I am a fan of history/period drama. I liked "Downton Abbey". I am fairly well read on East Coast aristocracy since I am a native Bostonian. I have visited many houses of The Gilded Age and The Victorian Age in America. I think the visual production values are very good.
The casting/direction/writing for the aristocrats is all wrong with the exception of Ms. Baranski and Ms. Nixon. Why are the old aristocrats written to be so much real and human than the social upstarts, the Russel family? The gay live-in relationship of the Van Rijn/Adams partners is quite unlikely in that period.
The portrayal of Stanford White as a wimpy, middles-aged sycophant in his behavior toward the upstart Russells is also bad writing. White was a dashing rake (in his 20s-30s in the 1880s), noted for his ego and bravado. This illustrates the problem of throwing in real historic characters without doing proper research.
Perhaps this production shows the growing disrespect for our real history, lived by real people? Perhaps Julian Fellowes confused which side of the Atlantic his production was portraying?
The casting/direction/writing for the aristocrats is all wrong with the exception of Ms. Baranski and Ms. Nixon. Why are the old aristocrats written to be so much real and human than the social upstarts, the Russel family? The gay live-in relationship of the Van Rijn/Adams partners is quite unlikely in that period.
The portrayal of Stanford White as a wimpy, middles-aged sycophant in his behavior toward the upstart Russells is also bad writing. White was a dashing rake (in his 20s-30s in the 1880s), noted for his ego and bravado. This illustrates the problem of throwing in real historic characters without doing proper research.
Perhaps this production shows the growing disrespect for our real history, lived by real people? Perhaps Julian Fellowes confused which side of the Atlantic his production was portraying?