Remains of the Day -- The Movie ~ 11/02
patwest
November 16, 2002 - 09:32 am











“The Remains of the Day” is a subtle, thoughtful movie. There are emotional upheavals in it, but they take place in shadows and corners, in secret. It tells a very sad story - three stories, really. Not long ago I praised a somewhat similar film, Martin Scorsese's “The Age of Innocence,” also about characters who place duty and position above the needs of the heart. I got some letters from readers who complained the movie was boring, that “nothing happens in it.” To which I was tempted to reply:   If you had understood what happened in it, it would not have been boring.   (by Roger Ebert, Film Critic of the Chicago Sun Times)





" I believe the uncomfortable bench is symbolic of guilt and self-punishment for he isn't able to sleep on his bed of sins anymore.”--Marvelle



"The movie, in my opinion, has turned the book into a morality play." ---Jonathan







Informal Points to Ponder:




  • 1. Is this a tragedy? If so who are the tragic figures?

  • 2. What does the "pigeon episode" mean in the movie? Does it symbolize anything, and if so, what?

  • 3. Malryn mentions the scenes with the clutching hands:
    “One thing that struck me was Stevens prying his father's fingers off the trolley, and then seeing Miss Kenton pry Stevens' fingers off the book. That made me shiver”


    Could those clutching hands symbolize something else? The clutching hands of the father are not in the book, they are here, very strongly, what is he clutching on to, what is Stevens?

    Note also Malryn mentions at the end the lovers hands parting, does this signify something?

    Three sets of hands clutching and letting go and focused on in close ups, do they mean more than it appears?

  • 4. When Stevens hears Miss Kenton crying he enters her room (a direct contrast to his insisting his own room is off limits). She is pitifully distraught and he, in answer to her hopeful look, inquires on some matter of housekeeping.

    Why?

    Do you think this cruel? Or otherwise?

  • 5. Lord Darlington plays a greater part in the movie than he does in the book. What do you make of his character? Do you consider him an idealist? Is he ineffectual or how DO you see him? Despite all his reading he seems not to have a clue, why is that? Do you see him as an intellectual?

  • 6. Does the movie show a turning point when Stevens chooses between duty and love? (Marvelle)

  • 7. Does anyone feel that Mr Benn was cheated in all this? (Jonathan)

  • 8. As quoted by Adam Parkes in his book Kazuo Ishiguro's The Remains of the Day, Ian Buruma, writing in The New York Review of Books, has called the movie portrayal of Lord Darlington a "one-dimensional simpleton.” Do you agree or disagree? What might some of the evidence be for such a charge and is it justified?

  • 9. Could a marriage between Stevens and Kenton in the movie be less disastrous than how it would be perceived from the book (Marvelle)

  • 10. I see the ones (Leonard in the book and the Taylors' son in the movie) who went off to war as (ironically enough) the ones who "lived." (Mme) Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

  • 11. what is the major theme of the movie? Is it different from the novel? (Marvelle)

  • 12. Stevens' brother is not mentioned in the movie, as far as I can see, so what does this mean? (Malryn)

  • 13. Stevens was never more tender than when he reminds the sobbing Kenton of something left undusted in the breakfast room. (Jonathan). Do you agree that what Stevens did was tender or do you see it as otherwise? What might Stevens's actions display and what do they show?




    Interesting Links:

    Roger Ebert Review of Remains of the Day: Chicago Sun-Times || Film review by Alex Lopez-Ortiz || Remains of the Day Review by Charity's Place || Remains of the Day reviw by Ruben Alvarado || Remains of the Day Movie Fan Club || Duke of Beaufort's Hunt(Marvelle) || Anti-Hunting Article: The Secret World of the Duke (Marvelle) || Duke of Devonshire Supports Hunt (Marvelle)|| Voting on Hunt Ban (Marvelle) || Badminton House (Malryn) || Powderhorn Castle (Malryn) || Dyrham Park (Malryn) || Powderham Interiors (Marvelle) || Corsham Court(Marvelle)||History of Jews in England (Marvelle)||What the Butler Saw by Ian Buruma: Review (needs subscription) (Ma;ryn)|| Review by Alexandre Paquin (Malryn)|| Review by Alan Stone (Malryn)||



    Dyrham Park

    Contact: Ginny







  • Click on the link below to buy the book
    Click box to suggest books for future discussion!

    Ginny
    November 16, 2002 - 02:07 pm
    Hi and welcome to the discussion of the movie Remains of the Day. The desire for this discussion grew out of our reading of the book The Remains of the Day, and I'm quite anxious to view the movie and see it brought to life (I saw it, was it 10 years ago? And can't remember much at all except, for some odd reason, Steve Reeves).

    It's not easy to find? It's not on cable? I've been looking 2 months and it's not come on satellite, either, thought I had it covered. Finally in desperation I ordered it but as our discussion is to start on Monday November 18, I panicked again and have just returned from Blockbusters where I did manage to rent it (and have it for a whole week!!) after signing my life away, it was unreal, driver's license, credit card and fill this in!!

    However the management was quite pleasant and now I will view the movie tomorrow night as to be ready for our film experience here, everybody is welcome, whether or not they read the book, we have looked so long and hard at the book it will probably be very startling if there is a difference between them.

    At any rate I look forward to beginning our discussion of the movie (which I have no idea how, will have to depend on you all and what you'd like to say) Monday, November 18.





    ginny

    MmeW
    November 16, 2002 - 02:36 pm
    In the meantime, here is something to chew on, from Ishiguro:

    Actually my literary agent in London said that she thought the main difference was -- and this was very perceptive. I would have never come up with anything as insightful as this – she said: The movie is about emotional repression. But the book is about self-denial. And that's the crucial difference, she said. And I thought: yes, that's probably right. They are crucially different themes.

