Thread:Bella327/@comment-45479402-20200413223316

Wonderfully done with the great historic attention to detail - with some exceptions, those being: time (as in the passage of, and changes expected therein), and casting of the children. Actually, this is all inclusive, but I don't think the director was aware that those of us who are PARENTS ARE AWARE of the following: Ok, those were my observations and all because I never saw it from the beginning, but only recently binged watch, one after the other (March 2020). As the family genealogist and historian, I found the historic handling fascinating! I am also hoping that there will be a book of some kind where the quips between Violet and whoever she is speaking to, are published. They are a gem! 
 * 1) It takes 9 months to have a baby. NINE MONTHS. A baby that is born at least 9 months ahead of another, is definitely BIGGER, TALLER, HEAVIER, has a BETTER HEAD OF HAIR, MORE ALERT... etc .. than the child who is at LEAST 9 months younger.
 * 2) The children who played Sybil (born first). George (who was born at least ONE YEAR BEHIND Sybil, and Marigold, who was about 2 years behind Sybil at LEAST), seemed to be pretty much close to the SAME HEIGHT. All 3 of the kids in my family were born close in time, as we were all 13 months apart: Me, Richard, and Tim, and even so, I was a head taller than Richard who was only second in line. Not only did these children appear to be the same height and about the same age as a class in preschool, but THEY DIDN'T CHANGE!!!! From 1923 (was it?) to definitely 1925, they were THE SAME. Even when the new Bates baby was born, they were the SAME AGE as they were shown to be in, what? 1923? Were these little actors/actresses related to someone? Why couldn't you show the passage of time with the age and differences of the children? Especially with Marigold having such long legs, and looked to be taller than Sybil, who was the ELDEST!! This looked so phony! Even the dog grew older when the kids didn't. I mean, I loved these kids, but really... was it something in the water that made them stay so little and young?
 * 3) Is it against "Decency Laws" in the UK to show the big belly of a REAL pregnancy? Because Anna's belly was so slight, and I was only 90 pounds when I first got pregnant, and 115 when I gave birth, but my BELLY looked like I was hiding a basketball under my dress! It reminded me of the 1950s, when someone on television was supposed to be pregnant, but never "showed".
 * 4) Mentioning in the dialog of experiences and time passage made it seem as though the family experienced something that we were not privy to, and it must have happened with lightning speed. Also, it seems that no matter what the dinner occasion was in the beginning, Edith was wearing the same dress (a red "flapper" dress), that only seemed changed in the straps over her shoulders. (I am sorry, but when you have a binge watching, these little things are very obvious because you are seeing them within an hour or two from each other instead of a week apart for each episode). Maggie Smith seemed to be always in Violet (like her name), so was there a "color code" in the costume department? Or did people really stick to the same colors and dress design back then?