The Remains of the Day (1993)

The film is perfect in every way.

Hopkins, Thompson, Fox, Reeve, Grant, Lonsdale, Pigott-Smith, and Vaughan give damn good performances.

I own the lunchbox.

R3 Pic?????

Exquisite

A sigh followed by a groan followed by a mutter. The end.

[quote] Vaughan give damn good performances.

How did Vaughan produce that drop of nasal mucous on cue?

[quote] Screenplay by Ruth Prawer Jhabvala

The one who refused to script the gay 'Maurice'.

The film is that rare brilliant adaptation of a brilliant novel. Both just perfect in every way.

Sadly, I've never found any of Ishiguros' other books to live up to this one.

[quote] Ishiguros' other books

Are they about gays and English servants?

R9 Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go is supposed to be good, I never read it though.

[quote] Never Let Me Go

A kids' movie.

Emma Thompson and Anthony Hopkins were outstanding. She was in another excellent movie that year, In the Name of the Father with Daniel Day Lewis. He was remarkable in it.

Meryl Streep had a falling out with Mike Nichols over this project. She "expected" that she would play the female lead. Only to be told it was given to Emma Thompson.

Streep and Nichols didn't speak for a while, as Streep was beyond pissed

She was so angry that she fired her agency and management, and signed up with a new team to get her career back on track,

Being turned down for roles is NOT in Meryl's DNA

Emma Thompson's obnoxious behavior off-screen and her tactless gabby mouth has completely tainted my honest perception of movies that I previously liked.

[quote] Being turned down for roles is NOT in Meryl's DNA

That machinating woman has been turned down by the best.

Amazing soundtrack

I didn't see the lovely Ben in this movie.

Did I nod off?

Great movie

A small, inconsequential movie with two protagonists and four scene changes.

'Howards End' was much better value with more protagonists, drama and delightful things happening on screen.

R18 He was the young butler who wanted to get married to a young Lena Headey.

R14 There are not many American actresses in Merchant Ivory films and Meryl is not good enough. Lee Remick, Glenn Close, Anjelica Huston, Jessica Tandy, and Joanne Woodward are.

R20 This movie is not small.

R21 The budget was a tiny $15 mill.

I want to see The Remains of the Gay, the homocentric remake

Was this Christopher Reeves final film before his accident? Very sad, because he was finally given a great role to play.

For R4.

Years later, Nichols offered Streep "Wit," but she turned it down, having just played a woman with cancer in "One True Thing," so Emma got to adapt and star in "Wit" too.

R11 Never let me Go is brilliant, it was my first Ish novel. "The artist in the Floating World" is also brilliant. I love his books.

R20, your comparison of these two equally excellent movies is pointless. Your silly condescension of "Remains of the Day" as inferior to "Howards End" shows that you have no comprehension of what "Remains of the Day" was about. "Howards End" gave "much better value"? What a laughable thing to say--like a movie is some kind of product.

What about A Pale View of Hills? I could not make head or tail of that one. I got only halfway through it.

Hmm R29, was that the "ghost" story The woman whose daughter commits suicide? Yeah, that was a different one, it's definitely not like his others, I wouldn't reccomend that, I only read it because I read all his books. I'm currently on "The Buried Giant" which is also unlike his other books. I would sat "Artist in the Floating World" should be a second read book. And of course "Remains of the Day" should be read too. I've read it many times, I only saw the movie once. I was thinking about watching it recently.

No, that was the one where an unnamed (I think?) person arrives in an unknown destination and is met by a group who take him to be someone else (or *are* they really wrong?) and treat him like some kind of dignitary. I believe he has to give a speech but he doesn't know why or on what subject, and things just get more and more surreal and unnerving (there's an undercurrent of threat throughout), yet somehow boring.

I'm sorry, I was totally wrong. The title I was thinking of was The Unconsoled!

P.S. and the main character did indeed have a name. He was Ryder, a concert pianist. I got a lot of details wrong, unsurprisingly.

Oh The Unconsoled is the only one I haven't read! Now I want to. Okay, thanks.

What does Ben whisper at 1.40?

He was telling him that his father needed him R35, remember his dad passed out.

R24 Yes, this was Christopher Reeve's last performance before his tragic accident. This film was also his best performance

R37 I thought Christopher Reeve was miscast. The other people could act.

Reeve was excellently cast.

This film had a very odd effect on me. While watching it, I enjoyed it but found myself getting a bit bored at times.

After it finished, I walked to my car, got in, and burst into tears.

The Remains of the Day really rattled me in ways I wasn't aware of while I was watching it.

It spoke to a deep sadness I was feeling from being in love with someone a decade earlier and neither of us having the nerve to say anything.

R40 I know what you mean. That movie is one slow burn.

