two very different takes on traveling

I watched two very different movies that have travel as a theme, lately, The Darjeeling Limited and Non-Stop. Both were entertaining, engaging, and very, very different from one another.

Always an impressive and imposing film presence, Liam Neeson has taken over the action movie genre in recent years, with his successful Taken franchise, and movies as diverse as The Grey and The Lego Movie. In Non-Stop he plays an alcoholic air marshal with major personal issues, who is targeted on a flight by a potential terrorist who threatens to start killing passengers unless the airline transfers $150 million into an off-shore bank account. The story, if one tries to think too hard about it, is wildly improbable, but the movie is so edge-of-your-seat-fast-paced that you are unlikely to worry about plot holes until the credits have stopped rolling, and by then you've had too much fun to care. Julianne Moore is very appealing as one of the only passengers on the plane who may not think that Neeson has gone completely bonkers, and Michelle Dockery and Lupita Nyong'o play flight attendants.

Moore and Neeson try to determine who is texting all those nasty messages

Sometimes you need to change your surroundings to help get rid of your excess baggage

For a real change of pace I then watched the über laid-back The Darjeeling Limited, Wes Anderson's beautifully shot film about three brothers, Francis (Owen Wilson), Jack (Jason Schwartzman), and Peter Whitman (Adrien Brody), on a spiritual journey across India. The trio haven't spent time together for a year, since their father's funeral, and try to work out their many comminication issues during the trip — with each other as well as their mother (Anjelica Houston). The movie is melancholy, but ultimately hopeful, and although as quirky as other Anderson films, also gives one a more peaceful, wistful feeling. It also features a killer soundtrack, with songs by The Kinks, The Rolling Stones, Joe Dassin, Peter Sarstedt, and Satyajit Ray. If you can't take a trip and travel across India, The Darjeeling Limited is a nice alternative.

downton abbey is a cruel mistress

Everyone who's interested has already watched the season finale of Downton Abbey, in all of its "Who Shot J.R.?" glory. Yes, folks, that was a heckuva cliffhanger. Not so much considering the fate of Matthew Crawley (Dan Stevens), who we (sob) saw dead at the side of the road. The real suspense for next season involves the rest of the Downton crew. How will Lady Mary (Michelle Dockery) handle being a 1920s-era single mom? Will she sink into a deep depression and ignore her newborn son? Will she become a dedicated mom to honor her dead husband? Will she go off the rails and become a flapper with a vengeance? Will she ever be nice to her sister, poor Lady Edith (Laura Carmichael)?

But Mary is hardly the only one who will be affected by Matthew's death. Will Downton revert to his progeny, or is their another far-flung relative to cause problems on the horizon? Only show creator Julian Fellowes knows for sure. What about all of Matthew's modernistic designs for the estate? Will Tom Branson (Allen Leech) and his father-in-law the Earl (Hugh Bonneville) manage to carry on with his plans? That is, without killing each other? There are plenty of other cliffhangers too. Edith is considering surrendering her virtue to a married man. She truly is the most thoroughly modern Crawley. Cousin Rose (Lily James) is on her way to Downton as a ward of sorts, and will certainly keep the Dowager Countess (Maggie Smith) and her aunt, Lady Grantham (Elizabeth McGovern), busy trying to prevent her getting into too much trouble. Good luck with that, ladies.

Hello, and goodbye

Anyone who has internet access had probably heard that Dan Stevens was leaving the show. Even if one assiduously avoids spoilers, there were only a few ways this could be accomplished; by shipping the character off somewhere, re-casting, or killing him off. Suddenly Downton Abbey is treading on Game of Thrones territory, with two major characters gone this season — Lady Sybil (Jessica Brown Findlay) also wanted out at the end of her three-year contract.

What I found most annoying about Matthew's fate, apart from the cheap theatrics of it all, was how it minimized some really nice moments that happened earlier in the episode. Viewers may have been a little bored or confused at first by the Crawleys' trip to Scotland, but the payoff was well worth it. They got to see Molesley (Kevin Doyle) drunk dance, O'Brien possibly secure a new post for herself in India (Siobhan Finneran has also been rumored to be leaving the show), and most importantly, see the Earl realize how good exactly he has it at Downton, as he learned his friend "Shrimpie" (father of Rose, played by Peter Egan) was losing the family manse and going to live out his days in an Indian outpost with a wife (Phoebe Nicholls) he doesn't love who doesn't love him. Back at Downton, the local fair attended by the (mostly) downstairs crowd afforded some both amusing and touching interactions between characters, and continued Thomas's story in an interesting way. Part stalker, part hero, he may have finally found a way to connect to his crush, James (Edward Speleers) — by being his friend. Rob-James Collier was very touching when he asked the young footman if that was a possibility. Thomas has certainly gone from a character you love to hate to one you might not want to admit it, but are starting to love.

Scenes like that are what make Downton Abbey addictive. Matthew's shocking demise may get everyone talking, but what will keep me tuning in next season are the changing times and how they continue to affect the characters, upstairs and down. I will miss Matthew, too. Sigh.

Related articles

• the ladies who power lunch at downton abbey

"poor edith"

Lord Grantham (Hugh Bonneville), "Poor old Edith. We never seem to talk about her." 

Lady Cora (Elizabeth McGovern), "I'm afraid Edith will be the one taking care of us in our old age." 

Lord Grantham, "Oh, what a ghastly prospect!"

Does anyone love Lady Edith Crawley (Laura Carmichael)? Anyone except Sir Anthony Strallan (Robert Bathurst), who after much back-and-forthing finally proposed, only to cave at the absolute worst last minute and leave the poor girl at the altar with the parting words, "Goodbye, my dearest darling, and let God bless you." Hardly reassuring to know that someone cares enough about you enough to jilt you in front of all of your friends and family on what should have been your most special day.

Edith, with beautifully marcelled hair,  and Sir Anthony plan their wedding. I love that they re-use wardrobe on Downton Abbey. Edith has worn the hell out of this lovely green number, which is authentic, as even the rich didn't have the quantity of clothes cramming their closets that we do today.

Continuing my Downton Abbey ruminations from yesterday's post, I wanted to focus on who has become the series' most interesting character in the show's third season — and the one with the most potential to truly reflect the changing times of the 1920s — Edith. Elder sister Lady Mary (Michelle Dockery) has long been the family favorite and youngest Lady Sybil (Jessica Brown Findlay) the prettiest, leaving poor Edith, like many middle children, a little lost and unsure of their position.

It was heartbreaking watching how happy Edith was in this episode, and how everyone else in the family was either not-too-interested or outright opposed to her pending nuptials. More than one character said "Let's just get through this wedding ...," their minds on more important-to-them issues.

Edith, "Something happening in this house is actually about me."

By the end of the episode Edith ranged from pure despair to being resigned to becoming the unloved, luckless spinster. But I don't think that should be her fate. Edith is a spinster, yes, but she is also living at a time when women could start to lead more independent lives and even (gasp) get a job. Downton Abbey may be saved by the end of the episode, and the family and its staff can continue to follow their daily patterns, but Edith has no reason to stay there.

Edith needs to reflect on her mostly enclosed existence and how slight her chances have been to have marriage be her way out of Downton and come up with another plan. Her first love was the rightful heir to Downton, a cousin named Patrick Crawley. But Patrick went down with the Titanic, and Edith never had a chance with him anyway, as her parents intended for first-born Mary to marry him and secure the family manse forever.

Driving Miss Edith

She made a feeble play for the new heir apparent, Matthew Crawley, but again didn't stand a chance, as he and Mary were instantly drawn to one another. She had a brief, mostly innocent fling with a local farmer until his wife put an end to it. An injured veteran claiming to be the deceased Patrick Crawley briefly gave her hope that she might be reunited with her true love (and be able to stick it to her sister by becoming Countess of Downton), but that soon went up in smoke as a false claim. She had a genuine affection for Sir Anthony, but everyone else seemed bound and determined to stand in their way, especially her father, urged on by his mother the Dowager Countess (Maggie Smith).

Edith has displayed more modern tendencies than either of her sisters throughout the series. She is more independent than she or anyone in her family suspects. She was the first to learn how to drive an automobile, taking lessons from the family chauffeur, and she really enjoyed the feeling of freedom and accomplishment that driving gave her. Her short bob and marcelled hair is more au courant than either sister's fashions, and even her wedding gown was more stylish than older, more traditional Mary's.

