumstances of it all.

The rape was carried out when the entire household was upstairs listening to opera (which follows another often used movie device of contrasting the beautiful passionate music while horrible violence is happening at the same time elsewhere). It is also all but unheard of for truly EVERYBODY to be upstairs, but as Carson says grumpily, “times are changing” (convenient). Anna goes downstairs, not feeling well. The rapist sees this (himself, a visiting servant), followers her downstairs, tries to seduce her, and when she resists, bloodies Anna up and rapes her. He leaves her in the head servants’ office, and goes back upstairs to his seat with others. There’s no way in the world that he could have possibly believed that he could get away with such a thing…Anna is, after all, the personal lady’s maid for the powerful Lady Mary. And yet, Anna is the one person who would have some reason to hide the fact that she’s been raped because her husband was once imprisoned for murder and would certainly “kill the rapist and then be hung” (something the rapist would not have known she would do).

Additionally, many people have voiced that the warning at the beginning of the episode was nowhere near strong enough: that viewers were not prepared to see something as disturbing as rape. I agree, but ironically, the warning brought on a hollow pit in my stomach. Somehow, I suspected a physical/sexual attack on Anna: not for any logical clues in the plot, but because I could see such a thing used by the writers for future conflict between Anna and Bates. I also think I guessed this in part because, in Matthew’s death, they had already shown a willingness to sacrifice the story to suit their purpose. I sort of EXPECTED a contrived plot device such as this, and that’s not good.

Many have labeled Downton Abbey a “PBS soap opera”. I’ve rejected that label in the past, but perhaps the writers are trying to prove me wrong. Unlike soap operas, Downton Abbey has multidimensional characters who have good and not so good qualities. Their relationships seem real, and reflect much of real life situations (just with awesome costumes, dialogue, and scenery). It’s fair to expect that some things will feel contrived…but at what point do things stop being believable?

Downton needs drama, but as the viewer, I’m no longer sure I believe the story. If plot continues to be sacrificed for the spectacle of the wreck, I will likely be looking away.

The Rev. Kurt C. Wiesner is rector of All Saints’ Episcopal in Littleton NH, loves his role as a Spiritual Faculty member of CREDO, and writes a blog called “One Step Closer: Religion and Popular Culture”. He’s a big fan of U2, everything Joss Whedon, and all Judi Dench films and series (but maybe no longer Downton Abbey). He is the Wednesday news blogger for Episcopal Café.


Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

My opinion on this episode is from a different angle. Anna is one of the most beloved characters on the show. Anna was violated and many viewers in turn felt violated.

However, this segment was significant because it highlighted the innocence, the unpredictability of who is victim of rape. Rape culture has taught us to ask Was she drunk? What was she wearing? We are led to believe that there has to be a plausible reason, and that reason must lie with some fault in the woman. It is a dangerous false belief to teach women that if they only dress “properly”, do not drink, do not attend wild parties, etc. that they will be safe. It is a very inaccurate myth. With this episode, for once, the audience was led to see what rape truly is, not what our rape culture would like us to believe.

Notice, for example, that the Reverend does not think the death of another woman in childbirth was contrived – “While there was great grief at Sybil’s death, it was completely believable. She died giving birth to her daughter. Then and now, it is a tragic reality that women die in childbirth. “

Yet he writes that Anna’s rape was contrived. He is blind to the other tragic reality that women are also raped. He is blinding himself with other circumstances – the opera upstairs, all the servants upstairs, etc. These reasons are just as bogus, and just as dangerous, as the “Was she drunk? What was she wearing? That is rape culture at work. He is trying desperately to find something that makes this rape unbelievable rather than placing the blame squarely where it lies – with the rapist. Rape is crime of power. And rape happens whether other men find the circumstances contrived or not. It is a message that so desperately needs to be heard. No woman is safe. All these “other” circumstantial things DO NOT MATTER and continuing the myth only helps protect the perpetrator and shame the victim.

I am hopeful that this episode will be a huge step toward educating people on the reality of rape. But if men continue to write articles about how unbelievable or contrived a rape is because of peripheral circumstances, well then, it is no wonder that nothing has changed in the last century. And men such as the Reverend will continue to bury women under the weight of their ignorance.

[Laurie: please sign your name when you comment – thanks, editor]

Ann Fontaine

Thanks for comments. As an editor of Daily Episcopalian I would remind commenters of our policies:

1. sign your full name to comments – on occasion we will allow anonymous comments but write if you have need for this protection.

2. Our rules are fairly straightforward: No ad hominem attacks. No hate speech. Please refrain from baiting other posters with deliberately inflammatory remarks. We won’t permit potentially libelous statements. (You may know that the terrible things you are saying about Mr. X are true, but we don’t, and we don’t have time to verify your assertions.)

3. We ask commentators to be mindful that a blog is public space. If you are engaged in an argument, consider the nature of your rhetoric. Would your language and tone be appropriate in a classroom? Would it draw uncomfortable glances on a bus? Would it get you tossed out of a bar? If you answered no to the first question and yes to the last two, we probably won’t publish your comment.


Kurt, I completely agree with you both about Matthew’s sudden death and Anna’s rape. I cried foul for both incidents, because they seemed contrived to me. I almost didn’t watch this season because of the clumsiness of the details of Matthew’s death.

Couldn’t Bates and Anna have had at least a brief time of happiness after their many troubles? Or are happy couples not allowed in the series? In the meanwhile, Lady Mary’s maid, Edna, and Thomas are scheming against Anna, so it’s likely that trouble will follow upon trouble for the poor woman.

With Kurt, the key to enjoying the series is that the story must be believable. In my opinion, Fellowes has gone off the rails of credibility. I hope he finds his way back.

June Butler

Kurt Wiesner

I found this story helpful: Julie Bindel’s review in The Guardian on Estelle B. Freedman’s book “Redefining Rape: Sexual Violence in the Era of Suffrage and Segregation”

Kurt Wiesner

8th day:

i’m afraid that you are right, and I’m glad you’ve disagreed with me!

As I said, a sexual harassment/assault is not unexpected in Downton’s time.

Because Anna was beaten, it was my thought that the valet couldn’t help but be seen by the household as guilty, and because of the wealth and power of the household, that he would likely be caught. We immediately hear from Anna herself that she can’t say anything BECAUSE of the fact that Bates would likely to retaliate and get jailed himself. And that seems particularly contrived.

Having said that, it appears (with a little internet reading) that there was a shift in the 20s to complete blame of the victim: and the valet naturally assumed in these times he could get away with it. Would that still hold true if she was beaten as well, in the circumstances of Downton? I don’t know…but the argument that the valet would think himself able to get away with this seems much more plausible on second thought.

This episode, however, still feels quite contrived to me: having this happen specifically to Anna in the way that it did. I’m not suggesting the character wouldn’t choose Anna because of what happened to her. The WRITERS chose Anna because they want conflict with her and Bates….and only two episodes after overturning a car on Matthew because they NEEDED him dead.

Support the Café
Past Posts

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café