*I've seen it twice*

“What is the point of worrying oneself too much about what one could or could not have done to control the course one's life took? Surely it is enough that the likes of you and I at least try to make our small contribution count for something true and worthy. And if some of us are prepared to sacrifice much in life in order to pursue such aspirations, surely that in itself, whatever the outcome, cause for pride and contentment.”

I could not finish Ishiguro's KLARA AND THE SUN, which I think is his latest book. Chilling yet also preposterous. and annoying.

Oh I loved it too R44! It gives off the same vibes as Remains, doomed robot is as sad as unrequited love butler.

“He chose a certain path in life, it proved to be a misguided one, but there, he chose it, he can say that at least. As for myself, I cannot even claim that. You see, I trusted. I trusted in his lordship's wisdom. All those years I served him, I trusted I was doing something worthwhile. I can't even say I made my own mistakes. Really - one has to ask oneself - what dignity is there in that?”

Except I didn't love it, r45. Perhaps you read my post with the same carelessness you read the book?

No, I meant I loved it too, as I love all his works, sorry. I can see that how I wrote that is confusing. You should finish it, you're already in it.

No need to be a cunt, R47. Do you need a Midol?

R14 tell the story right. Meryl and Jeremy Irons were both courted for the leads by Mike Nichols when he was set to Direct/Produce. He eventually decided neither of them was the right fit for the movie but did not tell Streep, who was by this point a friend (they'd collaborated on Silkwood, Heartburn & Postcards From The Edge). That's why she was so pissed.

She fired her agent because they didn't have the balls to tell her the project was off. She was not replaced by Thompson, she was cast when Nichols dropped out and a new Director was brought in.

Poor Streep went on to star in epic turkey "The House Of The Spirits" instead, where Glenn played her sister!

[quote] She was not replaced by Thompson, she was cast when Nichols dropped out and a new Director was brought in.

No one is saying that Meryl was replaced by Thompson

Mike Nichols was still an Executive Producer and Meryl had expected to be the female lead. Instead she finds out that Thompson was cast instead, and nobody, not even her BFF Mike Nichols told her.

That is why she was so pissed an Nichols, him of all people should have told her they are moving in a new direction

The movie would suck if Meryl was in it. Thompson and Hopkins were perfect together.

Thompson was perfect for that role. As was Hopkins.

I'm glad the other version never saw the light of day.

Me, too.

Emma Thompson had no chemistry with Hopkins, who was perfect in the role

I'm gonna get crushed for this, and I loved the movie, but I thought Hopkins could have offered a little more affect for Thompson to work with to justify her hope, and still stay true to the painfully proper, emotionally remote character. Just a quibble.

[quote]Emma Thompson had no chemistry with Hopkins

I disagree. She was very playful with him. Probably the only person in his entire life who had been.

Never Let Me Go is a wonderful book, though didn't necessarily translate well to film. Klara & The Sun was good, but sort of a pale imitation of NLMG.

Remains of the Day is a wonderful movie, though I remember watching it, thinking "fucks sake, just say something nice to the woman! One word from you would do it!" But as an elder person, I have a better understanding of how you don't necessarily appreciate or understand "big moments" in your life & let them pass you by. One of my favorite scenes is when the maid tries to stand up for the jewish immigrants, only to eventually back down. And she confesses that she hates herself for doing it, but it's a scary world out there & she doesn't have the resources & will to stand on her convictions. How true is that of so many people? Lord Darlington is not necessarily a bad guy, just entitled & oblivious. A really wonderful work all the way around.

Completely disagree, R55.

[quote]I disagree. She was very playful with him. Probably the only person in his entire life who had been.

They're both rather hammy, but only those two could make an extended argument over "who moved the china man?" sound like foreplay

"They're both rather hammy"

No, R60, they decidedly were not.

[quote]And she confesses that she hates herself for doing it, but it's a scary world out there & she doesn't have the resources & will to stand on her convictions. How true is that of so many people?

Very true. I believe she called herself a coward. Gutting scene.

“For a great many people, the evening is the most enjoyable part of the day. Perhaps, then, there is something to his advice that I should cease looking back so much, that I should adopt a more positive outlook and try to make the best of what remains of my day. After all, what can we ever gain in forever looking back and blaming ourselves if our lives have not turned out quite as we might have wished?”

I thought Thompson and Hopkins had off the charts chemistry, both in this and in Howards End. That scene in which she caught him with the book and he stood gazing at her!

Exactly, R64.

I read the book years ago. And I could never quite grasp why they were both so repressed and unwilling to make a move. I mean it's not like either of them took a vow of celibacy or that there was any social taboo against them dating ( they were both of the same class)

This is funny, my memory must be going. I was 100 percent sure that Kristin Scott Thomas played opposite Hopkins in this film.

[quote]And I could never quite grasp why they were both so repressed and unwilling to make a move.

