Lady Sybil & Branson
May. 15th, 2012 11:49 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
osprey_archerI’ve been watching Downton Abbey! Is anyone else watching Downton Abbey? Because Downton Abbey is awesome! It’s a costume drama - and WHAT COSTUMES, you guys, the clothes are so beautiful. The evening gowns! Ornate yet elegant, never fussy. All the men in suits! Lady Sybil wearing Turkish trousers!
- it’s a costume drama, as I was saying, set at a country house in England around World War I. It has all these wonderful, rounded, loveable (and occasional hateable) characters, both the family and the servants, and is just, in general, amazing.
Amazing with an extremely large side order of problems. Making their only gay character a petty, self-serving, mendacious jackass was questionable (I have more to say about Thomas anon, but not in this entry) - and there’s Matthew’s skeevy paralysis story - and then, of course, there are the class issues, most obviously in the relationship between Lady Sybil, youngest daughter of the house and budding radical, and Branson-the-socialist-Irish-chauffeur.
I really want to ship Sybil and Branson. I love love LOVE Lady Sybil (you rock those Turkish trousers, girl!) and Branson is so cute and so promising in season one, and I think all sorts of fascinating things could be done with their relationship. The class differences! The cultural differences! Ireland!
But after a promising beginning in season one, most of those interesting things don’t materialize in season two. Instead, Sybil and Branson’s relationship devolves into an endless round of “Run away with me, Lady Sybil! But I’m not ready yet, Branson!” Which is unfortunate, because:
1. It makes Branson look immature and pestering;
2. It’s boring. If Sybil and Branson chatted about Marx or E. M. Forster (it’s a pity A Passage to India wasn’t published yet, I feel like they might find some personal relevance in it) rather than YET AGAIN riding the “to elope or not to elope” merry-go-round, their relationship would have much more substance and complexity and might actually engage with those interesting class/cultural issues;
and 3. the fact that their relationship doesn’t have more substance makes it seem like Branson is not so much in love with Sybil, as in love with the idea of sticking one in the eye of the ruling classes by making off with one of their daughters.
Ew. Now that I’ve written it out, that sounds disturbingly plausible. The chip on Branson’s shoulder is quite large enough for it, and he is always very aware - much more aware than Sybil is - that Sybil is far his social superior. I realize it’s more difficult (and dangerous) for him to forget that she’s the daughter of his employer than it is for her to ignore the fact that he’s a servant...
But for god’s sake, he wants to marry her! If that’s going to work he has to see her as an individual person rather than a disturbingly attractive representative of the oppressor class, through whom he can score a victory against said oppressor class. And Sybil, similarly, needs to see Branson as more than a handy escape from her gilded cage life as an aristocratic lady.
Part of what makes Lady Sybil and Branson such an interesting couple is that - though they are genuinely fond of each other - they also see the relationship as a means to an end (to, in fact, related but different ends, which may cause friction in the future). Their marriage as a dramatic renunciation of social structures they despise.
The problem is that in the second season the dramatic renunciation overshadows the fondness, so it’s not clear what will keep the relationship together once they’ve made their big statement. Sybil in particular doesn’t seem to realize that if she’s not careful, she’s going to flee the airy cage of Downton Abbey right into the cramped confines of a just-barely-middle-class housewife in a cold water flat.
It’s clear that Sybil wants to work, but while Branson is at least theoretically in favor of women’s rights, season two suggests that in practice he won’t be fine with his wife working. There’s a scene where Branson disparages Sybil’s job as a war nurse, and this disparagement is implicit in a lot of their interactions. Run away with me now, he’s saying, and it’s implied: because you’re not doing anything important here. Your work as a nurse doesn’t count.
It’s fairly easy to envision their marriage in depressing failure mode: Sybil an unhappy housewife sick of scrubbing floors, Branson blaming her unhappiness on her snooty upbringing, and everyone else cackling “See! See! See what happens when the classes mix!”