    Malryn (Mal)
    November 16, 2002 - 03:14 pm
    And this from Ishiguro:
    "I think it's a very good film. It's a different work from mine. It's James Ivory's Remains of the Day which is related to my Remains of the Day."

    Marvelle
    November 16, 2002 - 06:26 pm
    Steve Reeves, Hercules? Oh no, it's Christopher Reeve before his terrible accident. And a much younger Hugh Grant than we are now used to seeing. Ginny, I promise the movie will be worth signing your life away.

    Marvelle

    Ginny
    November 16, 2002 - 06:33 pm
    Did I say STeve? That goes to show you how my mind works, it's an insidious thing, I think it needs to be studied, Christopher Reeve, have not gotten on a horse since he had his accident and look at him now, regaining movement, played Superman. I thought....was it George Reeve who played Superman? So Steve Reeve?

    Hercules?

    I hope you can see who goes to the movies a LOT. hahaahaha

    That's ok, I've got it for a week, and it's got James Fox, but not Edward Fox, right? Edward Fox is one of my old time favorites, he's fabulous, and he'd have been a good Lord Darlington (was he?) haahahha

    Need to get the thing out of the car, maybe? hahahaha

    Actually I think Christopher Reeve might make a super author participation sometime if he were willing, talk about courage.

    ginny

    betty gregory
    November 16, 2002 - 06:51 pm
    Ah, what a terrific idea, Ginny, and I think Christopher Reeve has 2nd book now? Still Here was the first, or maybe that was by someone else. Anyway, he'd be wonderful to invite.

    Betty

    Ginny
    November 16, 2002 - 07:04 pm
    Another really inspiring one, Betty, we met in Washington DC at the National Book Festival and he was fabulous, his name is Eric Weihenmayer, and here he is speaking to the crowd at the end of the festivities, they really picked their speakers well, he preceeded David McCullough.

    He's blind and he's the man who just climbed Everest and led the most successful expedition ever to summit, 19 people. Jon Krakauer told him sincerely that he should not go, he'd be a detriment and might even cause the loss of others, Ed Vistiers told him the same thing, so he said it was with particular pleasure that he could say he returned the most successful attempt ever made.

    Talked about teamwork talked about trying, and not giving up, most inspriting person I ever heard, when he left the stage people clapped forever.

    We just had to approach him and he agreed to be interviewed, I think his message is one that every person would love to hear, sure cheered me, maybe we should do a series of heroes.

    His book is titled Touch the Top of the World.

    (He had a seeing eye dog named Siego, pronounced See Go, (love it), and he was so funny, a marvelous speaker, the dog lay at his feet and he said, now Siego is a trained attack dog and if a cell phone goes off while I'm speaking he'll launch an attack..so the speech went on and at the very end a cell phone rang and he didn't miss a beat, "Attack, Siego," he said, everybody roared, he's an extraordinary human being, he's another one we need to hear from.

    ginny

    betty gregory
    November 17, 2002 - 05:42 am
    I just ordered Touch the Top of the World. The reviews on Amazon are terrific and this is just the book I need to read now. Thank you so much, Ginny, for mentioning it. Having watched all the C-span speakers for that day (catching a glimpse of you guys here and there), I thought I'd heard the best. I guess there were just too many good ones. Including the night before, best cast of speakers I've ever heard. David McCullough's talk on his favorite books, beginning in his childhood, was really wonderful.

    Back to the movie.

    Malryn (Mal)
    November 17, 2002 - 06:30 am
    I've never heard of Eric Weihenmayer until now. What an adventure he had! I'm sure Christopher Reeve would be quick to agree that he's very fortunate to be able to afford the team of people around him who keep him alive and well.

    It's the person nobody knows whose courage stands out that means the most to me. There's a SeniorNet writer in the Writers Exchange, WREX, whose work I publish under the initials, ET. Her screen name is Sea Bubble. Bubble lives in Nethanya, Israel, and her area has been besieged by unexpected bombings, such as the one that took place in Hebron this past Shabbat night. The market where she and her husband occasionally shop was bombed the week before.

    I don't think Bubble has missed one of the two days a week working at the small lending library she runs, which offers books in several languages to immigrants and others. Bubble leads as normal a life as she can with all the fear and stress around her, keeping house for her husband and enjoying her two children when they drop in for dinner and a visit. She rarely complains, though she posted in WREX today that she and her husband, Ben, are beginning to react more than they had. A neighbor in her apartment building is hysterical, she said, won't go outside for any reason. Despite all of this, Bubble continues to write lovely, poetic pieces for WREX in English, not her native tongue. She also is discussion moderator for a group of disabled people online.

    Bubble contracted polio at the age of two when she and her parents lived in the Congo. She wears full leg braces on both legs. Her whole life has been an example of great courage.



    Since I don't have a VCR, my daughter has all of my videos in her house, which adjoins her studio right next to this apartment. She informed me that I own Howard's End, not The Remains of the Day. Hopefully, she'll be able to get "Remains" for me when she goes out today.

    Mal

    gladys
    November 17, 2002 - 01:15 pm
    Mal ,Ihave to second you in your mention of Sea bubble she is a shining example of poeple though handicaped,always is there for other,s and yes to day is the first time I have known her to mention the awful life they are leading just now. Gladys

    GingerWright
    November 17, 2002 - 02:40 pm
    Gladys, Hi there, So Nice to see you here again. I also think Sea Bubble is a special person.

