The timeline is from 1903-1930, yet the actors hardly age. They put a little bit of fake gray on Simon Williams but otherwise it comes off more like a stage play where the actors are pretending to be much older. Frankly Mrs. Bridges should have been dead by 1920 along with the butler. I think the series works better if you view it more as a composite of rich English families in that part of London rather than take it literally.
shareThis has been discussed from time to time. It actually was a deliberate decision by the producers not to age the characters (except James going gray at the temples). Hawkesworth referred to it as "peter panning", ageless characters (for the most part).
The producers had no idea at the beginning that the series would end up scanning 30 years. By the end of the series, Hudson and Bridges were supposed to be in their early 70s. Early 70s means Hudson would have been in his mid 20s when becoming butler at 165 Eaton Place. Not impossible, as he was a footman at Southwold previously.
I agree, i think the period it was set over was too long to be realistic, given the characters ages. It would have been better if they had let it proceed more slowly, and ended maybe a decade earlier. Certainly Mrs Bridges and Hudson should have been, if not dead, at least retiring in 1920.
shareI guess if you take the whole thing more as a stage production it works. In stage plays, actors can portray characters are vastly different ages with costume and makeup. I guess the important part of the show is the story and dialogue which is razor sharp at most times.
shareI don't know if it was ever stated how old the characters were meant to be. i mean, i assume mrs Bridges was meant to be a lot younger than angela Baddeley's actual age, she was in her late 60s when Upstairs Downstairs started, which if mrs Bridges was the same age would have made her in her mid 90s by the time it finished in 1930!
shareYes, Baddeley was too old to portray the character into the 1920s, but what were the producers to do? She was one of the most popular characters (if not the most popular) so it would have made no sense to drop her.
As to series canon when it comes to the ages of the characters, there are very few clues. There is a short thread here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066722/board/flat/215746858
That's the problem with having it cover such a long period, even if mrs Bridges was only say fifty at the beginning, she'd still have been in her late 70s by the end of the series, a bit old to still be working I would have thought. that's why i think it would have been better had they not stretched it out over such a long period.
shareI watched this recently post-DA and it seemed like the show raced through the 1920s so that it could end with the stock crash. That provided a great and moving ending. However, taking into account the characters' ages it would have made more sense to slow down timescale and have the final season take place over a couple of years, rather than jumping ahead years at a time and just keeping the characters the same age (at least visually and in terms of how they act). That would have been more realistic in retrospect than have Hudson presumably pushing 80 but looking about 52, and Richard presumably mid-80s but also looking exactly as he did in 1903. Also, Georgina marrying a Duke when she must have been 36 (but looking the same as she did at 18) was a stretch.
It comes down to realism versus a powerful story.
Eh, it's not like UPDOWN is the exception. Recent shows like ROME and THE WHITE QUEEN span a decade, but most of the adult characters look the same.
shareI believe Hudson aged from 47 to 74, Mrs Bridges from 45 to 72.Gordon Jackson was I believe 48 and Angela Baddeley 69 when the series started.
shareLooks-wise, it was totally unrealistic, but I thought that the actors did a good job of "acting older". Georgina evolved significantly, for example, with Lesley Anne Down becoming far less girlish and diffident in manner. An earnest-looking Edward smoking a pipe and listening to the cricket on the wireless in S5. Mrs Bridges occasionally grabbing her back as if it was stiff. James switching from wide-eyed spoilt brat in S1 to irascible middle-aged man with his jaw clenched in S5. Small touches like those helped convince. However, there's no denying the fact that Hudson and Mrs B would have been too old for service in 1929 given that they were middle aged in 1903. The 1920s episodes were fantastic though - if I had to change anything (I wouldn't choose to!) I'd start it a little later (still incorporating Edward VII and the Titanic) rather than end it in 1920.
shareI wouldn’t mind suspending my disbelief about the actor’s ages but I can never keep track of how much time is supposed to be passing. They give the date at the beginning of each episode but I never remember when the last episode was meant to have been. I had the same trouble with Downton Abbey.
shareI think I'd have kept it in the Edwardian era. People in their 70s and older still work and I doubt if Hudson or Mrs. B could have coped with retirement..
shareIn DVD commentaries - as many/most here may know? - actors and writers attributed a lot of the timespan issues to the fact that Alfred Shaughnessy was keen to work in the historical events that he did. I forget the specifics, but when he realized that the King's death was fast approaching per the dates shown in S1, working in the episode in which he comes to dinner resulted in Elizabeth and Lawrence going on their honeymoon a year before they were married. I think they stopped "dating" episodes so clearly in S2?
share