But I prefer a future in which they both commit themselves yet more strongly to their radical vision of social and gender equality - theirs is not a relationship that can thrive on half-measures - and go on cool journalist adventures together. They could cover the rise of fascism in Italy! Meet the Fitzgeralds in Paris! Witness the Harlem Renaissance! The possibilities are endless!
- it’s a costume drama, as I was saying, set at a country house in England around World War I. It has all these wonderful, rounded, loveable (and occasional hateable) characters, both the family and the servants, and is just, in general, amazing.
Amazing with an extremely large side order of problems. Making their only gay character a petty, self-serving, mendacious jackass was questionable (I have more to say about Thomas anon, but not in this entry) - and there’s Matthew’s skeevy paralysis story - and then, of course, there are the class issues, most obviously in the relationship between Lady Sybil, youngest daughter of the house and budding radical, and Branson-the-socialist-Irish-chauffeur.
I really want to ship Sybil and Branson. I love love LOVE Lady Sybil (you rock those Turkish trousers, girl!) and Branson is so cute and so promising in season one, and I think all sorts of fascinating things could be done with their relationship. The class differences! The cultural differences! Ireland!
But after a promising beginning in season one, most of those interesting things don’t materialize in season two. Instead, Sybil and Branson’s relationship devolves into an endless round of “Run away with me, Lady Sybil! But I’m not ready yet, Branson!” Which is unfortunate, because:
1. It makes Branson look immature and pestering;
2. It’s boring. If Sybil and Branson chatted about Marx or E. M. Forster (it’s a pity A Passage to India wasn’t published yet, I feel like they might find some personal relevance in it) rather than YET AGAIN riding the “to elope or not to elope” merry-go-round, their relationship would have much more substance and complexity and might actually engage with those interesting class/cultural issues;
and 3. the fact that their relationship doesn’t have more substance makes it seem like Branson is not so much in love with Sybil, as in love with the idea of sticking one in the eye of the ruling classes by making off with one of their daughters.
Ew. Now that I’ve written it out, that sounds disturbingly plausible. The chip on Branson’s shoulder is quite large enough for it, and he is always very aware - much more aware than Sybil is - that Sybil is far his social superior. I realize it’s more difficult (and dangerous) for him to forget that she’s the daughter of his employer than it is for her to ignore the fact that he’s a servant...
But for god’s sake, he wants to marry her! If that’s going to work he has to see her as an individual person rather than a disturbingly attractive representative of the oppressor class, through whom he can score a victory against said oppressor class. And Sybil, similarly, needs to see Branson as more than a handy escape from her gilded cage life as an aristocratic lady.
Part of what makes Lady Sybil and Branson such an interesting couple is that - though they are genuinely fond of each other - they also see the relationship as a means to an end (to, in fact, related but different ends, which may cause friction in the future). Their marriage as a dramatic renunciation of social structures they despise.
The problem is that in the second season the dramatic renunciation overshadows the fondness, so it’s not clear what will keep the relationship together once they’ve made their big statement. Sybil in particular doesn’t seem to realize that if she’s not careful, she’s going to flee the airy cage of Downton Abbey right into the cramped confines of a just-barely-middle-class housewife in a cold water flat.
It’s clear that Sybil wants to work, but while Branson is at least theoretically in favor of women’s rights, season two suggests that in practice he won’t be fine with his wife working. There’s a scene where Branson disparages Sybil’s job as a war nurse, and this disparagement is implicit in a lot of their interactions. Run away with me now, he’s saying, and it’s implied: because you’re not doing anything important here. Your work as a nurse doesn’t count.
It’s fairly easy to envision their marriage in depressing failure mode: Sybil an unhappy housewife sick of scrubbing floors, Branson blaming her unhappiness on her snooty upbringing, and everyone else cackling “See! See! See what happens when the classes mix!”