    Gingee

    gladys
    November 17, 2002 - 06:07 pm
    hi Gingee,can always count on you for a nice answer.

    GingerWright
    November 17, 2002 - 06:57 pm
    Gladys Love, Thank You. Your a Very Special Person to me. Have you got the Movie Yet. It is a Good one that You would enjoy so much like Your posts in the Wrex

    Smiling Gingee here.

    Ginny
    November 18, 2002 - 03:24 am
    Welcome, Gladys, we're very glad to see you here, and welcome all of you to the first day of discussion of the movie, I have no earthly idea how to discuss a movie so you all will have to help out here, a LOT!


    Since I just spent a month examining the book, naturally the differences jump right out at me, the burden of the filmmaker is different, I think, and it will be interesting to see what you all thought was actually implied or conveyed and how the filmmaker did it.




    First off, I watched half of it last night till it got quite late and have a whole page of differences in the book and the movie, so I guess I need to ask do you think it would be useful as a record (I kind of think it would) if we got UP a list of places where the book and movie differ? Let’s see what differences you may have noted, we all probably spotted different things.




    To me this is VERY much Miss Kenton's movie, unlike the book, in my opinion, from the get go. She starts the movie with her happy and warm cordial voice overlay reading her own letter to Stevens and it's an unrequited love story, the gorgeous Emma Thompson is kind, sweet, and caring, not what I saw in the book, completely different slant, at least not so far to me.

    I now see where people in the book discussion got Miss Kenton's first name, it is Sarah, but it's not in the book. Likewise I see where people thought Mr. Benn told her the grandchild was coming, again in the movie, not in the book.

    The movie has the burden of eaplaining what the book has left out, how well it did we'll see when we read your own responses.

    So Lord Darlington is dead, Darlington Hall to be sold and broken up, bought by Mr. Lewis the American at the Conference. WHOA!

    And so on and so on.

    I do like the cinematographer's art in doing the fade aways, when she talks of former footmen we see them but as he comes down the hall they disappear. He looks thru a round door and sees her and SHE disappears. They all fade thru the invisible doors in the walls and there is a satisfying number of servants rushing up and down stairs, and sumptuousness in Darlington Hall itself (where was it shot, I’ve seen that house before, what a gorgeous library tho and Lord D does a lot of getting down of books but not in the way I had envisioned it, what do you think?)

    You note also Stevens Senior (with a distinctly NON upper crust accent) and his son have a different relationship and son calls dad YOU quite a bit more, son is named "Jim" by father, referred to as James somewhere else, the car is not a Ford but an absolutely spectacular vintage Daimler, German, and ..not sure of the history of Daimler Benz, but definitely the most gorgeous car I ever saw.

    Mr. Benn (the fabulous Tim Piggott Smith of the India series) comes to the house with a guest as (what? Valet?) anyway he's in service and reveals he and Miss Kenton were in service together somewhere else, the list of differences goes on and on.

    You all will absolutely shriek over this one but when Anthony Hopkins, whom I had formerly been envisioning AS Stevens in my mind, came on the screen, I wondered why he was there, he's not Stevens, to me. Any more. I don't know who could have been, or if any actor could ever play the Stevens I have in my mind, but he's slowly winning me over, that's not how I saw Stevens. He does a super job of acting, tho, you can almost read his mind.

    So many differences, what’s YOUR all over view of the movie, IS it a love story, the movie? The Conference seems quite muted, to me.

    (Love the actor who says, right before Stevens senior falls, “what ARE dry goods, actually?” or something like that.) He’s so good, don’T know his name but he’s also in Clockwise with John Cleese and the guy who plays with Judi Densch in the BritCom (As Time Goes by?) not sure, anyway he’s a gem, always has the small parts, I’d like to see him in something more substantial sometime.

    What was that bit about the fox hunting? Lord D doesn’t like it, so what was significant about it? Not in the book of course, so its meaning is confined to the movie, I’m not sure what was meant there?

    Nor by the smaller conference, (not talking about when Ribbentrop came and, looking at a piece of art, said in German, "mark it down for later)...that's kind of heavy haded, huh? but who were all those people, at the one in the midddle? (Not the one with the Prime Minister...am beginning to feel sorry for Lord D, he DID try a lot)...were those blackshirts there on those guys? Was that supposed to be Von Ribbentrop again and who was that Englishman who spoke the anti Semitic thoughts? That whole thing there was not in the book, and does make Lord D begin to look like a Nazi sympathizer, as Miss Kenton was outraged to see in the paper when D Hall was being auctioned off.

    What is your own impression of this scene and why it’s in there?

    Edward Fox would have made SUCH a better Lord Darlington!

    (They need to hire me next time, huh?) hahahahaha

    What do YOU think?

    ginny

    Marvelle
    November 18, 2002 - 11:36 am
    Ginny, the movie is so different from the book. I still think it's Stevens' story because everything revolves around him but Emma Thompson is wonderful and she makes Kenton a major player too. The movie Kenton is vulnerable and even kinder than the book Kenton and that is a major difference. What I noticed was Stevens' head position. Anthony Hopkins had such a fabulous physical presence. As an old man in the first shot we see his head is perpetually fixed in a deferential bow, always, and his shoulders hunched in a lifetime of 'service'. When younger and with Kenton and Benn and other staff, his head was more upright, only to be bowed when serving.

