Whether you like her or not, Mary is the most interesting character of this show!
Everyone else seems to be somewhat uni-dimensional, Mary is the most complicated ...
Does anyone agree?
I agree. Still I think most of them are interesting, even Edith!
:)
She's the antihero, like Ethan Edwards.
You can't bear to see what she'll do next, and you can't wait to see it.
Watching her is like watching car racing and waiting in the cars to crash. You know they are going to at some point. Interesting character, but not one you would want in your own life.
shareThere is nothing about mean and Bitchy people I find interesting
Slainte 🇮🇪 I am who I am your approval isnt needed or required.
I agree she is the most interesting character. What makes her so (aside from Michelle Dockery's imo excellent performance) is that she seems to combine a sort of intelligent self-confidence with an underlying concern about her place in life, which in turn is related to changing social trends - a young woman seeing the social status of women improve at the same time as her class is suffering a decided downward trend. I don't mean to excuse her bad behavior by referring to those cross currents, but I do think they help explain her behavior.
It is also clear at this point that she is, has become, the main character, and I say that in full recognition of the overall ensemble nature of the cast. Despite that nature, I find it difficult to imagine this show without her. It would be much less interesting.
I always said Mary is an antiheroine that JF kept writing as a heroine.
shareThis! Also I have considered Mary to be both antagonist and protagonist since the first series. It is what made her such an unusual character originally.
To you, Baldrick, the Renaissance was just something that happened to other people, wasn't it?
I always said Mary is an anti-heroine that JF kept writing as a heroine.
Oh yes, I agree. I actually think she's brilliant and interesting.
Sisters/sibling relationships can be very complicated and nasty. This is behavior that started in childhood and never was corrected by the nannies (face it, that's who raised them). And the Earl and Lady are always like, "oh Mary!" Or "oh, Edith!" But don't really do anything to correct the situation.
tv,
Actually yours is a very helpful insight. Let's not forget that the parents have a role in how sibling rivalries play out.
Much of the criticism I have noticed about Mary concerns the way she is with Edith, and Edith is a character drawn with a certain level of sympathy. But if one takes that out of the equation, Mary does not seem to me to be nearly so objectionable.
In dont find her interesting or fun to watch, the only time when i found her interesting was after Matthew´s death and when seemed that she was going to be full involved with the running of the estate. Sadly JF missed a golden opportunity of show us how a aristocratic woman who was raised only to be a hostess, being gracious, dominate the small talk, etc go and try to fit in the post war society, a society of incredible changes for women of all backgrounds (start to work side by side with men, with another woman, with people of another class, etc).
I truly believed that when she went to lunch with the tenant farmers is was going to be the end of the Mary of the season 1-3, that woman who expended a lot of time in front of the mirror. But JF started the suitor saga and basically Mary was transformed in "princess aurora" a woman who wake up and find a group of suitors (all very similar) and she must pick one.
If JF would preffered a "professional" Mary she would have changed her way of behaviour, she is not complex, in Downton there isnt complex characters. Mary from season 1 is the queen bee (the origins of that is unknown). In a professional world she would changed that, but staying in the downton bubble she can maintain that attitude because nobody call her off.
I found her interesting in how her emotions and image of herself do not allow her to feel ...
shareBut isn't that exactly what is so one-note about her. Compare Edith's journey to hers. She is far more complex, has become a mentor to other women and has adapted to being a business owner. And she nailed Mary by pointing out that Mary is only behaving well because things are going her way.
share[deleted]
She's not interesting at all. A little complicated, maybe, but not interesting. She doesn't ever DO anything. She moves based on being prodded by others or being backed into a corner--or she tries to ignore things until they smack her in the face.
She had the makings of an interesting character in S1, but Julian Fellowes squandered her on looking pretty and being involved in various romances.
I just could not work up any interest in her various romances. They all seemed exactly the same. Other than her position and her money, I could not fathom why any of those men would be interested in her for more than a weekend romp.
shareI agree. For me she was always one of the most interesting characters and one of the reasons to keep watching even though the writing got worse and worse. I didn't like her in season 5 though. I thought she was awful. Season 6 was better until that awful episode 8, but I hated everything it not just Mary. The whole bunch, all the storylines, the whole show. Good episode to be glad it was almost over.
shareShe had the making of an interesting character up to series 3 and then it was as if JF simply gave up and she became fairly 2D. The same thing happened with Sybil. The opposite happened with Edith, she has become more interesting as the series has progressed, as has Cora.