I did not find this difficult to understand. As the child of emotionally withholding parents, I was in several situations when I was young where I wanted to let someone who had shown an interest in me know that I had feelings for them, too. But I just froze up and couldn't say anything. I didn't even understand why at the time. Those situations have always haunted me.

And that was, no doubt, why this film shook me up.

[quote]I read the book years ago. And I could never quite grasp why they were both so repressed and unwilling to make a move.

Probably a combination of fear (what if he/she rejects me & I'm forever humiliated in front of this person I see *every* day) and feelings of being unlovable. Another of my favorite scenes is when the young maid quits (a very young Lena Headey) and the Emma Thompson character is baffled & impressed by her complete lack of fear for their dubious future. It's as if if the idea of chucking it all aside for love never even occurred to her.

I had the same reaction to the movie as R40. It really stayed with me. Along those same lines, the 1995 version of Persuasion had the same effect.

I agree Remains of the Day, the book as well as movie, were perfect.

Emma Thompson is the only actress who can honestly hold her own with Anthony Hopkins. Hopkins usually steals the scene, but he is hard to see, even when standing in the middle of an empty room.

This movie is very suitable movie to watch before dying.

Outstanding movie. Movie might even be better than the book, like "Gone with the Wind".

One needs to watch this movie twice in one night to appreciate it.

I just purchased the movie from Amazon and am having my mom re-read it on my kindle again so we can watch and talk about it. My mom reads fast, she's 70 percent through it and i just told her this morning so it's a good quick read if anyone hasn't read it and is thinking about it.

Is the text in the book as sparse as the dialogue in the movie?

I don't think so R76, there's a lot of flashbacks with talking. There are some rambling Thoreau-ish descriptions of the countryside and stuff though.

I always liked James Fox's performance in this.

Yes, R78, James Fox can always be counted upon. He is always upper class and well put together.

Always well groomed, ironed, buttoned down, and a quintessential old school Englishman.

R79 are you mimicking me?

R78, me too

James Fox was pretty in the 1960s.

But if you look at his televised interviews you will see that he is a mere shell of a man. He's sometimes incapable of forming a sentence.

R82 interview links?

I seem to remember he got really into LSD and Christianity, or was that Edward? I can't keep them straight.

[quote]“What is the point of worrying oneself too much about what one could or could not have done to control the course one's life took? Surely it is enough that the likes of you and I at least try to make our small contribution count for something true and worthy. And if some of us are prepared to sacrifice much in life in order to pursue such aspirations, surely that in itself, whatever the outcome, cause for pride and contentment.”

There is something profoundly English about this passage. The Anthony Hopkins character is horrifying and sad.

James was an evangelical Christian and temporarily retired from acting because of it.

The person with Hopkins is the one who had to ben taken away from the dinner table with the unhygienic drippy nose (alluded to at R7).

I watched it a few months ago and I couldn't figure out if he was suppressing his personality or if he never developed one to begin with.

[quote] [R82] interview links?

Go to Google.

He was so uptight he was up his own arse r88. The Emma Thomson character had a good go at shaking him out of it though. Watched this film many times and get something more from it every time. It’s become essential Christmas viewing, along with Gossford Park. Just need a servant or two to keep the glasses topped up. . . I live in a community which still has the Laird up in the big hoose and he still maintains remnants of the house party, hunting shooting, fishing lifestyle. Much pared back though with contractors and temporary staff brought in as required.

Getting drunk while watching Gosford Park sounds like a great Christmas tradition. I might have to steal it.

Wonderful film. I especially liked the vibrant cinematography and sharp, bright contrasts of the 1930s scenes compared with the washed-out palette of the 1950s.

I guess they were tilting at Hollywood and the Peoria audience with those scenes in which, ludicrously, the smart young American Congressman is the only one who can see the danger of Hitler coming - since there was even less appetite for war in the US than in the UK at that time.

James Fox is great as amiable, charming old fool Lord Darlington - apparently in the book, which I haven't read, he is much nastier and has more pronounced fascist tendencies himself.

A friend of mine was actually one of the riders in the hunting scene too - "A sport his lordship neither enjoyed, nor approved of".

R92 James Fox is incapable of being nasty.

The book is the classic example of "untrustworthy narrator" as in "To Kill a Mockingbird."

I watched it last night because of this thread.

It was excellent. Well written and acted. Thompson's acting in the "I am a coward" scene was amazing. When Hopkins tells her how important she is to "the house," the flicker of recognition of what he is really trying to say is wonderful.

The scene at the end where they are saying goodbye broke my heart.

R92 Fox was nasty in this, but he was sophisticated nasty. It is all there, but Fox covered it up well. Men in his time would never outright exclaim their true views to lessers.

