Tuesday, February 26, 2013

On Spoiler Alerts (Spoiler Alert Included)


Important: DO NOT read this entry if you watch Downton Abbey and have not finished season 3. You've been warned!
























If you scrolled down this far, you probably know (or don't care) that another major character was cut out in the finale. I read that the actor had been wanting to leave the show for a while, which is why they had to find a way to get rid of Matthew. And since he's happily married, lives in a gorgeous castle that will one day be his, and has just fathered the Crawley heir, having him run off with a maid or decide to move to America to pursue the stage just wouldn't do.

That's where the biggest plot device of all came in: death. They had to kill him somehow. Murder wouldn't work, since everyone likes Matthew, and neither would suicide, for the reasons mentioned above.

Aha! How about a freak accident. A completely out-of-the-blue, nonsensical accident where - basking in the glow of fatherhood, beatific smile in place - Matthew is driving to Downton to share the good news and ends up driving off the road to avoid colliding with a milk truck going about 10 miles an hour. And he DIES. We know he's DEAD because there's a close-up of his face, eyes wide open, mouth agape.

This is a man who survived a horrible spinal injury in World War II that made him unlikely ever to walk again, let alone father children. And yet he did both. He came through it all to be with Lady Mary... only to die by milk truck.

I mean, I get that they needed to kill him (although I don't know why they couldn't just have him die on the Scottish Highlands, where he and the other men were hunting deer).

My problem is that I knew all through the episode that he was going to die. I didn't read any spoilers or interviews. No one told me. I just knew.

How did I know? Because they practically shoved his happy marriage down our throats during the entire finale. They had not one, but TWO scenes with him and his wife in bed, cooing and saying how much they loved each other. They had a scene after the birth where he promised she'd be his Mary for all eternity. And then his father-in-law - who has been miffed about Matthew's newfangled suggestions to improve the running of the estate - suddenly declares that these ideas are invaluable and that he should have accepted them all along.

Any time stuff like this happens, you know that it's a set-up for a tragedy. It's a writer's manipulation of the reader/viewer - you catch them emotionally, show how important this character is to other characters, and then BAM, when you kill them, people care more because they're invested. But there's a line between doing this subtly (see: death of Sybil) and doing this in a way that's too obvious. It makes the reader/viewer feel cheated at the end because there's a huge build-up... and an anticlimactic conclusion.

See, in real life, that's where the tragedy lies. People often forget to tell loved ones that they love them. They forget to tell them how much they mean and how much they are appreciated. And if they remember, they don't do it over and over and over. Realistically, pre-accident life would have gone on for Matthew without the repeated declarations of love and the assertion of how important he is to everyone. Sometimes these things can - and do - go unsaid. It's understood that loved ones are loved; they don't need to be told again and again because they know it (although it's nice to tell and be told from time to time).

That's why this is so clearly a set-up in books and movies, and that's why it hits you harder in the gut when a character dies unexpectedly (again, see: death of Sybil). Too much reader/viewer preparation is, in itself, the biggest spoiler alert of all.

If you watch the show, what did you think about the ending? If you don't, are there other books or movies in which aggressive foreshadowing ruins a character's death for you?

12 comments:

Neurotic Workaholic said...

I watched the first season and bits and pieces of the second season, but I haven't seen every episode and I haven't watched the third season at all. It's a really good show, and I especially liked the scenes with the servants. Sybil was my favorite of the three sisters, because she went out of her way to help people and wasn't always mooning about how the suitor she loved didn't love her back or whatever. But my thing about shows like Downton Abbey is that they're similar to soaps; they can be very addictive and you find that you miss out on a lot if you miss just one episode. And Matthew's death is also similar to what they do in soaps: the happy couple never stays happy for very long. But admittedly, Downton Abbey is ten times better than a regular daytime soap opera.

Colin Smith said...

Yes, I watched the show, and yes, I had a feeling something bad was going to happen, but I think I convinced myself that they wouldn't kill off Matthew. I mean, it was the Christmas episode, and they'd just gone through a whole bunch of bad stuff. Perhaps an accident that leaves him paralyzed again, or something like that. But dead? That surprised me.

To your point about build up--I agree. Whatever the show, whether Downton or some other series, anyone with a sense of story can see a build-up-to-something-tragic happening a mile away. And it does take the punch out of the tragedy when it happens. You want your audience to be slack jawed in shock, not shaking their heads saying, "I saw that coming."

Nevertheless, I'll be tuning in for season 4. :)

Connie Keller said...

I agree with you. I knew something bad was coming because I felt like I was being bashed over the head with "everything's perfect," which can never be true because stories are built on conflict. During the show, my husband even leaned over and said, "He's going to die."