    Organized hunting in England is quite controversial and this controversy has a lot to do with class warfare. Fox hunting is traditionally the right of the aristocracy? Commoners can hunt but it is almost always under the banner, so to speak, of a titled person. I believe that the inclusion of the hunt in the movie shows that while Lord Darlington doesn't hunt, he supports and assumes the 'rights' of the aristocracy. And it should also remind viewers of the argument over hunting in England which heated up I believe after WWII and just reached a possible turning point 10 years after the movie was made.

    According to the following link, which is a public relations release from the Beaufort Hunt: "the hunt dress is peculiar to the country in that the Huntsman and Whippers-in wear green and the subscribers a bluecoat with buff facings." These are the colors of the movie hunt.

    Duke of Beaufort's Hunt

    The supporters of the hunt call protesters 'hunt saboteurs' and protesters call themselves 'animal welfare or rights activists.' There is a fairly clean division between supporters of the hunt (peers of the realm) and those who want to ban hunting (MPs etc). Other links:

    Anti-Hunting Article: The Secret World of the Duke

    Duke of Devonshire Supports Hunt

    Voting on Hunt Ban

    There are many other sublinks on the voting article. I think the inclusion of the hunt scene was for local color, and to remind viewers symbolically of the tradition of class privilege that is now beseiged by modern protests. It sets Stevens at work amidst a class system that will soon be under the gun -- performing his duty, serving wine to a huntsman.

    Marvelle

    Jonathan
    November 18, 2002 - 11:58 am
    Hi Gladys. Are you going to watch the movie with us? Sarah, the housekeeper, is a wonderful, truly English girl. And she's given a great opportunity in the movie to show both how passionate she is and how strong she is. True to herself, and true to those around her. She is every bit as professional as Stevens the butler.

    While not exactly peripheral in the movie, Stevens does have to share the moviegoer's interest with Lord Darlington, and, much more so, with Miss Kenton. The big difference between the book and the movie? I believe that while the book was the journey of a mind, the movie is the journey of two hearts. The essentials in the movie are all there in the book. For those who are able to see through Stevens' mental obfuscations.

    Jonathan

    MmeW
    November 18, 2002 - 01:35 pm
    Ginny, Ishiguro said: The power of the book I think is that of novels or fiction is that it can get right inside your head. You are often writing about the inside of people's heads, inner worlds, inner emotions. And this is where the cinema with all its powers is quite weak, it's a third person form, you have to always film an actor from the outside. And I think as powerful an actor as Hopkins is, we just get a glimmer of the inner workings of his mind. So we lose the entire interior monologue, the essence of the looking back, the self-delusion. There are hints, of course, but they are mostly lost in the love story. So it becomes a story of emotional repression, as Ish’s literary agent pointed out.

    First of all, re Kenton, I don’t think a single "bad thing" she did was left out of the movie. She did not remove the dustpan, she did stubbornly wait outside his door for him to look at the Chinaman, she did take the book from him, etc.

    The father is more fleshed out, calls him "Jim," talks of falling out of love with his mother, no mention of the brother. Seemed to me to protest more when his duties were reduced. Stevens never uses the third person with him.

    We see an Upstairs/Downstairs staff meal, the only place where great butlers or dignity are mentioned, and Dad tells his tiger story, which comes across to me as kind of buffoonish, like they’re humoring an old man telling a not-so-funny story.

    I think there are several heavy-handed changes, like making the maids German-Jewish immigrants and like the black-shirted guys at the second meeting. Though this meeting was not directly described in the book, reference is made to meetings with Sir Oswald Mosley’s ‘blackshirts’ organization during the summer. Sir Geoffrey and his man Benn are new characters, however. I got the impression that the anti-Semitic remarks were made by Sir Geoffrey.

    In addition to heavy-handedly showing us the evil of Darlington’s political leanings, this meeting also gives Kenton a chance to run into Benn, and a chance for Stevens and Benn to have a heart-to-heart, which provides a contrast between them. Benn asks if everything going on is so very moral and says he’s heard fishy things, but Stevens says, "I don’t hear anything." They talk about Kenton, and Stevens makes the very telling remark, "I’d be lost without her."

    In addition, you get the feeling that this anti-Semitic meeting is the cause of Darlington firing the maids. All in all, for the purposes of the movie, I think this segment provides a lot of continuity and answers a lot of questions that viewers would have.

    Later on, there is another non-book contrast between Stevens and Benn, who quits his service because he doesn’t like the black shirts. In the book, Benn had left service a while ago and was employed by a business nearby. I think we are to supposed to see Benn as a sympathetic character here; in the book, he was a non-character.

    Another significant, yet effective, change is that the cocoa conversation about Kenton being so tired comes directly upon her final interview with Lisa, where she expresses to her those things that she expressed to Stevens in the book. In the book it seemed that the "tiredness" was there to show her moodiness. In the movie it serves to underscore her dissatisfaction with her present circumstances, perhaps directly caused by Lisa’s love match. Stevens then proposes that the meetings cease.

    I also think moving the Conference up to 1936 from 1923 is to make it that much more obvious that the Conference was misguided, though it might be simply to allow Lewis to become Farraday later on.

    In the book Lord Darlington had been dead three years, but it just said the house had been sold, and not to Lewis, of course, though I’m not sure I see a problem here. Maybe he’s a symbol of the passing of world power from England to the US, maybe they wanted one less character (after all, all Americans are alike, right?). But I did think the auction was rather heavy-handed. The fox-hunting? I think on the one hand a stereotypical insert (here we are in England), perhaps Darlington’s not liking it is to let us know he’s really a good guy who doesn’t like to kill animals.