To you, Baldrick, the Renaissance was just something that happened to other people, wasn't it?
For me it was the opposite. I thought Edith was very interesting in season 1 and 2, but once she became the victim of endless tragedy I was bored to death. The same like with the Bates.
And her love stories just never interested me. She was too ready to fall in love with every single man who ever showed her a little bit of attention. There was no suspense in it, it was all to predictable.
I disagree with that interpretation of Edith's romances.
With Strallan, she was more happy to have earned the interest of a man who had been handpicked for Mary. Marrying him at the end of S1 would have been a black eye for Mary and the fulfilment of her purpose in life.
With Drake, she was discovering her independence and her own allure that had nothing to do with competing with Mary over a man (as she did with Patrick, Matthew, Strallan, and Napier).
Which is why when Strallan reappeared in her life, she decided to seize the chance again to fulfill her duty in life.
Being jilted by him forced her out of seeing her life's purpose as being an aristocratic wife and birthing sone heirs.
Gregson was the culminating experience of all she thought she'd understood about herself and life. And he was the first man to pursue her ardently. Every other man she's just fallen in with as a result of being in her social set or on the estate. The relationship ended up being a disaster because he was married, but Gregson was her first adult relationship and understanding of her physical self.
Bertie is the man for Edith of 1925. He's kind and unassuming like Strallan. He's got hidden resources and is very flexible like Gregson. And of course she's very attracted to him. He also pursued her--and Edith had forgotten about him and wasn't looking for love or romance when they bumped into one another in London.
Bertie accidentally inheriting the marquessate of Hexham shows the biggest leap in Edith's story arc. She knew he was the heir, but it wasn't a big deal nor did it color her view of having a relationship with him. Edith of S1 would have been triumphant and bitterly smug about this turn of events.
Edith of S6 did have reservations because of Marigold, but she was also less than thrilled because it meant an interruption of the independent life she'd carved out for herself after realizing she didn't want to be the girl of pre-1914. She wasn't going to see marriage as the source of her identity or her life's work, nor did she need a man to make her happy and fulfilled.
With Drake, she was discovering her independence and her own allure that had nothing to do with competing with Mary over a man (as she did with Patrick, Matthew, Strallan, and Napier).
----------
Everyone Blast Edith for Kissing Drake, but as I recall he was there to and it looked like he made the first move But I suppose Its edith's fault she didn't knee him in the Groin
Slainte 🇮🇪 I am who I am your approval isnt needed or required.
The fact remains, that she fell in love with almost every single male character of the show, who showed her a minimum attention. the reason behind it actually didn't interest me. It just was a little bit too easy and made all her "romances" rather boring. Who gets excited over a romance if Fellowes just has to bring in some random guy (and they all looked the same, too btw) and she falls for him? It was as predictable as the sun going up and down every day.
shareReally? Every single male character? Edith only interacted with Sir Anthony, Gregson, and Bertie on a romantic level. Drake was just a kiss. She only went after Matthew and Evelyn to compete with Mary.
Mary had more suitors falling at her feet--but of course, she doesn't look pathetic or desperate because she is basically the Tracy Lord of the Edwardian era.
Most of the Happily Ever Afters on Downton Abbey were love/lust/attraction at first sight or out of the blue.
Atticus was brought onto the show and bam! he and Rose were two giddy children in love.
Lord Merton returned, and bam! he's in love with Isobel (and the same could be said for Dr. Clarkson's absurd feelings for Isobel when he spent S1-2 despising her).
Carson/Mrs. Hughes was random.
We spent most of S4 on Thomas/Jimmy/Ivy/Alfred/Daisy, which had little basis on any true feelings other than drama and chaos belowstairs.
Tony/Mary was the same--he declared his love for her and she went along with it.
Even the celebrated romances of Sybil/Tom and Mary/Matthew are underdeveloped on paper.
Julian Fellowes has little skill with writing romance, and the ones that do work only do so because of the heavy lifting done by the actors.
Well said TheDuchessofM!
Julian Fellowes has little skill with writing romance, and the ones that do work only do so because of the heavy lifting done by the actors.Agreed 100%! Even Sybil hesitated so much when Tom was being overly pushy with her in getting her to love him back. I'm surprised it is not being brought up more often. The love stories on the show most of the time showed us guys who were pushy and who fell head over heels in love, at first sight. share
Good points Duchess, I agree. Fellows is not particularly good at developing romance. This is a problem I see too often when male writers try to write female characters.
share