Richard Ellis – the Great Pretender
You know, I liked the whole ThomasxRichard love story in the ‘Downton Abbey’ Movie No. 1, I really did. I thought they were sweet together, and Richard was so handsome and charming.
And yet I can’t fail to notice the way he was written by Julian Fellowes as a character. (Blame Fellowes for this, not me. Don’t kill the messenger, please.)
Not only are Chris Webster and Richard Ellis juxtaposed as personifications of the choice that Thomas, as a gay man, has to make (as I pointed out in this meta here: x, and an added comment to it here: x). Namely, the choice between the wild gay life of freedom (Chris Webster) and the closeted and discreet (‘circumspect’) life (Richard Ellis).
And not only is Fellowes explicitly punishing one choice by the narrative (Christ Webster) and rewarding the alternative (Richard Ellis).
So, not only is Fellowes doing all of this…No! He also writes Richard Ellis in a very specific way:
Just look at the the first scene in which Richard actually gets to DO something (apart from standing around and talking about his job), the first real action he takes is: He PRETENDS to be someone he is not!
He pretends to be Sir Harry Barnston on the phone.
Granted, he does so with good intentions. And Fate (aka Julian Fellowes aka the author) smiles on him for doing that. But still: His first real action in this movie is: PRETENDING.
Then Richard Ellis turns up at the police station and pretends to hate gays and be disgusted by them. Which implies that he also pretends to be straight. So, once again…he is specifically written as someone who pretends to be something that he’s not. (Note that I’m not saying this is a bad thing. We are meant to sympathize with him here. And we do. As we should.)
All I’m saying is: Fellowes makes him someone who pretends AGAIN.
Richard Ellis actually points out to the policeman that Thomas works as the Earl of Grantham’s butler and he himself works in the Royal Household. Both these facts are technically correct, but they offer him this absolutely impeccable straight veneer of ‘I’m-clean-as-a-whistle’, which clearly is a bit…erm…shall we say: it’s pretence again. At least, in a certain sense.
He then even proceeds to project his own pretence onto Thomas by claiming that Thomas was only PRETENDING to be gay, that it was all a joke.
Again: I’m not saying this is a bad thing. And it’s absolutely understandable, even heroic under the circumstances. But you have to look at it through the eyes of a writer: Fellowes writes Richard as a guy who pretends to be something and someone that he clearly is not.
Richard Ellis, in Julian Fellowes’ writing, pretends all day long. That’s what he does. And Fellowes rewards this pretending as good and righteous.
Chris Webster (while obviously only appearing on screen for a few minutes) is intentionally not written in this way. He approaches another potentially gay man (Thomas) much more openly and then pays the price for partying at a gay club by going to prison.
Richard on the other hand is rewarded (by Fellowes) for pretending.
What more evidence do you need that Fellowes intentionally writes Richard as a personification of the closeted lifestyle. And Fellowes’ writing actually approves of said ‘circumspect’ way of living.
There’s one sentence that immediately struck me as curious while I was watching the movie: Not only does Richard tell the policeman that it ‘turns’ his ‘stomach’ thinking about gays, which would have been enough to imply, “Hey, officer, I’m absolutely 100 percent straight and normal, you know.”
No, Richard actually takes it even one step further. He says, “I would kill myself if I thought I was one of them.”
In other words, Richard plays “What-if-I-were-gay” here. Fellowes specifically points out to us that Richard says, “if I thought I was one of them”, he let’s Richard literally speculate on who he is or is not, making this a very, very strong case of Richard pretending to be someone that he’s not.
Now, is there a narrative progression to Richard’s pretending throughout the movie? Yes, there is:
Remember the wife that Richard Ellis was originally supposed to have? The wife reveal that Fellowes fortunately let himself be talked out of?
Well, look at this from the structural point of view of a writer:
Richard Ellis first pretends to be Sir Harry on the phone, then pretends to be something he’s not at the police station, then even projects that pretence onto Thomas…and eventually the storyline would have then culminated in us finding out that he even ‘pretended’ to be straight by being married and having a wife.
There’s a clear progression here: from >>>harmless prank-call as Sir Harry pretence>>>to>>>more serious police-station pretence>>>to>>>eventually>>>wife reveal (pretending to be straight and living a closeted life, ie very serious life-style-choice type of pretence).