But I prefer a future in which they both commit themselves yet more strongly to their radical vision of social and gender equality - theirs is not a relationship that can thrive on half-measures - and go on cool journalist adventures together. They could cover the rise of fascism in Italy! Meet the Fitzgeralds in Paris! Witness the Harlem Renaissance! The possibilities are endless!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-05-15 05:00 pm (UTC)And yeah, on the one hand I think it's realistic to make Branson blind to women's issues (or.... myopic/cataract-ful about them) even though he's keenly aware of class ones, but on the other: yes. If they can't work past those issues too, and if he can't value her rights as an individual and a competent person, then it's hard to imagine how the marriage would work.
Let's go with your imagination in your final paragraph instead!
Did you see this gentle Downton Abbey parody?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5dMlXentLw
no subject
Date: 2012-05-16 01:47 am (UTC)Branson's myopia about women's issues is another thing that I think he and Sybil could have interacted about in season two. I'm worried how this will play out in season three, because I think the relationship needs some serious work to make it function...but going by season two, the writers just don't seem to be interested enough in Sybil and Branson to lavish that much time on it.
But it would also be unfortunate to have the one serious cross-class relationship in the show fail.
In conclusion, I need to write "Sybil and Branson have awesome adventures!" stories. Perhaps they will buy a Model T and take a roadtrip through America.
(And the Downton Abbey parody made me giggle.)
no subject
Date: 2012-05-15 10:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-16 01:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-17 05:28 am (UTC)As far as Branson supporting women's rights, that was the -reason- he even started talking to her; because he overheard that she was interested in it. He gave her the pamphlets to pursue it, and he even needles her at one point in the second series for giving it up due to the war. When Cora tells him to pick Sybil up from the hospital and she complains that Sybil's working too hard, he makes the comment that he thinks she enjoys it. Honestly, the "randy officers" comment didn't bother me too much. Haven't you ever said something you regretted in the heat of the moment? I always took it as him meaning she could be doing something more worthwhile, because she wasn't working at the hospital at that point if memory serves. The actor who plays Branson said there was an apology scene, but it got cut due to time constraints. People seem to always cut Sybil slack, but in my opinion she's done some not-so-nice things to Branson, too. (The Ripon incident and her comment about Ireland come to mind).
Something that's frequently overlooked is the massive time jumps. I think this really hurt the series as a whole. I mean I know it was a plot device to keep Matthew at Downton for a majority of the time but still, coulda been handled better. Characters were still talking about mundane events like they happened last week instead of last year. So when Branson seems like he's pushy it's because we're only being shown these -select- interactions. They make allusions to conversations that never happened on-screen and this is over a period of what? Two, three years? Towards the end, Branson gave her space and just waited for her to give her answer. I'm not saying that it didn't get effing annoying after a while, just like every other storyline in series two, but in the end he let her make her own decision.
Maybe I'm missing something, but when was there even the slightest indication that Branson wants to marry Sybil to stick it to the aristocracy and upset the established order? That seems like kind of a stretch. I don't really even buy Sybil wanting to marry Branson to get out of Downton. She has her aunt in London, a whole other side of the family in America, she has an occupation and I'm guessing if she had set off on her own rather than marry Branson she wouldn't have been estranged from her family and she could have been able to keep her money, too. She didn't -have- to marry Branson, she -wanted- to marry him. She wanted the kind of life he could offer her and isn't that one of the reasons for marrying someone? Because you want your marriage to be the beginnings of something, rather than an end? I think part of it also is that Sybil has never been courted so she doesn't know what to do or what to say and she has no one to talk to about it since it's a secret. It's pretty evident after the failed elopement, when they've been in an actual relationship for a few months, that she's more confident about her decision.
