Upstairs Downstairs

I tread lightly when I anticipated this new series of Upstairs Downstairs. I was delighted that it was a continuation and not a remake. When I saw Rose walking down Belgrave Square towards Eaton Place I didn't tear up like I thought I would, but instead I was swept over by a warm tenderness. The great Jean Marsh (co-creator and whom played Rose in the original) was indeed perfect casting. All in all, it was a warm-hearted quality production. I just thought it could and should have been longer. It was like a cherry on top to the original. It completes a set, so to speak. The whole time I was expecting to hear ghostly voices from the past, but maybe that's just me.

If you enjoy Belgravia& Downton Abbey then you will enjoy Upstairs Downstairs.

The 2010-2012 version of "Upstairs, Downstairs" is a revival of the beloved British drama, set in the same iconic house at 165 Eaton Place, but this time during the tumultuous years between the two World Wars. While attempting to capture the charm and essence of the original series, this adaptation introduces new characters and storylines, providing a fresh perspective on the interwoven lives of the upper-class Bellamy family and their dedicated servants. Despite its attempt to recreate the magic of the original, some viewers found the revival lacking the same depth and authenticity. However, the series still manages to offer an engaging portrayal of a bygone era, with its lavish costumes, elegant settings, and compelling performances from the cast. Ultimately, "Upstairs, Downstairs" (2010-2012) serves as a respectable homage to its predecessor, though it may not fully recapture its timeless appeal.

Rose is supposed to be six years older than she was at the end of the seventies series. Well... It isn't easy to make 35 years look like 6. But who cares. After all, Jean Marsh is the clip between the legend and it's sequel.

Those that find fault in this program are either being too critical or stuck in the past. They want the original show, but that shows style was stuck in the TV world of 1974 and would not work today in 2010. The only reason I didn't give the new series a 10/10 was that Season 1 was only three episodes. I think the writers and producers were right to set the story in three settings (Upstairs, Downstairs, & the Events of the World both groups are effected by). I have learned more on England's pre-WW2 history from show than I did from the World @ War series. I won't give away any spoilers, but for those who haven't seen the whole series you will need some Kleenex for a scene involving Sir Hallam in the third episode, which caught me completely off-guard! For those who say 'Downton Abbey' is a better show is missing the point. They are BOTH great shows, but Downton Abbey takes place before WWI, like the original Upstairs /Downstairs series. This was 20 years before the new Upstairs/Downstairs and England after WWI mark the end of Edwardian English society and led to the changes seen in the new U/D series. Finally, I can't believe they are only going to give us 6 episodes for season #2 and not at least nine! Fortunately for those of us who LOVE the new series it has achieved great viewership rating and reviews so hopefully they will expand it in season three.

I was hesitant at first to watch the new Upstairs Downstairs, knowing that it would be impossible to equal the quality production that was the original series. However, with the paucity of decent shows at present (and the fact that Downton Abbey had finished for the time being) I decided to give it a try with as little prejudice as possible, determined not to make comparisons.

Impossible of course. Although this new series is entertaining TV, pretty on the eye, fast moving (not something all that necessary in a show such as this) and relatively well cast, it just is not in the league of its predecessor, or its current "competition" Downton Abbey.

I found it hard to relate to most of the characters, of which there are way too many for comfort. Although the production falls short of using modern language, it certainly has an unsuitable modern way of depicting an era where royalty was revered, where shortcomings were either hidden or not mentioned. Instead we get a "boots and all" depiction of a class of people who would have never related to their servants the way they are shown to do and of servants who would never have behaved the way we are led to believe they might have done. Maybe if all the drama had been stretched out over a long series it would have been believable, instead of being thrown at us will nilly, one thing after the other in each and every episode.

Taken only for entertainment value, this is a watchable soap opera set a century ago - but, as the quality production it is presented as, it falls down on the job.

Oh for Mr Hudson!