Thomas the Evil Gay Footman
May. 28th, 2012 02:54 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
osprey_archerIf Downton Abbey's Thomas-the-evil-gay-footman weren't the only gay character on the show, then I would be cheerfully raving that he and O'Brien, Thomas's partner in crime and Lady Grantham's maid, are one of the most impressive portrayals of evil on television. Driven by Thomas's desire to become Lord Grantham's valet, they single-mindedly attempt to eject the current valet from his position. They don't manage to ruin his life, but it's not for lack of trying.
The show actually does an admirable job separating Thomas's evil from his gayness. His depredations aren't motivated by lust: he doesn't want to be Lord Grantham's valet in order to get in Lord Grantham's pants. He wants to be Lord Grantham's valet because it's a high-status, low-work job that will allow him to laze around and lord it over the other servants.
Thus, Thomas and O'Brien scheme to get Bates, the current valet, fired. If their schemes to brand Bates as a thief came to fruition, he would not only lose his current position, but would also find it impossible to find work again. But that's mere collateral damage to Thomas and O'Brien.
They aren't heartless - both show flashes of softness, especially in the second season - but they don't care to use their hearts, and there's a thoughtless, even a careless quality to their evil. They seem to see Bates not so much as a person but as a human-shaped roadblock. They want him out of the job and they don't care if they ruin his life to do it.
It's this inexorable pettiness, I think, that makes Thomas and O'Brien's evil so frightening and infuriating. As long as Bates is in his current position, they'll be his enemies, and as long as they're his enemies, they'll continue their spiteful, underhanded attempts to have him ousted.
This is one of the things I love about Downton Abbey, actually: this refusal to romanticize evil. Evil in Downton isn't grand or tragic. It's rooted in an inability or unwillingness to care about other people; it's petty and spiteful, motivated by money or status or jealousy, but nonetheless devastating in its effects.
And if there were just one sympathetic gay character in Downton Abbey to offset Thomas's loathsomeness, then his portrayal would be very impressive. But as he's the only one - aside from the one-off evil duke, who hardly helps matters* - his evil, despite the fact that it's clearly quite a separate quality from his gayness, carries with it an unpleasant subtext.
But who knows? Maybe in the third season there will be a sympathetic gay character. We can always hope!
*There's also a sympathetic injured soldier who might be gay, but it's never definitively stated and he commits suicide anyway, so that's not much help.
The show actually does an admirable job separating Thomas's evil from his gayness. His depredations aren't motivated by lust: he doesn't want to be Lord Grantham's valet in order to get in Lord Grantham's pants. He wants to be Lord Grantham's valet because it's a high-status, low-work job that will allow him to laze around and lord it over the other servants.
Thus, Thomas and O'Brien scheme to get Bates, the current valet, fired. If their schemes to brand Bates as a thief came to fruition, he would not only lose his current position, but would also find it impossible to find work again. But that's mere collateral damage to Thomas and O'Brien.
They aren't heartless - both show flashes of softness, especially in the second season - but they don't care to use their hearts, and there's a thoughtless, even a careless quality to their evil. They seem to see Bates not so much as a person but as a human-shaped roadblock. They want him out of the job and they don't care if they ruin his life to do it.
It's this inexorable pettiness, I think, that makes Thomas and O'Brien's evil so frightening and infuriating. As long as Bates is in his current position, they'll be his enemies, and as long as they're his enemies, they'll continue their spiteful, underhanded attempts to have him ousted.
This is one of the things I love about Downton Abbey, actually: this refusal to romanticize evil. Evil in Downton isn't grand or tragic. It's rooted in an inability or unwillingness to care about other people; it's petty and spiteful, motivated by money or status or jealousy, but nonetheless devastating in its effects.
And if there were just one sympathetic gay character in Downton Abbey to offset Thomas's loathsomeness, then his portrayal would be very impressive. But as he's the only one - aside from the one-off evil duke, who hardly helps matters* - his evil, despite the fact that it's clearly quite a separate quality from his gayness, carries with it an unpleasant subtext.
But who knows? Maybe in the third season there will be a sympathetic gay character. We can always hope!
*There's also a sympathetic injured soldier who might be gay, but it's never definitively stated and he commits suicide anyway, so that's not much help.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-05-28 11:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-29 12:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-29 11:59 pm (UTC)Loved that way of putting it.
I agree that the evil isn't grand or tragic, just petty. I think maybe they went a little over the top, all the same, in concentrating *all* the pettiness in those two characters. O'Brien gets some development in the second season and the Christmas special, but the development you think you see in Thomas at the beginning of season two, with the soldier, flies out the window, and he's just as scheming at the end of the Christmas special (which I guess you haven't seen? Or have you? Um... spoilers?) as he was at the very beginning. At which point he seems almost comic relief.
Well, let's see what season three brings us!
no subject
Date: 2012-05-30 12:54 pm (UTC)I don't think they concentrated all the evil in Thomas and O'Brien - Mary and Edith both have extremely nasty moments, especially in the first season. However, like O'Brien, this fades significantly during season 2, leaving Thomas the sole standard-bearer for pettiness.
Part of the problem is that Thomas really needs to leave Downton in order to grow - you notice that when he has his moment of growth, with the soldier, he's not at the Abbey but down at the village hospital. He just seems to slip back into his scheming ways when he returns to the house.
But if he leaves Downton, he'd barely be in the show anymore (I'm kind of afraid that we're never going to see Sybil and Branson again now that they've left), and clearly the writers don't want to do that.
They're going to have to get a new footman in season three, right? Maybe he and Thomas will fall in love and...move to Paris. Or something. Thomas could be an artist's model! (Perfect job for him! Nothing to do but sit there and look pretty.)
no subject
Date: 2012-05-30 04:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-30 04:51 pm (UTC)But then the wounded soldier killed himself and all was dark again.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-30 05:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-30 05:41 pm (UTC)