Whew! Sorry about the book I just wrote you. It just makes me so annoyed to think about the potential this couple had, and Fellowes just totally wasted it. Don't get me wrong! I love this couple to death, they're my favourite one on the show, it's just a shame their relationship developed in series two when the writing became unbearably horrible. All the other couples were established in series one when the plots were character-driven and actually interesting. Again, sorry for rambling, just had to get it off my chest!
no subject
Date: 2012-05-17 12:45 pm (UTC)I agree, Sybil and Branson had great potential as a couple, which got wasted because of the plotting issues in season 2. It felt sometimes like the only storyline that moved forward, rather than circling endlessly, was Daisy and William - at least until William died, at which point Daisy began to circle endlessly around her guilt about deceiving him. I felt for her, I did, but I wanted some forward motion!
And, as you say, Sybil and Branson's relationship developed in season 2, so it suffered more than the others from the fact that Fellowes had evidently forgotten how to plot. So, yes, we're only being shown select interactions between Sybil and Branson, and presumably they are still talking about interesting things off screen - but what we see is the same kind of interaction again and again. Maybe that's the only time in those three years they discussed running away together, but because those are the only interactions we see, Fellowes made it look like they never talked about anything else.
Sybil and Branson would have been a much stronger couple if he had shown a couple of the conversations about politics that they alluded to in the running away arguments. It's like Fellowes couldn't trust his viewers to remember that Sybil and Branson were considering running away together if he didn't hammer the point home every episode.
It's never specifically suggested that Branson wants to marry Sybil to stick it to the aristocracy, and I don't mean that that's the only reason he wants to marry her (although if all I had to go by were their interaction in season 2, it would seem plausible) - I think it's icing on the cake, as it were. If he and Sybil marry, not only will he be married to this amazing girl, but he'll be subverting the class structure at the same time!
And similarly, I don't think Sybil wants to marry Branson only to escape Downton - first, I don't think she wants to escape Downton specifically; she wants to escape the whole idea of being an aristocratic lady, which would follow her if she went to live with her aunt in London or even her mother's family in America. And second, more importantly, I think she is does love him, so she's not marrying him just to escape - the escape is icing on the cake for her, too.
(Although IIRC the first thing she says when she tells Branson she's ready to run away with him is that she wants to get away from being useless, or doesn't want to go back to her life before the war, which kind of undercuts the notion that escape isn't her first priority. Ack. Why, Fellowes, why?)
TL:DR, I think we're actually coming from a similar place; we both want to love Sybil/Branson, we're both frustrated with season 2, but you're more willing to believe that Sybil and Branson continued to be sensible and interesting off-screen. Yes?
no subject
Date: 2012-05-19 06:13 pm (UTC)As to my wanting to love Sybil/Branson, I already do love them. They're my favourite couple on the show. I think we just interpret their interactions and intentions differently. (I'm sorry, I still don't think Branson is even remotely thinking about sticking it to the aristocracy!) And while I was mightily annoyed with their lack of screen-time for other, less interesting plots (Ethel and her giant baby for starters), and despite the fact that S/B suffered from the same poor writing that every other couple/plot did, they're still my OTP.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, while I wish we had gotten there differently, I'm still tremendously happy with the outcome.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-20 08:10 pm (UTC)Hope springs eternal for a favorite TV show! For all my problems with season 2, I'm still ridiculously excited that there will be a season 3.
Oh the Ethel plot. I get why they wanted to include that, because that sort of thing was a huge problem (and absolutely terrible for the maids), but it did give tons of time to a character we barely knew. It would have been better - tragically depressing, of course, but that's the point of a subplot like this - if it had been Daisy who got pregnant.
Also I've friended you, because there aren't many people in the world who write giant Downton Abbey comments. I hope you don't mind.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-25 01:50 am (UTC)I agree, they should have gone with Daisy for the pregnancy plot. It would have a much bigger impact with an established character, and it would have actually let Daisy grow, or at least change, as a character. I feel like JF just threw in as many cliches about WWI that he possibly could, but many of them didn't even matter i.e. Lang with his shell shock just being kicked out of the house after people figured out what was going on.
PS: I've added you, too, because there aren't many people who will actually read my giant Downton Abbey comments. (: