Thomas and Sarah

Although the time frame covered a number of years and started in 1910, World War I seems to have been skipped altogether and Thomas would have been prime cannon fodder. Although the stories seemed to cover the time during the money making on Wall Street, they skipped the war. The plots seemed to shift Thomas from being just a rogue looking for an opening to get ahead and to America to a man with a really ugly soul, at least as far as Sarah was concerned. Sarah's character seemed always to think things would sort themselves out for the better even on the gloomiest day. The title for the finale was very apt. After doing some research, I think I know whose funeral it was or at least whose funeral I hope it was.In some episodes Ms Collins seemed uncomfortable, as though she'd rather have been doing something else.Perhaps Thomas'attitude was wearing thin. I'm a fan of both Ms Collins and Mr. Alderton and saw them on the stage in London in 1980 when we lived in England.

I could not believe that anyone could reduce themselves to this mediocrity after the success of Upstairs Downstairs. What were the producers thinking of? I only watched it because someone had the bright idea to attach it to the Box set of Upstairs Downstairs. After few episodes I quit. It is the same oxymoron. Sarah and Thomas with their shameless and shady antiques which is so far fetched at times that it comes down as an insult to our intelligence rather than entertainment. I found Sarah's overacting, loud and ear scratching cockney diction quite irritating and Thomas' dishonesty and conniving superficial and borderline ridiculous. I strongly recommend that the fans of Upstairs Downstairs stay away from it not to diminish their uplifting enjoyment of UD. The fact that Thomas and Sarah only lasted a few episodes speaks in volumes.

How could anybody who has ever seen and loved the original Upstairs, Downstairs show not love Thomas & Sarah, the only spin-off series from the former show? In reading some of the other comments, viewers say T&S doesn't have this or didn't have that as opposed to what 'Updown' had. People!, it's not supposed to. If one remembers, the characters Thomas Watkins and Sarah Moffatt were the chauffeur and under-house parlour maid on the original Updown having left at the death of Edward VII, in May 1910. This new show is about them and their adventures, or misadventures, depending on how you look at it. It takes place roughly 1910-1912, but certainly before WW1. In Updown Sarah and many of the other characters always talked about their adventures away from 165 Eaton Place, where they had been, ...for instance James Bellamy had taken Sarah to Paris near the end of series one or earlier when Sarah had first left she had been with a circus for two years. But we never see her and James at Paris, just talking about it. Here in T&S much more is played out. T&S has more location photography that only some Updown episodes had ie the trip to Scotland in the final series. In T&S we get to see the kinds of things Sarah always bragged about to Rose in Updown when they used to share the same bedroom in the first Updown series. The decision to do more adventurous stories and location work is a good extension or extrapolation from the original Updown which was more studio bound, but couldn't help to be with a much larger cast and more subplots. The decision to shoot Updown & T&S on videotape is why these two period pieces are quite viewable today.

Alfred Shaughnessy(1916-2005) is the main producer/writer T&S and in 1990s commentaries on Updown, we learn he had grown up in large wealthy houses and knew about the era just preceding his 1916 birth, the prewar era in which T&S takes place. It seems the only person missing is Shaughnessy's writing partner from Updown, John Hawkesworth. On his own and right after Updown ended in 1975, Hawkesworth produced "The Duchess of Duke Street", with as much attention to period detail as Updown and T&S. When T&S began in 1978 Hawkesworth was about to produce the excellent WW2 series "Danger UXB", so his absence from T&S is understandable. The final episode has a 'Jules & Jim' nature to it joining Thomas and Sarah with a grieving landowner named Richard De Brassey whom Sarah falls for and wants to marry. Others have commented on how this episode ends and what was later to be contemplated with a second series. The finale ends ambiguously with Thomas and De Brassey going into a burning barn. We later see Sarah at a graveside attending the burial of one of them, the name is not on the wooden coffin or is surrounded by a wreath or laurel of flowers. Just my opinion Thomas faked his death in the fire and used the opportunity to flee Sarah, leaving her to marry De Brassey, and go to America as he always wanted to seek his fortune.

We just watched the last episode and we were thoroughly charmed by the series. Each episode stands alone, but it's helpful to have watched Upstairs, Downstairs to have a bit of context. Settings, costumes, staging are all authentic and the scripts are witty and and plots are clever, if sometimes far-fetched. That said, each story is diverting and the relationships between Sarah and Thomas and their casts are well drawn and believable. You really care about the people and their predicaments.

After leaving the Bellamy's, Sarah and Thomas have become equals, they push and pull and the plot lines seem to give each character equal worth. The idea that a woman could choose to simply travel and work and live with a man she's not married to is a surprise for that era. And the idea that a woman of that era not only challenges but succeeds in knocking back polite snobbish society is fun to watch.

These period pieces are enjoyable and interesting, and Pauline and John are exceptional actors who've worked in theatre, TV, movies. They are attractive and adept in building their characters.

If you're tired of screeching car chases, exploding body parts, pathologically abusive relationships that get more graphic with each episode... then you'll enjoy Thomas and Sarah.

Give it a try!

To answer the first comment - They aren't making series like this anymore because they've forgotten how. They did recently try with "Berkeley Square" about a group of governesses/nannies in 1902 London. Even though that series manages to work on its own terms, it doesn't come close to having the kind of heart that "Thomas and Sarah", and its predecessor "Upstairs Downstairs" did.

I've noticed a trend with recent historical programming from Britain. They're now more concerned with making the characters (of whatever era is being depicted) have a more modern EDGE to them. The recent series about Henry VIII is a prime example. Since when did Henry VIII have a cool East-end London accent anyway? They no longer care about accurate costuming and period detail either. Costumes and settings reflect this theme of appearing more modern/relatable to today's viewers - and it all comes off looking like rubbish.

I think one of the most tragic aspects of the kind of historical drivel being churned out by English TV these days is that they've forgotten a key component that made both "Thomas & Sarah" and UD work so well - HUMOUR! Humour is sadly missing from these badly scripted dramas that take themselves so damned seriously. Someone at the BBC needs to re-visit the vaults and see what real historical drama is!!