I adore Ishiguro. I cherish each of his books, though I do consider "Klara and the Sun" a step below his other work. I find myself thinking of his books often. They creep up on you and stay with you.

"The Artist of the Floating World" and "The Remains of the Day" are great companion reads, as they both explore similar themes—one from an English POV, one from a Japanese POV.

r95, I believe the expression you're looking for is UNRELIABLE NARRATOR.

I loved how the film showed how the servants were just treated like children/furniture:

How Stevens is holding out the drink at the hunt and he is ignored until the rider is damn well ready to stop talking and reach for it.

How Stevens' father has just died and Cardinal is nattering on about fish and thinking he is being dreadfully amusing.

How Stevens is repeatedly mocked by the obnoxious know-it-all asking him policy questions just to humiliate him for sport. Q.E.D.

[quote] How Stevens is repeatedly mocked by the obnoxious know-it-all asking him policy questions just to humiliate him for sport.

Oh god I forgot about that scene, it was so vile. I hated Fox's character for allowing that abuse, and for being a Nazi lover of course.

[quote] I hated Fox's character for allowing that abuse

That's when you realize that the lord of the house only pretended to give a shit about Stevens.

So uncomfortable to watch.

R95 Yes, all Ishiguro's narrators are unreliable and we need to read to suss out what the truth is.

“One is not struck by the truth until prompted quite accidentally by some external event.”

I wanted to shit in the mouth of the dickhead who humiliated Stevens

"When domestic servants are treated as human beings it is not worth while to keep them" - Shaw

The part where he ate her brains while sipping chianti was unexpected.

[quote]How Stevens is repeatedly mocked by the obnoxious know-it-all asking him policy questions just to humiliate him for sport. Q.E.D.

I didn't really think it was so much for sport as to prove the point that that common man knows nothing and therefore the important decisions should be left up to the landed gentry types, like him, not even considering that as a servant, Stevens will never express any opinion and certainly one that conflicts his master. I thought that scene hit home how unworthy Darlington was of Steven's devotion and just what a boorish old fool he was. The Emma Thompson character might be too scared to act, but at least she saw Darlington for what he really was

That was my impression too, r108. I thought Stevens was playing dumb so he wouldn't seem impolite. I think he could have answered those questions if he wanted. I also don't think he was humiliated, even if that guy was being a despicable cunt.

I agree R108 R109 it was a very I comfortable scene which Hopkins just handled beautifully. He would have been a worthy Oscar winner that year too. If Shadowlands had come out in a separate year he would have justly been nominated for that too. Remarkable talent

All good things

All good things come to a end.

The American version-

Stevens- Robert De Niro

Miss Kenton- Meryl Streep

Lord Darlington- Kevin Kline

Congressman Lewis- Bill Murray

Reginald- Keanu Reeves

Father - Charles Durning

DuPont- James Earl Jones

R115 Who is 'DuPont'?

[quote] The American version-

Yes, R113, you need to recast this film with actors from your homeland.

BTW, I agree with the two people who differed with me on the humiliation scene. Your take is better.

Although I don't know if I believe that the butler could have answered those questions.

His employer's inaction was disgusting either way.

Oh I just saw the scene where Stevens has to pretend he didn't know the nazi sympathizer that once owned Darlington hall. That must have killed him to lie.

There is a point where Darlington tries to dismiss Stevens after the second question he fails to answer, but the condescending twat keeps him back for a third, and Darlington accedes to his guest. I took it that Darlington was a little uncomfortable at the scene but ultimately not enough to stand in the way of what he thought he ought to do as host.

Ultimately it's a fascist scene - the guest is arguing against the principles of democracy, and Darlington, despite his unease, is going along with it.

What's also interesting is that the one character who properly stands up to these landed gentlemen with their nazi sympathies is Mr Benn, Miss Kenton's eventual husband: but their life together is portrayed as a disaster and we are given to believe that Miss Kenton would have gotten along much better if she had stayed in service to the landed nobility at Darlington Hall like Stephens did, rather than strike out on her own with a husband trying to make something of himself.

[quote]we are given to believe that Miss Kenton would have gotten along much better if she had stayed in service to the landed nobility at Darlington Hall like Stephens did, rather than strike out on her own with a husband trying to make something of himself.

But the thing is that we learn that he never made anything of himself. He never had the boarding house. He is portrayed as a failure.

And Miss Kenton only wound up with him, not because of his ambition or love, but because you had given up on Stevens ever asking her to be with him instead.

If it hadn't been for Miss Kenton's daughter being pregnant, would she have returned to work with Stevens?

R121 Yes indeed, That's why ultimately, though I love it, I think it's politically a conservative film: full of nostalgia for the Old hierarchical England where gentlemen where gentlemen and the lower orders knew their places. I did get into a very interesting discussion about this on another forum though with someone who believed very strongly it was gently subversive. The 1950s scene where Stevens is confronted by the doctor "Did you agree with his opinions?" is key.

