Edith Grantham is the Jan Brady of Downton Abbey- Page 2

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 2/3/14 at 9:57am

Maybe I was reading too much into it. I know it's by Eubie Blake, but wonder who originally sang it.

[Jungle Red]

Posted: 2/3/14 at 11:24am

Lesley Nicol is my favorite actress out of character.
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/3640090680/8e65d76c8f181e0b61523073722074f3.jpeg

Followed by Daisy.

[wonkit]

Posted: 2/3/14 at 2:29pm

I hope that Daisey is given another chance to shine as she is a complex character in a series that increasingly relies on cliches. I also like Tom a lot. I don't care for Rose at all - she is modern without being anything else.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 2/3/14 at 7:51pm

To be fair, I think this past season, at least by the end, Edith started getting more current (well to the 1920s) and fashion forward wardrobe than Mary.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 2/3/14 at 10:53pm

A question regarding last night's episode. The jazz singer sang, "I'm Just Wild About Harry" at Lord Grantham's party, but wouldn't it have been unusual for a man to be singing about another man considering the time period?

I can't say with absolute certainty, but I'm continually surprised at the lack of concern for gender in pop songs of the first half of the 20th century.

As late as WWII, the Andrews Sisters had a monster hit with "Apple Blossom Time" where they sing they "will change your name to mine." Obviously, they are singing lyrics written for a male and they just don't care.

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/4/14 at 7:06am

Yes, "I'm Just Wild About Harry" was originally sung by a woman in "Shuffle Along" on Broadway.

I found it more upsetting that the actor they hired CAN'T SING. He's horrible. He's a handsome enough guy, and his acting is fine. But whenever he sings, he sounds like a limp noodle. A truly terrible singing voice. It isn't remotely right for the period, for the character, and it's just plain not good.

EDIT: I read more about the song on Wikipedia, and according to them, when Lottie Gee originally sang the song in the revue, it was not a hit. It only became a hit after a dancer was replaced with an understudy who didn't know the steps and improvised. Apparently, that improvised dance helped sell the number, and the song became hugely popular. Noble Sissle (a male and one of the songs authors) recorded the song (and other songs from his show with Eubie Blake) first in 1937. Then the song because the official campaign song of Harry Truman in 1948, sung by both men and women.

By the way, Noble Sissle sure looks like the character Jack Ross in Downton Abbey.

Updated On: 2/4/14 at 07:06 AM

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 2/4/14 at 7:53am

Best12, that's the first thing I thought when the character of Jack Ross was introduced: they couldn't find an actor who could sing?! He sounded a little bit better this week than the first time he sang.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 2/4/14 at 8:36am

"I found it more upsetting that the actor they hired CAN'T SING."

Do we know that it's definitely that actor singing or is he lip synching to Marni Nixon?

Also, is there a character reason he can't sing? Are they trying to make a point a la Sally Bowles? It seems weird they would hire Kiri Te Kanawa to do less singing and then hire an actor who couldn't sing to do more singing.

Finally, is the budget so tight that they couldn't autotune him?

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/4/14 at 8:43am

According to IMDB.com (which isn't always accurate, but usually is), he's credited with his own singing.

He sounded more like a wobbly, nasal Diana Ross than a 1920s Jack Ross. The minute he opened his mouth in song, out came a purse, two pumps, and a lace doily.

Jesus.

Dub the man!

He doesn't sound that way when he talks ... only when he sings. It made me cringe every single time.

It's not just that his singing is effeminate, it also is whiny, off key, thin, and he adds these little pop "dips" in his phrasing that sound too modern.

In short, there is nothing to like about his singing voice at all.

Even Marni Nixon would have sounded more like a 1920s male jazz singer than this guy does.

Updated On: 2/4/14 at 08:43 AM

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 2/4/14 at 8:48am

The minute he opened his mouth in song, out came a purse, two pumps, and a lace doily.

Lord, have mercy! That was quite the visual.

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/4/14 at 8:50am

Here's Noble Sissle and Eubie Blake in 1922 (the year this takes place on Downton Abbey).

Couldn't they have found a voice like this? The actor playing the part is fine. He just (desperately) needs to be dubbed.


Noble Sissle and Eubie Blake in 1922

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 2/4/14 at 8:51am

Best12, I just hear thin and off key when he sings. I didn't get anything whiny or effiminate about his singing voice (but that's just the way I heard it). I took it as the actor trying to project a certain style. Is he American or British in real life?

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/4/14 at 8:58am

He's British. And I don't get any effeminate vibes from his acting, just his singing.

You may be right that it was just an attempt at style, but it was a failed attempt. A lot of the popular male voices of that era were high tenors, and through the primitive recording equipment, they often sounded thin and strident. But he's lacking any male bravado in his singing voice, and even the high tenors of that era had that. It's a bolder, brasher sound. This "Jack Ross" has more of the shrinking violet in his singing voice. It just seems all wrong for this character.

Updated On: 2/4/14 at 08:58 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/4/14 at 9:16am

I just did some Googling around, and the character of Jack Ross was inspired by the real-life Leslie "Hutch" Hutchinson.