But that said, I'm still eager for season 4.

Tiana Smith said...

Haha - I haven't seen a single episode (I know, I know, I'm a cave woman), but I've heard good things. This just makes me laugh though, because I see things like this happen all the time in books and movies. Too much build up can definitely backfire.

Tricia J. O'Brien said...

I was soooooooo mad at that ending. It followed too closely behind Sybil and felt like emotional manipulation to me. I think they should have tried to find some other way to remove him from the picture.
Maybe Matthew could get a letter from India that the guy who was supposed to be dead isn't. Matthew decides he needs to go to India to settle his conscience about inheriting the money, but, of course, when the next season opens, he hasn't returned and never will. That would be true to his character and would avoid those two deaths so close on-screen.
That's my two cents, which is close to all I've earned for fiction writing. ;)

Nicole said...

I don't watch the show, but it would definitely be annoying to see it coming.

Dianne K. Salerni said...

I watch The Walking Dead on Sunday nights when it airs and Downton Abbey on Mondays afterwards. So, thanks to the spoilers on Facebook, I knew Matthew was going to die before I saw the show last Monday.

But yeah, that car wreck was lame. I was ticked. Better they should have had him accidentally killed while deer hunting in Scotland. That would have at least made sense.

Donna Hole said...

On the Walking Dead, you never know who is going to be killed next. Always a mystery.

I don't watch this show though, but yes, all that foreshadowing would ruin it for me.

.........dhole

Laura Marcella said...

Titanic. I remember seeing it in theaters when I was 12 and knowing poor Jack was going to die the moment he was so excited about winning the ticket, and then especially when Rose made the ultimate decision to be with him when the ship docked. Ugh!

I haven't seen Downton Abbey yet, but I knew about this death because it was all over the internet for days. People are really mad about this! Do you think it'll effect viewership of season 4?

DL Hammons said...

I'm not into Downtown Abbey, but my wife has been making noise about renting it. I guess I'd better keep my mouth shut then! :)

Daisy Carter said...

I,too, had read that Stevens was leaving the show, and I, too, knew they would have to kill him off. So I figure it was coming. It's hard for me to judge whether the build up was too much because I knew it before it started.

I hadn't really considered the absurdity of how he died until you pointed it out. It would have made SO much more sense if he'd died hunting. AND it would have been so much more tragic - never meeting his son, never having that moment.

Then again, I kinda prefer really, really sad deaths (like Sybil) to everything all wrapped up. Like you said, that's much more realistic.

Julie Dao said...

Workaholic: I know exactly what you mean. It's definitely a soap, but I think it was never more evident to me than this latest season when they were bumping off beloved characters left and right without so much as a how-do-you-do. LOL. I think when we get a lot of unexplained or sudden deaths, or odd marriages, or secret family relationships, then it's definitely too soap-y. Not sure how I'm liking the show as it continues... we'll have to see!

Colin: YES, I thought the exact same thing - that Matthew would be paralyzed again, just as he was well enough to set the estate improvements in motion and father a child. Ironic and sad, but still... he didn't need to die! I'll be tuning in for the fourth season as well.

Connie: That's so funny! I'm glad I wasn't the only person who saw how obvious the death was. It's too bad!

Tiana: AGREED. And don't let this put you off watching the show - it really is terrific. Great acting, great writing.

Tricia: I was SO mad. I totally agree that it followed behind Sybil's death a bit too closely. I love your idea of sending Matthew to India - but then I suppose, with a husband still alive, they wouldn't have been able to write in a new romantic interest for Mary.

Nicole: It totally was!

Dianne: Ha, we watch the same shows! Man, I hate those spoilers online. People are such smartasses :( Sorry it was ruined for you. Agreed that he should have been killed deer hunting in Scotland - much more unexpected.

Donna: That's why I love the Walking Dead. I love being able to be surprised and I love twists and turns.

Laura: Hahahaha!!! I remember that. Oh, Titanic. I was so angry when they killed Jack and he and Rose couldn't be together. I just KNEW it too, when he made her climb onto that piece of wood. I'm still mad that they didn't take turns. Not sure if Matthew's death will affect viewership... it sounds like most people are just irritated but still want to tune in (myself included)!

Don: Yeah, you better not tell Kim!!! LOL!

Daisy: Ugh, I didn't know that he wanted to leave the show! But it was sooo clear what they were going to do to Matthew the entire episode. It was just too... happy. LOL. I agree, the hunting scene would have been ideal, but oh well. I guess Sybil's death was enough heartbreak this season *sniffle*