    Malryn (Mal)
    November 18, 2002 - 02:00 pm
    I don't have the video, but wanted to insert the fact that my college roommate's father, who was part of a very rich old Boston family, died instantly when thrown from his horse while jumping some shrubs during a foxhunt in Massachusetts in the early 50's.

    Marvelle
    November 18, 2002 - 05:09 pm
    It might be nice to list the differences between movie scenes and the book. It's difficult to remember book vs movie scenes off the top of my head when numerous bits are added or taken away or when words come out of the wrong person's mouth (which by the way makes Kenton so sympathetic at the end of the movie, if you weren't won over already by that strange crying scene.)

    I didn't like the added exposition and the Stevens' scene with his dying father was wasteful and didn't forward the story emotionally -- 'Jim, I fell out of love with your mother', etc etc -- well I didn't care since it seemed a throwaway scene. I wasn't given time to care about Senior's marital relations or how it didn't relate to Stevens, and the mother is out of the blue? It was powerful in the book when I felt such grief and anger that a son would behave as Stevens did to Father and the mother was an unknown factor and never spoken about. The 'you' changed the relationship into a standard and tepid father-son talk and lessened the drama as well as lessened the foreboding of a barren future for Stevens. The movie's dying scene was plain limp and it shouldn't have been.

    The emotional part to me was just before the last words with Senior and this was visual. Stevens is told something is seriously wrong with his father and comes hurrying up the backstairs to see his father fallen to his knees by the mop cart. The brief look on Stevens' face of fear, grief, sadness said so much and different again from the book where I imagined Stevens as generally expressionless and faceless even until the ending. The closeup of Stevens' hand prying his father's hand from the cart was wrenching and was a visual substitute for all the talk of duty and the implied 'like Father, like Son' in the book. The filmmaker half-spoiled that impression with the dying scene between father and son which was weak compared to the book.

    Mal, I always thought foxhunting could be dangerous and there must be many accidents. It looks like organized chaos with horses jumping or refusing the jump and other horses coming on behind, and the falls, and the hounds baying. Yet how much more dangerous it is for the fox! The hunt scene was symbolic but also a cinematic foreshadowing? The movie couldn't be as complex as the book or it would have run for hours and hours. I see the hunt as a type of shorthand for class differences, the changing society, and Stevens' fading role as butler.

    Jonathan, I think even in the movie it isn't exactly a love story although there's greater talk about love and gives a larger role to a sympathetic if weepy Kenton. I still see it as an unfulfilled love story.

    Marvelle

    Lorrie
    November 18, 2002 - 05:37 pm
    I am speaking merely as one who has seen the movie, but not read the book, and I must tell you how enthralled I was with the movie. I had expected Anthony Hopkins to come slinking out with his all-too-familiar mask of Hannibal Lecter, the fiend from his horror movies, and I feel that the acting Hopkins does in the film is superb. He was able to make me actually feel that I was there in so many scenes, and especially the intense one with Stevens and his father by the mop cart, as Marvelle so eloquently describes.

    Lorrie

    Lorrie
    November 18, 2002 - 05:57 pm
    Apparently many of the reviewers feel that the movie was very faithful to the book---even though many of you have found differences. Thank Heaven the producers and director have concentrated on the emotional power of Ishiguro's narrative. It seems that every great moment in the movie can be traced to the book.

    As far as the cast is concerned, I believe it was uniformly good, and I could not find any instances of mis-casting, even. I love Edward Fox's portrayal of Lord Darlington, and so too the part played by Tim Piggot-Smith. (Remember that hateful officer in "Jewel in the Crown?"

    I adore movies about the English countryside and those stately old homes. The producers are always so adept at keeping everything as authentic as possible, right down to the automobiles that the characters drive, like that lovely old Daimler that Ginny mentions. It's always a thrill to me to see how "the other half" lived in those days not too long ago.

    Lorrie

    MargeN
    November 18, 2002 - 07:29 pm
    Anthony Hopkins was in Dallas the past weekend accepting the USA Film Festival's Master Screen Artist Award. A reporter called him last week and Hopkins said "When I watch an awards show and see people screaming and crying, I always think 'Give me a break.' .. I was happy when I won the Oscar {for the Silence of the Lambs} because it was a surprise...But as for crying and moaning and thanking everyone who ever smiled at me, I just don't have time for that crap."

    The reporter continued that Hopkins admits he has a "detached" attitude toward his profession. He said he doesn't hang out with actors. And when asked why, he replied "That's my business." When asked about the 'tragically dutiful butler' in Remains of the Day along with other roles, Anthony Hopkins replied that he rarely ponders the psychological reasons for his characters' complexities.

    Then when he was actually here Saturday, of course the reporters asked more questions. He prefers actors such as Spencer Tracy and Humphrey Bogart who never philosophized about the acting profession. He said "There's too much talking and theorizing about acting now. It's best not to take everything so seriously, especially in this business. Chance and destiny and fate are very strange."

    (He also bought 4 pairs of boots, two shirts, one belt 'and a great big Texas-sized hat' and the first line of the article said "the man who played Hannibal Lecter, Adolf Hitler, Captain Blight, and President Richard Nixon is all charm.")

    Back to the movie--the first thing that struck me was that there were no dark halls in the movie--everything was light and sunny. The second was that the movie was able to show the inner workings of one of the big houses better than a book does. The third was that everybody seemed much calmer and lowkey than the characters in the book.

    As I watched, I made a list too of differences--there are many. The one that seemed strangest to me was Lewis becoming the owner of Darlington Hall.