Although they are both simple in style, Edith's dress has a more attractive sweep, and the neckline seems more modern than Mary's which has an eye to the past

Matthew (Dan Stevens) and Mary are comfortably ensconced at Downton, and the Earl and his wife are already letting the power shift in their direction. Sybil is about to give birth to her first child, and if the previews for Sunday's episode are true, may have to go on the lam to Ireland with her politically-inclined husband, former Downton chauffeur Tom Branson (Allen Leech). Edith has led a sheltered life — part of the reason her romantic prospects have been so scarce. Maybe it's time to leave Downton and find her own way. Her other grandmother, Martha Levinson (Shirley MacLaine), would certainly be supportive of her showing some independence. Why not a trip to America? It's time for Edith to branch out and turn a defeat into a triumph. I'm looking forward to seeing where this season takes her.

noble vs. nobility on downton abbey

Everyone loves Downton Abbey here in America, both the upstairs and downstairs intrigues. The third season currently in full swing, is already as fun and involving as the previous two. For me, one of the more interesting recurring themes of this and past seasons has been the characters' concept of "noble" acts or behavior. Can a modern person really fully connect with the idea of "doing the right thing," especially if that involves giving up something or someone you love or desire?

noble (according to Merriam-Webster)

of high birth or exalted rank : aristocratic

possessing, characterized by, or arising from superiority of mind or character or of ideals or morals : lofty

Resident heartthrob and sometimes infuriatingly priggish Matthew Crawley (Dan Stevens), now married to the lovely and willful Lady Mary (Michelle Dockery), has more than once let his noble intentions/ideas muck up the plot. It's amazing that Lady Mary hasn't hauled off and belted him on numerous occasions — just in the first few episodes of this season — but that's where nobility comes into the picture. Such behavior simply wasn't done by someone of her station, and she's pretty sassy when needs be.

Newlyweds Matthew and Mary love each other, but don't always see eye-to-eye

But is Matthew's nobler-than-thou stance something inherent to his personality, people of his age, or might it be a direct result of his lack of nobility? Both Lord Grantham (Hugh Bonneville) and Mary and just about everyone else in the vicinity see no problem with Matthew using an inheritance from his almost father-in-law to save and sustain their way of life (the Earl's bad investment skills had threatened the loss and sale of the family home). For all of his vociferous objections to taking money on false pretenses (he no longer loved the man's daughter and she conveniently died, paving the way for him to marry his true love Mary), Matthew doesn't seem to consider or care that his inaction would not just put a potentially serious rift between himself and his bride and his family, but he would also be putting a lot of the servants out of work. The family would not only have to seriously downsize their home, but their way of life, which would jeopardize the future of their staff.

Lady Mary and her family, especially her clever and vocal grannie, the Dowager Countess of Grantham (Maggie Smith) are trying desperately to hold onto their way of life, which is quickly disappearing in post-WWI 1920s England. The Countess is the essence of nobility, but her motivations many times stray from the noble in order to benefit herself and her family. She frequently coaches the younger generation on how to preserve the family manse — utilizing any means necessary. She was not above encouraging her son the Earl to force the break-up of middle daughter Lady Edith's (Laura Carmichael) engagement to an inappropriate man (of nobility, yes, but too old), even if it would most certainly result in the breaking of Edith's heart and possible eventual spinsterhood.

Edith made a lovely (almost) bride

The ideas about what constitutes proper behavior isn't exclusive to the upstairs residents of the Abbey. The servants are just as bound, if not more so, by convention and ideas of appropriateness, frequently trying to mirror their noble employers. Head housekeeper Mrs. Hughes (Phyllis Logan) is shocked and deeply touched when Lady Grantham (Elizabeth McGovern) assures her that if she is indeed ill (she had a lump in her breast which turns out to be benign) that she need not worry, the family will take care of her and Downton will always be her home. She is equally amazed that not only has her "secret" somehow worked its way upstairs, but at Lady Grantham's response. Mrs. Hughes and Head Butler Mr. Carson (Jim Carter) not only run a tight ship at Downton Abbey, but they are constantly schooling their charges on proper behavior and how to best focus on the family's needs.

The Dowager Countess has ways of getting what she wants and what she thinks is best for her family

Of course all of this scheming and characters' back-and-forthing about what's "right" and what they want is what makes Downton Abbey such a delicious soap opera, and at times morality play. It is hard to imagine, however, any modern man or woman hesitating for a moment to "take the money," whatever the source, as Matthew has struggled. Or for Lady Edith to feel that she had to listen to her Grannie or even her fiancee's pleas that they weren't well-suited due to his age. They must have had trophy wives in the 1920s, but the Crawley family certainly doesn't want their daughter to become, as the Dowager Countess views it, a "nursemaid" to her aged husband. A modern Mrs. Hughes might keep her diagnosis under wraps until she was sure, but she hopefully wouldn't be beholden to the kindness of her employer regarding her future healthcare and job retention. Maybe it's a good idea to have these "outdated" concepts of noble behavior to ponder. To see how far we've come in many ways, but also to be reminded that it can be useful and instructive to step back and ponder the moral implications of our behavior.

you've come a long way baby?

Vanity Fair has set its sights on television actresses for its May issue, on sale tomorrow. Photos of the cover are leaking all over the internet. The cover's novelty is that next month is a "special TV issue," focusing solely on women, as opposed to the usual film stars featured on the cover. What is most shocking and surprising is how par for the course this cover has turned out to be. Why is it necessary to depict a bunch of actresses, nude except for diamond jewelry, in bed together as a cover? Does that really say, "great actresses?"

L-R: Julianna Margulies, Claire Danes, Sofia Vergara, and Michelle Dockery, bottom right

All you have to do is look at the eyes of the actresses to see that they aren't exactly comfortable with this choice of depiction, either. All of these women play strong characters on their television shows, many of them the lead character. Why can't they be photographed as strong women too, rather than merely objects of desire? Any of these ladies would look just as sexy fully clothed as they do in lingerie or just a silk sheet. Being sexy and beautiful is undoubtedly part of the profession, and something that actresses certainly try to portray and maintain. But to be promoted merely as a sex object, after all the hard work these ladies have put in, seems to be rather short-sighted, and even insulting.

It doesn't get any better on the fold-out photo. Now clad in underwear at an all-girl pajama party, seven more actresses (a little more ethnically diverse, but per usual for Vanity Fair, relegated to the interior of the cover) lounge for the cameras, but the focus is not on any of their abilities on screen, but their breasts. It's impossible to imagine this same cover shoot with television's male stars. Ashton Kutcher, Kiefer Sutherland, Steve Buscemi and Ed O'Neill naked, under one big white silk sheet? The stars of The Big Bang Theory in their underwear? Actually that might be kind of funny, if done with tongue firmly planted in cheek, and they were in Superhero undies. But none of these photos for the May issue were taken with a sense of humor.

Clockwise, L-R: Emily Deschanel, Archie Panjabi, Grace Park, Kerry Washington, Kat Dennings, Emily Vancamp, and Emmy Rossum

Vanity Fair and photographer Norma Jean Roy just don't get how the opposite of empowering this all is. To underline the contrast between a docile babe waiting for our gaze, and the characters they play on TV:

Julianna Margulies, The Good Wife — bouncing back from a scandal involving her husband, she starts fresh as a junior lawyer in her firm

Claire Danes, Homeland — a CIA officer assigned to he counterterrorism unit

Sofia Vergara, Modern Family — gorgeous and funny, but also a strong and loving mother

Michelle Dockery, Downtown Abbey — a strong, independent woman who should by all rights inherit her father's estate, but because of the unfair laws of inheritance of the time is forced instead to make a "successful" marriage

Emily Deschanel, Bones — a forensic anthropologist and crime author

Archie Panjabi, The Good Wife — in-house investigator for the law firm

Grace Park, Hawaii Five-O — police officer and former professional surfer

Kerry Washington, Scandal — a former White House communications director who now manages her own crisis management firm

Kat Dennings, 2 Broke Girls — works as a waitress while dreaming of opening a cupcake shop

Emily VanCamp, Revenge — a woman who lives to avenge her father, wrongful convicted as a terrorist

Emmy Rossum, Shameless — is raising her family, something far beyond the abilities of her deadbeat father

That's an impressive list of strong characters played by accomplished actresses. Too bad this cover negates all of that. Many actresses have nudity clauses written into their film and television contracts, but maybe those contracts don't include magazines. Looking at all of these lovely ladies I couldn't help but think of a recent article that I read in the New York Times Magazine about the actor Peter Dinklage, who is best known for his role as Tyrion Lannister on Game of Thrones. Dinklage, a dwarf, had struggled many years as an actor before he had his break-through in the film The Station Agent, and achieved huge success and recognition on television in Game of Thrones. But no matter how hard it got, he refused to ever take a job as an elf or leprechaun or anything else he considered demeaning.

Hollywood definitely has a double-standard with its actresses. But one wonders what other, more creative, images we may have been graced with if these ladies had banded together, and like Dinklage, had said no. Having nude actresses on its cover has become de riguer for Vanity Fair. Isn't it time for a change?