R122 I think so, that's intended to be the last tragic piece of the story.

What gets me is when Darlington realizes what he has done and is completely out of it. That one scene where Stevens enters his bedroom and Darlington is distraught and haunted by his actions. There are no spoken words.

Anthony Hopkins and James Fox give so much in such a small and silent scene.

Have to disagree respectfully with r123. I think the whole point of the book and film is that this Edwardian world of old gentlemen - the codes and morality and privilege - are precisely what led certain members of that class to turn a blind eye (or at least be way too tolerant of) fascism. Stevens is implicated in this too, because he remains blissfully in the dark about what his "master" is up to appeasing the Nazis. Even when the Hugh Grant character begs him to see otherwise, Stevens remains blind in the belief Darlington is acting as a gentleman. So I think it's a pretty damning portrait of old English "values".

So the book/ film is about a life in servitude?

Thank you all for noting The Unreliable Narrator. I'd never known it as a plot device.

The Unreliable Narrator

[quote]Ishiguro, who favors the first-person viewpoint, is master of the unreliable narrator. Not showboats like notorious con artists Humbert Humbert or Holden Caulfield, who willfully bend facts to their advantage, but law-abiding, everyday people who remain loyal to an ideal even after they realize that the ideal is corrupt. They are unreliable not because they are lying to the reader, but because they are lying to themselves.

[quote]These narrators find comfort and purpose in being a dutiful cog, ignoring the pernicious intent of the machine they serve. It’s only when their world changes — their side loses the war, a daughter kills herself, a new employer craves banter — that they are forced to consider past mistakes. They blink and look away.

Kazuo Ishiguro's Desert Island Disc

Anthony Hopkins Desert Island Disc

James Fox on Desert Island Discs

Desert Island Discs hosts Emma Thompson

James Ivory DID

American actor Christopher Reeve

Sue Lawley's DID guest is Hugh Grant

Ruth Prawer Jhabvala

Ismail Merchant

R127 Yes, it's Ishiguro's biggest plot device and you're always meant to try and decipher what's real. Read "The Artist in the Floating World" next, as someone said it's the flip side of this, a Japanese artist whose work is used for war propaganda and the aftermath of the war on Japan. It's pretty heartbreaking too.

Thank you, R137. I'm going to move that to the top of the Ishiguro reading list.

Though I may first read "The Remains of the Day" again, based on this thread.

It's been interesting to read the varying interpretations. You move from "Yes, that's how I interpreted it" to "Oh wow, yes, I never thought of that."

Brilliant book. Brilliant movie.

Can anyone please explain why Stevens was an unreliable narrator?

He wasn't what I'd call a classic unreliable narrator, who's hiding essential context from the reader or putting forth an illusion, but he relates events and conditions that he didn't understand himself, creating a misleading picture.

Maybe that's "classic unreliable narrator" to some, and I'd like to give some counterexamples of what I consider that to be, but I also think that telling someone who hasn't read a book that the narrator is unreliable is a big spoiler. A lot of the pleasure in reading such a book is the slow dawning that there's someone else behind what the narrator is telling you.

Yes its not intentional R139, his narration is clouded by the loyalty he has for Lord Darlington so he may underestimate how important things are.

Excuse me, I meant "something else," not "someone else."

All first person narrators are unreliable, though to varying degrees. As others have stated, it's the mode that Ishiguro works in, and brilliantly so. I believe the only novel of his that isn't written in the first person is the sly, beautiful, elegiac "The Buried Giant."

I'm reading that now R143! I am about 70 percent through and really dragging on it, I need to just dig in and finish. Yes, it's not written like his usual fare so it's taking me awhile because I put it down for months at a time. But now I want to re-read "The Artist in the Floating World" so I may do that first.

I wasn't completely into as I was reading it, R144, especially compared to some of his other works. After I finished it, however, I found myself thinking about it at random moments for months afterwards. It kept coming back to "haunt" me. On my second read, I fell in love with it.

R145 Did you read "Klara and the Sun"? I loved that too but only read it once so far.

Someone else already said it, R139, but all first person narrators are unreliable in the way all humans are unreliable because out perspectives are unavoidably subjective.

Stevens in the book is also unreliable because he's emotionally repressed - he has blind spots and incorrect beliefs etc. that he himself doesn't see and therefore cannot inform the reader of their existence.

Someone earlier in this thread posted various passages from the book, which I assumed were posted for that purpose: to show how unreliable a narrator Stevens was. But now that I recall I think they were posted without commentary so it's possible someone was just posting them 'straight' - i.e. as examples of correct beliefs or thinking?