    I don't think I want to discuss the differences. I would rather consider this the way Ishiguro did--as a screenplay written by someone else -- a different story but related to the book. I think it is an excellent movie--I thought so when I saw it many years ago and I still do.

    I personally prefer the book and the journey in Stevens' mind which would have been impossible to put on film. I keep saying the same thing--I am so impressed that a man as young as Ishiguro was able to understand the workings of the mind so well and could use the unreliable narrator technique the way he did.

    Now I have two more of his books waiting to be read.

    Incidentally, I didn't hear a single line of dialogue about bantering. Did I miss it or was it not there? Marge

    MmeW
    November 18, 2002 - 08:08 pm
    Marge, it wasn't there. There was one line when Christopher Reeve said, "I'm just kidding," but I don't remember when.

    What I find interesting about the movie is the additions, and why they were (perhaps) necessary. Stevens actually does go in Kenton's room when she is crying and totally ignores the fact that she is—tells her something needs dusting. That seems really cruel. In the book, at least, he doesn't see her crying. Maybe they were afraid the audience wouldn't "get" his listening to her cry and hesitating and finally ignoring it as in the book.

    Malryn (Mal)
    November 18, 2002 - 08:39 pm
    My daughter rented the video for me, and I watched it tonight. If I ever saw it before, I didn't remember it, except perhaps for the scene when Miss Kenton took the book from Stevens. His sort of cringing and pulling into his body as she more or less attacked him seemed familiar. What incredible acting! His holding his right arm close to his body and his face told me more about Stevens than anything else I saw.

    What I have to say it that I loved, loved, loved this movie. When it first began, I remembered what Ishiguro said, "I think it's a very good film. It's a different work from mine. It's James Ivory's Remains of the Day which is related to my Remains of the Day", so I watched it in that way, as a separate entity from the book.

    For that reason, it's very hard for me to compare the film with the book; point out differences, etc. I will say that the background music was wonderful. It added so much to the acting, photography and the scenes. I am wondering what lied was sung after the dinner at the international meeting. Maybe Traude will be able to tell us. I've sung quite a bit of lieder, but didn't recognize that song. Is it Schubert, Traude?

    One thing that struck me was Stevens prying his father's fingers off the trolley, and then seeing Miss Kenton pry Stevens' fingers off the book. That made me shiver.

    There was such an interesting use of the color red when there was a discussion of Germany's taking over Czechoslovakia. Did you notice it?

    The architecture of Darlington Hall looked very teutonic to me.

    There was a wonderful scene in the wine cellar with Stevens slowly choosing a dust-covered bottle after Kenton told him she'd accepted Benn's proposal of marriage. I wish the director had not gone so far as to have Stevens drop the bottle, though his "damn!" was his one spoken expression of emotion.

    The breaking of the hand clasp when Kenton gets on the bus is very, very poignant, and the lighting was fantastic. You could almost see through Stevens' hand. Did you notice how the figures on the pier seemed ghostlike?

    I liked the fadeouts Ginny mentioned that signified when the past was depicted.

    A really great bit of symbolism appeared at the end when Lewis caught the pigeon, which had flown into the building, and set it free. This was followed by a shot of Stevens looking out the many-paned glass door as if he was in prison. Incredibly emotional for me.

    I thought Anthony Hopkins was absolutely right in the rôle of Stevens. He brought him alive, and I could see him think and feel while at the same time subduing and suppressing his emotions. I've seen Anthony Hopkins play Shakespeare. I remember his playing the doctor in an old black and white version of Elephant Man. I do not think of him as Hannibal Lector, though he did a magnificent job in that part.

    But then I am very partial to Anthony Hopkins, who, after all, had a huge alcohol problem, managed to get over it with a lot of help and the great support of his wife. Through necessity, Marge, Hopkins can't run with the crowd or get too involved with fame or too obsessed with his characters. That I can well understand.

    The last thing I will say is that, though Miss Kenton was played beautifully by Emma Thompson, Stevens got all of my sympathy in this film, and I think that's what the director, James Ivory, wanted.

    Mal

    Marvelle
    November 18, 2002 - 09:37 pm
    MmeW, I'm interested in the additions also as well as deletions and changes.

    In the movie for instance, it is established that Darlington is something of an intellectual, someone who reads for knowledge. The movie has Darlington reading Nazi tracks about Jews, even has the propoganda totally covering his bed, then calls Stevens to his room and tells him to fire the maids.

    Before the Ribbentrop meeting (which in the book happens often 135;217) we see a haggard looking Darlington lying on the narrow bench at the foot of his bed. I believe the uncomfortable bench is symbolic of guilt and self-punishment for he isn't able to sleep on his bed of sins anymore. Yet he goes on with the Ribbentrop meeting; maybe as a man of honor he had to keep his word even if he believed he was wrong? That bench scene was effective and said a lot without words.

    I still prefer the book and most of the power is in the unreliable narrator and seeing from Stevens' eyes, rather than the third-person viewpoint of the movie. But I don't see how the movie could have carried out the book's perspective.

    Marvelle

    Ginny
    November 19, 2002 - 06:08 am
    I think you’ve all made some wonderful points, and again, a movie which you see and enjoy one time makes visual impressions on you, the filmmaker only has a brief time to convey to you everything he’d like, and it’s quite hard to convey what somebody is thinking without voice overlays; in that Hopkins does an amazing job with his acting.




    Even tho we are looking now at the movie, the differences (and there are literally pages and pages of them) between the movie and the book stand out. I think it would be a nice record since I’m not sure anybody else has done it, to begin compiling same. I’ll take from your posts what you have said and you can add them at any time. Those of you without the book or who did not read the book or who would not want to do that, just skip those areas and concentrate on the movie.