I’m not saying I would have liked the wife reveal, but it makes sense from a writer’s point of view.
Fellowes neatly planned that character out in a certain way, and there is a clear progression in how Richard’s pretending is revealed more and more to us, the viewers.
Now, from Thomas’ (in-universe) point of view, I have to say that I’m really, really glad Fellowes let himself be talked out of that whole wife reveal as the culminating moment. I’m glad for Thomas. I’m glad for us, the audience. I’m glad for all Barris shippers (of whom I might tentatively be one).
But from the perspective of a writer, we end up with a narrative progression that’s strangely cut off at the last moment. It’s left hanging in the air.
Imagine the whole Lucy Smith story hadn’t culminated in the reveal of her being the daughter of Lady Maud Bagshaw. Imagine there would have been a storyline building up to that reveal through all sorts of hints and clues without the actual follow-through. That’s what it’s like with Richard’s storyline.
Again: I’m not saying I would have liked a wife reveal for Richard Ellis. (I would have hated that, as a matter of fact.) It’s just that structurally in the progression of his pretending it was clearly building up to something along those lines. That’s the way Julian Fellowes wrote it. (Don’t blame me. Blame him.)
I’m not saying any of this to take away from your enjoyment of the ThomasxRichard ship. On the contrary: I liked them a lot together. I might be a die-hard ThomasxJimmy shipper, but there’s room in my heart for both ThomasxEdward and ThomasxRichard. I might even write a few ThomasxRichard fics in the future. So I’m not AT ALL adverse to this ship.
I just think that we have to take a look at the way he was written as a character. We can then obviously feel free to subvert that in any way we like. (Death of the author and all that.) But the analysis comes first. The question of What-was-this-character-supposed-to-represent, even What-was-he-there-for, this question comes first.
And I don’t think Fellowes wrote him as this shining example of an ‘out-and-proud’, confident gay man that a lot of people in the fandom seem to see him as. Fellowes wrote him as THE representation of the closet: a gilded closet if you will, a closet that’s very comfortable to live in, but a closet nonetheless.
That’s the writer’s intention here.
And, as I pointed out before, that’s the reason why Richard, who could have potentially caressed Thomas in any way, shape or form, specifically touches Thomas’ lips in a Shhhhh! gesture. Richard Ellis is all hush-hush.
P.S. Before anyone asks: Yes, I am aware that Richard pretending to be Sir Harry in a prank call has nothing to do with him being gay. I’m not saying it has. Not literally. But subtextually, it has!
Remember: For the purposes of this meta, we’re looking at all of this through the eyes of the author, ie, how and why did or didn’t the author make a certain writing choice.
On a show ripe with idiotic twists and turns (Hello, Fake-Patrick! And don’t even get me started on Matthew’s tingle that helped him get up from his wheelchair again!), Fellowes could have easily pulled some idiotic explanation out of his derrière, according to which Thomas is suddenly really good at imitating voices. He could have had Thomas do the whole prank call on his own or have someone else do it. But Fellowes specifically didn’t write it this way. He specifically gave that part to Richard.
Because subtextually he wanted Richard to pretend to speak with a voice that isn’t Richard’s. He wanted Richard to pretend to be a member of a class and a station in life, and, in some sense, a type of sexuality, that’s absolutely 100 percent above board and respectable. He wanted Richard to pretend.
Richard says, “I’m very good at doing Sir Harry Barnston, I can assure you.” So he pretty much melds and disappears into this other persona at that moment, and need I even tell you that Sir Harry Barnston was historically a Conservative politician?
The character Richard Ellis was written as a pretender, as a man in the closet. This character was not written as a shining example of ‘out-and-proud’ or even anything remotely close to that. Which is also why I doubt the fandom’s favourite headcanon of Richard having tolerant parents in York. (Not because I’m an arsehole; I would love for him to have kind and understanding parents. But, to be honest, I doubt Richard is even ‘out’ to them. That’s not the way he is written by Fellowes.)
He is consistently written as someone who is in the closet, as someone who pretends. And Fellowes tells us (whatever we may think about that) that this is a good thing.
P.P.S. And before anyone asks: This meta is NOT meant as hate. Not Richard hate, not Barris hate. Not in a million years. Maybe it’s Fellowes hate, though.:D
titsay
stormborns
theartofmadeline
kianamaiart
baratheonpilled
snowghoul