[quote]I think it's politically a conservative film: full of nostalgia for the Old hierarchical England where gentlemen where gentlemen and the lower orders knew their places

Can you go into this, R123? When I saw the movie I thought it was obviously a critique of that whole world.

R64 that's so odd - I remember that scene! Hopkins' face just melted - he turned into a timid, hopelessly amorous little boy just with the look in his eyes. An extraordinary accomplishment. I loved both Howards End and Remains of the Day. I loved the book Never Let Me Go - just heart-breaking - but hated the movie.

I've never read ishiguro but I've always liked him.

Met him once when he accompanied his friend to a meeting, unannounced. Colleagues said I behaved like they would on meeting their football heroes

[quote] he accompanied his friend

A homosexual?

[quote]I loved the book Never Let Me Go - just heart-breaking - but hated the movie.

Agreed that the movie wasn't good, though I can't quite explain why when it was such a beautiful story. I guess it's because the British class system & the people who wanted to pacify Hitler is an easier concept to create a watchable 2 hr movie around as opposed to individuals (or clones) raised solely for the purpose of harvesting body parts/i.e. what is it about us that makes us humans. Maybe NLMG would've done better in an HBO-limited series type format, offering more time to lay out a subtle, but complex story.

[quote]Maybe NLMG would've done better in an HBO-limited series type format, offering more time to lay out a subtle, but complex story.

Well, we will see because it's currently being made into a limited series by FX, with Tracey Ullman and Kelly Macdonald attached to star.

Kelly Macdonald is like the reincarnation of the late Kay Walsh.

R148 Well, I'm basing a lot of it on Miss Kenton and her eventual husband, Mr Benn.

Mr Benn is the opposite of Stevens. Firstly, he doesn't take the 'Master knows best' attitude. He condemns 'Sir Geoffrey and his Blackshirts' and eventually leaves his employment, believing in his own right to stand up for himself and speak his beliefs 'If I don't like something, I want to be in a position to stay "Stuff it!"'. There is if I remember correctly a key scene between Benn and Stevens in which Stevens tells Benn that his greatest satisfaction is of being good service to his employer, which Benn demurs at. Later, Benn and Kenton agree that Stevens is wrong to say 'Look after the house and the rest will look after itself' (my quotes won't be precise here). Secondly, Benn actually has the balls to ask Kenton to marry him. Thirdly, he wants to become a self-made man and set up a boarding house together with her. What happens? The boarding house is a disaster, their marriage collapses, and Benn is reduced to crawling to Sally (Kenton) begging her to agree to go together to visit their daughter with him. We are left with the strong implication that she ends up staying with him because she has nothing else she can do. She acknowledges at the end that she has made 'a terrible waste of her life' by deciding to leave Darlington Hall and marry him. Why did the small business plan and the being master of your own life dream collapse for them? We are meant to feel that, but for the tragedy of circumstance and her daughter's pregnancy at the end, she would have been better off back in employment and serving the upper-classes with Stevens, but it's too late to turn the clock back.

Secondly more for cinematographic reasons. Consider the bright, sharp colours, the activity and energy, the thriving house and the handsome young servants (Chaplin, Headley, etc), even funny Mr Cardinal in the 1930s scenes. The montage that follows Stevens' claim that 'in England, order and tradition still prevail'. Now contrast that with the 1950s scenes. Darlington Hall has been saved and has a new master, Mr Lewis. Yet the colour palette is washed-out and depressing, it all seems darker and dingier, there are endless scenes of the house covered in dust protectors looking well past its best, the magic isn't coming back. Mr Lewis is a decent chap but he's a rich, somewhat vulgar American, haute bourgeoisie/nouveau riche rather than aristocracy, he has different values ('the professionals'), and he'll never seem in his right place in the house like Lord Darlington did. Stevens' new housekeeper (a matron at a boys' preparatory school) sounds smart and competent but she'll never replace Miss Kenton. The war cost England too much and it will never recapture its former glory. The pigeon which flies away at the end symbolises a lost love but also the glory of a lost era.

I do think R125 is right to note that the film points up the flaws of the old English values of decency, honesty etc and how they led 'gullible' Lord Darlington to be taken in by the Nazis (again in contrast to the book where I'm told he is portrayed as much more enthusiastically a Nazi himself) but nevertheless that doesn't preclude the film essentially being a work of nostalgia, longing for a world which it nonetheless recognises could not survive modernity, but which will always be a lot better than that which replaced it.

Yawn

Wow, R156, I want to go see movies with you and go for coffee afterwards.

Thanks for the insights.

(Though I often wonder about scenes such as with the pigeon - did James Ivory story board that, or did a pigeon just randomly happen to fly through the shot? I wonder how often I'm seeing "things" that aren't really meaningful. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Though now that I think of it, it's James Ivory, so he probably had a point.)