    All my comments are based on one viewing of the movie only:


    Marvelle, you noted ‘What I noticed was Stevens' head position.”

    Good close watching, I did not catch that, but I think you are right, does that symbolize something?

    I DID note that at the end, in several of the profiles, Stevens begins to resemble his “father,” and I don’t think that’s accidental, in appearance. They could have chosen any actor to play Stevens Senior, I think some of the scenes are quite striking in showing the resemblance between “father” and “son.”


    Thank you also, Marvelle, for the Duke of Beaufort Hunt information, will add it to the heading, would you believe I missed the colors entirely? Entirely, can’t believe that!

    I appreciate your take on why that scene was in there, also: “to remind viewers symbolically of the tradition of class privilege that is now besieged by modern protests”




    Jonathan, this is an interesting point: “Stevens does have to share the moviegoer's interest with Lord Darlington”

    I found Lord D’s role greatly expanded, seemed he was always reading, huh? You’d think somebody who read so much would be better informed, loved Marvelle’s take on him and his bed of sin, lying at the foot of his own bed, “haggard looking Darlington lying on the narrow bench at the foot of his bed. I believe the uncomfortable bench is symbolic of guilt and self-punishment for he isn't able to sleep on his bed of sins anymore.”

    I couldn’t help noticing in that scene that he appeared with his hands folded and feet straight to look like a catafalque , or ancient knight in effigy, did that strike you all?


    This was super: “And I think as powerful an actor as Hopkins is, we just get a glimmer of the inner workings of his mind. So we lose the entire interior monologue, the essence of the looking back, the self-delusion. There are hints, of course, but they are mostly lost in the love story.’




    MmeW – “She did not remove the dustpan, she did stubbornly wait outside his door for him to look at the Chinaman, she did take the book from him, etc.”

    Note, however, the HOW she did those things? I thought it was diferent, am I wrong? For instance, the taking of the dust pan. In the movie she immediately picks it up like anybody else would, and then carefully , thoughtfully, (not in anger as I took it in the book) puts it back, and goes to tell him. In all things she is more kind, more considerate and caring tho the movie makes it clear to the viewer the danger here by having Stevens have to snatch the pan behind his back when Lord D suddenly comes down the steps, and then disappear himself behind the invisible door, (lots of popping out and in, in this thing, both by memories and by the characters) as Marge said the movie does a good job of showing the running of the house better.

    (I loved the nodding head Chinaman by the way)

    more....

    Ginny
    November 19, 2002 - 06:10 am



    MmeW : “Stevens never uses the third person with him.”

    Yes he did, at least twice, and I believe it was in the death bed scene as well, in a happy affectionate almost Daddy way, I waited for it and pounced on it. He starts out YOU but throws in at least 2 “Fathers.”

    The death bed scene, of course is quite different from the book, lots added. Several of you have remarked on it, the strong emotions shown in Stevens’s face, but the most important thing was Senior keeping on asking is everything in hand downstairs and ordering Stevens (can’t think of him as “Junior,” not once but twice, downstairs, “Go on!!”

    That does not happen of course in the book and it’s a major stumbling block with some readers. I believe here the movie makers wanted to make it more clear.




    MmeW “ I think there are several heavy-handed changes, like making the maids German-Jewish immigrants”

    Yes and that’s not all, for the first time we see the consequences, if they are immigrants and they don’t have employment they are sent back to Nazi Germany, that’s a heck of a lot bigger sin than the one in the book.




    Those of you who did not read the book, how do YOU see Lord Darlington? Do you see him as weak or deluded?




    Thank you for this, too, Susan, there is another name mentioned as well in the last part of the movie but I did not catch it “with Sir Oswald Mosley’s ‘blackshirts’ organization”

    So WERE those “blackshirts?” I know they were black? There’s yet another name the movie mentioned but I did not catch it.




    MmeW: “Maybe he’s a symbol of the passing of world power from England to the US, maybe they wanted one less character (after all, all Americans are alike, right?).”

    This is an excellent point, and Lorrie mentions lush movies about those big old country houses, and I agree, I love them too.

    I have a book called the Decline and Fall of the English Aristocracy, giant book, which meticulously delineates the unreal fall of the titled classes in England, they really DID lose hundreds of thousands of acres, it’s truly unreal, and they really did have to have foreign money (or marry an heiress) or give their homes to the National Trust, there are very few who have been able to make a go of it and keep them running at all. In fact two of the courses in the 2003 Oxford Experience deal WITH the “English Country House,” it’s a fascinating subject with a lot of reality behind it.




    Malryn mentions “ instantly when thrown from his horse while jumping some shrubs during a foxhunt in Massachusetts in the early 50's.”

    I have not gotten on a horse ( I do own a horse, and he's happily out to pasture) since Christopher Reeve had his accident but it’s incredible how many people ARE killed foxhunting, it’s more dangerous than it looks, I guess. George Patton’s wife Beatrice was killed riding to hounds, herself, and she was on up in years, I THINK in her 70’s. You will see me on the back of a horse again when hell freezes over, it’s simply too dangerous.




    Marvelle, you mention, “you weren't won over already by that strange crying scene.”

    I noticed her laying her head down as if on a chopping block, that struck me strange, did that scene strike any of you as odd?




    Note how the filmmaker has Stevens watching Miss Kenton bicycle away (nice touch, the cycle and the watching) showing us all he does care.




    Lorrie , I agree, “I feel that the acting Hopkins does in the film is superb.”

