Classics Revisited: They Really Don't Make Period Dramas Like 'The Jewel In the Crown' Anymore

When considering the basic idea of a period drama, there are a few obvious examples that pretty much everyone cites as the pinnacle of the genre, series which stand as the ultimate ideal of what these sorts of historical stories are supposed to be and do. The original Brideshead Revisited. Upstairs Downstairs.The 1996 Pride and Prejudice with Colin Firth. Downton Abbey, for a slightly more recent example. And The Jewel in the Crown, a sprawling fourteen-hour adaptation of British author Paul Scott's Raj Quartet series of novels.

The story of the final days of British occupation in India, the series begins amid World War II and concludes with independence and the separation of India and Pakistan (known as The Partition) in 1947. Sweeping in both size and scope, it follows the stories of almost a dozen main characters. It wrestles with complex themes of exploration and violence, imperialism and oppression, guilt, nostalgia, and more. It doesn't even introduce the figure who could reasonably be considered its lead until somewhere around episode five, and its primary antagonist somehow gets more screen time than any other character on the show.

The series boasts limited romance — the show's central love story occurs in roughly two episodes — and features a ton of supporting character sidequests that aren't necessarily all that important to the main story it's telling and displays an unusual willingness to let itself be ugly and uncomfortable in ways we don't often see in this genre. What's perhaps most important, however, is that The Jewel in the Crown isn't especially interested in painting the decline of the Raj as a tragedy or looking back on its heyday through rose-colored glasses. The series is remarkably clear about what a disaster British rule has been — both for India and England.