No problem! The pigeon is much more important. Lewis and Stevens capture it in the final scene, then Stevens throws it outside and as it flies away we see Darlington Hall diminishing in the distance, almost as if the camera has been mounted on the pigeon - a reversal of the first establishing shot in which the camera approaches the hall.

[quote]The boarding house is a disaster, their marriage collapses, and Benn is reduced to crawling to Sally (Kenton) begging her to agree to go together to visit their daughter with him.

This is an interesting point; in Hollywood terms, the (attempted) self-made man (a man of post-war Britain) should be the hero of this story. Instead, ee ends up as kind of a pathetic loser. And his wife is sorry she ever left service. So for as much as this story is an indictment of "the old way (Darlington)", it doesn't seem to think too much of the "new way" either

Here's where I would slightly differ: just because Mr. Benn and Miss. Kenton end up in a failed marriage does not therefore imply that staying with Stevens/old world would have been better. I think the film has a profoundly bleak outlook - the whole world of Stevens and Darlington was a moral failure and ends in ruin. But the life of commoners in postwar Britain was no joy either - remember that the modern day scenes of Miss Kenton and Mr. Benn are essentially contemporaneous with the emerging John Osborne/British kitchen sink drama era. And let's of course not forget that Miss Kenton chooses Mr. Benn because he is decisive in his desire for her - not because she was so madly in love with him. But that he had acted where Mr. Stevens could not because of his repression. By the time her loveless marriage has fallen apart, she is ready to go back into service, longing for those days of yore, and yes perhaps the comfort/nostalgia of this vanishing upper class world. But it's too late - her daughter is pregnant and she decides she needs to stay in the unhappy life she chose. But, again, I don't think the film is suggesting at all that she should have - or would have been happier - if she'd stayed at Darlington Hall. At least she has a family, a daughter, and grandchild on the way. Whereas Stevens is left, in the end, with absolutely nothing.

Well, the tone of the movie has to be one of "failure."

Whichever "side" you're on, Britain was a poor, broke country at the end of WW2. The movie portrayed it as such. There was a link drawn between people who *prolonged* the inevitable conflict by collaborating with the Nazis.

Churchill was correct. If we had bombed Germany after its invasion of the Rhineland in 1936, they would not have had to strength to conquer all of Europe. So the movie was more a condemnation of people who believe in false ideals. Mr Stevens believing in service at any cost, and Lord Darlington believing in the Nazis.

The pigeon to me was more a sign of hope. The end of the movie was extremely depressing. I was glad to escape the house on the "wings of a pigeon" as it were, to get away from that atmosphere of death and loss.

The pigeon is a common, city bird that falls down the chimney of that elegant old mansion.

Yet at least it has wings to fly away from that crumbling ruin. Perhaps represents the common man.

Very insightful R161; "bleak" seems to be the overriding tone in all of Ishiguro's work. After reading "Never Let Me Go" - a book that really stays with you - I kept thinking about: did it really matter that Kathy, Tommy & Ruth were brought up in this school, encouraged to develop talents & skills, when it was all going to end the same anyway? There was no escaping the inevitable, despite the fantasy they'd cooked up about "being in love" Was Ruth any less courageous for raging against her fate when Kathy especially accepted it and even welcomed it? RoTD is easier to get your head around because it involves a historical period (mostly) familiar to people, whereas the concept of "disposable" clones is harder to get your head around (even though there are all kinds of people society considers "disposable")

R161, Yes, I think we're broadly on the same page here. The old order had to die, and we can't go back to what it was like before, because the world is now run by people like Mr Lewis, and not Lord Darlington. But by the end of the film, the two central characters do nothing except look back, with nostalgia, at a past they have come to idealise, and nothing (in the narrative, or in the subtext or cinematography) gives us any reason to really believe in or be hopeful for the future.

I can't imagine Streep and Irons in the two leads, especially the latter. Thank God that didn't happen.

Last thing I will say. When Kenton says goodbye to Stevens for the last time - he gives her this sweet little farewell speech - and as the bus pulls away, Miss Kenton starts sobbing hysterically, almost like a teenager. It is one of the most heartbreaking moments in any movie ever. Stevens seems almost oblivious. Miss Kenton in that moment is the only one who seems fully to grasp the tragedy of their failed lives and love.

[quote]Stevens seems almost oblivious.

Good point, though being oblivious seems like both a blessing & a curse to Stevens. He's so caught up in duty that he can't see the forest for the trees, but he also doesn't seem to feel the tragedy and wastefulness of it all the way the others do.

Helen Mirren wanted the Miss Kenton role but negotiations broke down over nudity

R169 to be air, Bob Altman cut her nude scene out of Gosford Park.

R7 An assistant director held a hidden plastic pipe and squeezed it behind his head.

Just like they used a similar, thicker, pipe behind Murray Bartlett's buttocks.