Apparently, he had an affair with British debutante Elizabeth Corbett, who bore his child.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Hutchinson

Here he is, singing in 1936. He sounds so much better than his TV incarnation/inspiration.


LINK

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 2/4/14 at 9:26am

Leslie Hutchinson certainly got around! I wonder what became of the child that was put up for adoption.

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/4/14 at 9:41am

I wonder, too. I'm kinda fascinated by his personal life after reading that.

I wonder how much of his real life story they will try to incorporate into the Downton Abbey storyline for Jack Ross.

By the way, I've managed to make it this far, fairly "spoiler free" with this season (after learning about the deaths in advance last season, which did effect my enjoyment of them).

... that said, I was hoping, with this being 1922 and Highclere Castle serving as the inspiration and setting for the series, that Lord Grantham would head off to Egypt and be one of the people on the dig for King Tut's tomb. Many of the artifacts were stored in the basement of Highclere Castle ... and I would love for that to be part of the storyline of Downton ... and perhaps a little of the curse of King Tut's tomb as well!

Why not? It happened in real life, and in that very castle as well.

And don't tell me one way or the other! I'm trying desperately to stay "unspoiled" this season! But I do love speculating the overall storylines.

I also wish they'd add something big to this season. So far, the storylines seem to be fairly ordinary on the "soap opera" level. There's no big war, no huge life events going on (again, so far). They need to up the game a bit. Right now, it's too much of the same characters having similar conversations and challenges as they have before.

Onward, please!

Updated On: 2/4/14 at 09:41 AM

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 2/4/14 at 9:52am

And very sad that there weren't many mourners at his funeral. Kind of wonder if he burned bridges along the way.

So far I like this season and have managed to stay away from the spoilers as well.

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/4/14 at 9:54am

As far as Hutchinson's funeral, I agree. But he was pretty much ruined after that alleged Mountbatten affair. It sounds like he was shunned from most of British society after that. Dramatically, as a plot point, it would be good to incorporate something similar into Downton Abbey.

[wonkit]

Posted: 2/4/14 at 12:34pm

He was clearly cast for his look and not his voice. Painful to listen to! And thanks for the mini history lesson. Edwina Mountbatten certainly did get around (as did her hubby, of course). Talk about an open marriage.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 2/4/14 at 1:25pm

"I also wish they'd add something big to this season. So far, the storylines seem to be fairly ordinary on the "soap opera" level."

It's the 1920s. I sort of thought that we'd see one of the characters dabble in drugs. I guess that's politically incorrect thought. But with Edith hanging out in literary circles, I thought she'd encounter a little bit of marijuana.

Also, in 1920, cocaine was banned in the UK because WW1 soldiers were using it and having bad effects. But I think Thomas might take a little sniff of it or offer to the other footman.

Unfortunately the only scandal we're seeing is Rose kissing a black man. It's this is going to be soap opera then I want scandal!!!

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/4/14 at 1:36pm

Well, I'm pretty sure Lady Edith is pregnant. No spoilers, please! I'm only discussing what has already aired on PBS here in the US!

She went to the doctors and they sent her a note "confirming" her suspicions. If her fiancé is dead, she'll be an unwed mother. Part of me hopes he leaves her all his money and the business, and she becomes an independent woman in the future, raising a single child, with a publishing business, in the 1920s.

But I think she'll be going through a lot in the weeks ahead.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 2/4/14 at 1:38pm

You're assuming she's pregnant with a human child.

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/4/14 at 1:44pm

Now that would really be a spoiler!

They could turn this into "British Horror Story: Lady Edith's Baby."

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 2/4/14 at 1:44pm

Well the note, if you pause your PVR clearly spells out what exactly it's about. (I can't think that's a spoiler :P )

"I also wish they'd add something big to this season. So far, the storylines seem to be fairly ordinary on the "soap opera" level. There's no big war, no huge life events going on (again, so far). They need to up the game a bit. Right now, it's too much of the same characters having similar conversations and challenges as they have before. "

Rape's not enough for you?? :P No, Iargely felt that way about Season 4 as well--like I've said before, much of it was pleasant--I like the show enough that it's fun to hang out with the characters, but... However, I was happy with it by the end, so either it does pick up momentum, or I just got used to that rhythm.

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/4/14 at 1:51pm

The rape storyline is a typical "soap opera" storyline. I'm not saying it wasn't shocking and awful, but I'm talking about sweeping changes (like a war or a death or a marriage) that permanently change the lives of the characters and how they live. Those are always the most interesting to see them struggle through.

The "who did what to whom" storylines are daily fodder for these types of shows (period soap operas).

And no, I didn't pause my DVR to re-read the note. And unfortunately, it didn't occur to me until AFTER I had deleted the episode. D'oh!

So far, Seasons 1 & 2 have been the most interesting. The others have had some memorable points, but I don't get the sense of sweeping, continuous change, the way I did with the first two seasons.

And I miss O'Brien!

This "spy who wants to be good but can't because Thomas has some dirt on her and got her the job and now she's stuck" person just isn't cutting it for me.