Aristocrats

Super series for anyone interested in the history of the period of enlightenment. Read the book for a better insight.

The Second Duke of Richmond is played by Julian Fellows. The format and the music seem so redolent of Downton Abbey. Anyone else see it as a forerunner of Fellow"s Downton?

I'm surprised Fellows didn't tack a raft of mini series onto The Aristocrats. The Lennox offspring, legitimate and otherwise, weave through much of British and overseas history, which now, sadly, has abruptly ended with Brexit and the demise of an entire nation.

As another reviewer noted, there are so many children that it is very difficult to keep up with who is who, and this problem increases as the series moves on... Also, although every series that purports to show time passing has to deal with making the actors age, in this one, the oldest daughter looks exactly the same after about 20 years!

The costumes and settings are certainly BBC-worthy, although as a Yank I could not tell if they are accurate or not.

The plots are also confusing, but that is party because the English history of that era was pretty complicated, with the factions, and uprisings, etc.

This was fabulous. It gets 9 out of 10. What keeps it out of the 10 category is the fact that two big questions are raised in part 2 that part 3 (the conclusion) fails to answer.

First of all, what happens to the fifth sister, Cecilia? She first appears in part one as the late-in-life child of the second Duke of Richmond and his duchess. Still a baby when they die, she is sent to Ireland with Louisa and Sarah to be reared by Emily and her husband.

In part 2, the reappears as a teenager. When the family learns that Sarah, now married and back in England, is pregnant, she wants to go and help with the new baby. Emily is afraid that she is too weak to travel, having just recovered from an unspecified illness, but she lets her go anyway.

The next time we see her she looks very ill indeed, but nobody pays any attention. Emily has come to England to argue with Caroline about who should be blamed for Sarah's bad situation, with Louisa along to mediate. As they quarrel, Cecilia leaves the room, and we see what they miss: she's coughing up blood. When come into the hall, still shouting, they fail to notice that she has collapsed in a corridor.

So what happened??? That's the last we see or hear of Cecilia? Did she die? If so, didn't the sisters get back together at least for the funeral?

Maybe I need to read the book.

The other question is: since Sarah, at least as played by Jodhi May, seems to have lacked something in the personality department, how did she manage to inflame the passions of so many men?

American here who loves all things BBC and ITV, mostly period dramas. This was fair but there were so many brothers and sisters then husbands and wives and then MORE children, eventually I was so confused about who everyone belonged to. As they aged it was worse. I won't spoil anything but there is one original sister who is so darn miserable and I assume it was the intention that her character have ZERO personality. The character became hard to watch. It IS good but I urge you to pay close attention to the original siblings, there's about 10 and they average about 8 children each with all the drama that goes with them and you'll be lost.

The first episode of this is somewhat similar to a Jane Austen style story, though it is set in the mid-late 1700s rather than early 1800s. After the first episode or two, it becomes generally more serious and more broad. The costumes are very different from Austen films (being set in the preceding era), but they are very beautiful and very accurate to the time period. The dresses are much more glamorous, even though the men look rather sillier in my opinion.

I'm not sure how close this telling matches to the actual history of this family--I'm assuming there are at least some discrepancies--but even thinking it is at least based on real people and real stories makes it much more interesting to watch. To think that this wasn't simply invented by an author (no offense to Austen!) makes me much more tolerant of any lags or disagreeableness in "plot", since it's not supposed to be a contrived one. There are many, many characters, which may be hard for some people to keep track of who's who, and many decades are covered, so time sometimes passes in large chunks.

The film is a drama and deals with some very serious issues, to a greater extent than Austen ever delved into. Much of it is somber, but not really depressing. The movie is less of a source of "entertainment" than Austen films, but it is a great look at another era and the story is intriguing enough to keep you wondering what will happen next. It does not leave you so much with the blissful smile of contentment and happily ever after that an Austen story provides, but I felt like I had gotten to know and feel for the main characters, and learned some things about history in the process. It's a great choice if you're interested in venturing into another time period, rather than the Regency (Austen) or the far more common Victorian (Dickens, etc) eras.

This movie would be especially good for passing a lazy, rainy afternoon, when you'll feel more content with this milder sort of entertainment than what your expectations might be for a Friday night. Just get a cup of tea or cocoa and let yourself drift back to another time and world for a while.