Do people get a thrill out of derailing thoughtful threads? Does it make them feel better about themselves?

Just wondering.

[quote] derailing thoughtful threads

Who are you taking about, R172?

Give us their R number!

Gorgeous film.

Wow. So much good discussion.

My question- who is your favorite character?

Stevens, Miss Kenton, Lord Darlington, Reginald Darlington, Mr. Stevens Sr., Mr. Benn, or Senator Jack Lewis

[quote] I watched it a few months ago and I couldn't figure out if he was suppressing his personality or if he never developed one to begin with.

Don't be so 20th century, R88!

Good servants don't have "personalities". They are invisible entities that cook food and serve it. They are the 'ghosts' that do the housework and the gardening.

Lord Darlington was foul for what he did to those Jewish girls

R177 Yes. Just like most German sympathizers, Darlington was a well educated, aristocratic gentleman who knew about art, literature, opera, and world travel. Which also makes his views even more sad, foul, and horrendous.

Good servants should have as much personality as the wallpaper.

R175

Decision paralysis, after I easily narrow it down to Stevens and Miss Kenton.

A relatively minor scene I like, which tells us a lot about their relationship is the scene where Kenton catches Stevens surreptitiously checking out Lizzie, and teasingly confronts him about it 'You don't like pretty girls on the staff, I've noticed', and his reply signals that he knows exactly what she is getting at but is taking it in good humour: 'You know what I'm doing Miss Kenton? I'm placing my thoughts elsewhere while you chatter away'. That gives the lie to claims that Stevens is totally oblivious of the subtle, emotionally charged situations he finds himself in.

R175 I'd probably say I like Kenton's character slightly better than Stevens, if only because she manages to score these points every now and again.

Stevens all the way for me, but that probably a lot to do with how effortlessly charming Anthony Hopkins is, even in roles that really don't require it. Maybe it's that voice and those eyes!

I get this confused with Howard’s End.

[quote] James Fox was pretty in the 1960s. But if you look at his televised interviews you will see that he is a mere shell of a man. He's sometimes incapable of forming a sentence

This Christian interview is 1895 with another prettier ex-actor Christian named Paul Jones.

You can see his embarrassment, pain and confusion and he talks about patriotism, Christianity and dislike of immorality.

R184 awkward

Beautifully done. A bit long just to show they lived miserable lives then died.

[quote] Great movie

[quote] James Fox is great

[quote] are great companion

[quote] a great role

So Christopher Reeves had a great role to play, but did he play it greatly?

I am in the minority, but I think Reeves was miscast, though that doesn't affect my opinion that this is one of the finest movies I've ever seen.

Also not sure whether I don't like him as an actor, or if I truly think he was miscast.

^ He wasn't an actor. He had the appearance and vivacity of a brick wall.

Who would you have cast as the American, Jack Lewis then? In the novel he is described as attractive.

Kurt Russell? Ryan O'Neal? Patrick Swayze? Jeff Bridges?

Of those choices, Jeff Bridges. Had never thought of him. I think he would have been perfect.

Reeves being miscast is an anomaly I think. Ivory/Merchant production casts are usually spot on.

I'll settle on miscast, because he's not a good actor. I don't even think he looked the part. He never looked a serious character and less so that he would be the type that would be interested in revitalizing Darlington Hall.

Christopher Reeve was also in The Bostonians. He was good there.

James Ivory from a Vanity Fair interview...

[quote]...and Christopher Reeve was “very thoughtful.” Reeve, Ivory continues, “was so associated with Superman by [the time of] The Remains of the Day [in 1993], and some audiences did not take him seriously.” Ivory calls Reeve’s performance in 1984’s The Bostonians “positively Rhett Butler.”

Doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement of Reeves in 'The Remains of the Day', and I don't remember from reading his books how much influence he had on casting. But he does agree with R192 on his performance in 'The Bostonians.'

I like Reeve in this film. During the 1950's years he looked like Burt Lancaster

Should Anthony have won a second Oscar for this?

R195 yes

So Tom Hanks doesn't win for Philadelphia?

R195 here’s the revote

Hopkins was up against three strong contenders (1994); Daniel Day Lewis (In the Name of the Father), Laurence Fishburne (What's Love Got...), and Liam Neeson (Schindler's List).

The weakest nominee - Tom Hanks (Philadelphia) - won on a 'sympathy' vote, for lack of a better term.

Hopkins did win a BAFTA and other various Best Actor awards for that role.

I don't know if I could make an argument that he should have gotten it over the others. Would I have given it to him? Probably, but that is based on my appreciation of the movie, which is not the way a Best Actor performance should be decided.

Question:

Was Reginald Lord Darlington's son or nephew? I can't remember.

Was Lord Darlington a homosexual? It never mentioned his wife or a lover in the book or film.