    I do too, his face is very expressive, I note that he seems almost to whisper and am not sure if that’s his normal voice or what? Those of you who have seen him in other films, is this Hopkins or Stevens here?

    “ I love...portrayal of Lord Darlington,” I think the filmmakers did quite a job with the part of Lord D, the actor is strange, to me, he’s sort of, ….how would you describe him? How would you describe the impact he makes?

    Do you feel he’s forceful? OR detached? Or strange? Marvelle noted he seemed to be portrayed as an “Intellectual,” he always was reading, wasn’t’ he? Always up on that ladder or had papers spread out all in front of him. Is he an idealist? Hahahaah Dangerous words, but do you see him as such? Or how DO you see him here?

    I did not think, strangely enough, his own accent was particularly “posh.”




    Marge, thank you for the Anthony Hopkins news! That’s neat, it’s amazing how our discussions here are always up with what’s happening in the world, and so are his ideas about acting unusual, we forget sometimes they ARE acting, they’re so good..

    And you mention something else quite striking “ the first thing that struck me was that there were no dark halls in the movie—everything was light and sunny.”

    It seemed to me there was ONE very brief dark hall, or maybe a flash of two (one in the wine cellar when he was at a low ebb) and one earlier but briefly just a brief minute, you are right, and it was only when that one brief darkness appeared for a second that I realized there WERE no, as you put it, dark halls while the book exists in darkness, great point!

    So the movie is lighter, is there a reason? Do those of you who watched the movie think of Stevens as a tragic figure? (pronounced at the British do: figgggr).

    He STATES to the doctor he has made a mistake and he hopes to rectify it, again, not in the book, but seeming to point to a love story, the unrequited love has just gotten interested?




    And you’re right on this, too: a picture in this case was worth a thousand words, of course all that running up and down stairs and chopping heads off chickens didn’t hurt!~ “. The second was that the movie was able to show the inner workings of one of the big houses better than a book does.”

    It was a feast for the eyes!




    as a screenplay written by someone else -- a different story but related to the book.

    This is an excellent point as that’s exactly what it is. And isn't she herself a prize winning author? Wonder why they did not ask Ishiguro to do it?

    HO! Important point!

    I didn't hear a single line of dialogue about bantering.

    Well done, Marge, you’re RIGHT! NOT a part of the movie at all. I totally missed that! MAJOR element of the book. Major major major change, do you all think the movie makers managed without it?

    more...

    Ginny
    November 19, 2002 - 06:13 am


    By the way were you all disappointed by the “lights” on the pier? I sure was. Why would anybody stand around and cheer neon lights on spikes? I pictured something completely different.

    Note Miss Kenton sits on the bench with Stevens on the pier?




    MmeW, “Marge, it wasn't there. There was one line when Christopher Reeve said, "I'm just kidding," but I don't remember when.”

    Was it when he had said something about a girl friend over breakfast?

    I’m not sure?




    “Stevens actually does go in Kenton's room, “ yes and he tries to distract her with household things to get her mind off it. That’s how I took it, how did the others of you see it? Did you see his actions as cruel?




    Speaking of rooms, I want to point out a very nice bit of movie work and acting on Hopkins’s part which does not exist in the book (this makes those who read the book sit up and say OOPSIE something is being said here for a reason )

    Mr. Benn goes to Stevens’s room. Why? Is Mr. Benn a butler too?

    Stevens is having a cigar and a drink, seems quite happy. Mr Benn tries to steer the conversation over to Miss Kenton, Mr. Stevens says listen, listen and continues to enjoy the music, to the exclusion of the flesh and blood person in front of him AND the flesh and blood topic brought up. The expression on Mr. Benn’s face suggests Stevens is a queer duck indeed, and that whole scene there is a little masterpiece of acting, and cinematic art: conveying in a word that Stevens is less comfortable with face to face flesh and blood encounters than he is in his own little world. Beautifully done.




    .Malryn, thank you for noting the red color when the Germans came and the talk turned to Czechoslovakia, I had noticed the gorgeous library but not the red, that’s well done! I did go back in reverse trying to find the Duke of Beaufort’s colors and the RED when Von Ribbentrop comes is just overwhelming, like blood, maybe? Good eyes!

    You mention also the music, and I’ll throw in that no woman sang in the book, just remembered that one.

    On the music in general, I have all sorts of notes where the background music built UP and where it didn’t and what that may have signified: it was very interesting, it’s a very well made movie, no wonder it got 8 Academy Award nominations (did it win any?)




    This is another excellent point by Malryn: “One thing that struck me was Stevens prying his father's fingers off the trolley, and then seeing Miss Kenton pry Stevens' fingers off the book. That made me shiver”

    Now let me ask you all, could those clutching hands MEAN something? The clutching hands of the father are not in the book, they are here, very strongly, what is he clutching on to, what is Stevens?

    Note also Malryn mentions at the end the lovers hands parting, does this signify something? Will put this in the heading.

    Three sets of hands clutching and letting go.




    OK now the pigeon, that was one of my questions, did not understand the pigeon, Malryn says
    A really great bit of symbolism appeared at the end when Lewis caught the pigeon, which had flown into the building, and set it free. This was followed by a shot of Stevens looking out the many-paned glass door as if he was in prison. Incredibly emotional for me.


    OK let’s hear from our viewers what they thought this may have represented, and why it’s in the movie in the first place (it’s not in the book).

    Note we go from there ourselves in the air to leave Darlington Hall in the air, we drove UP to the auction and we withdraw in the air, what’s being said or freed, if anything?




    Who, move fans, would you say is the tragic figure (figgr) in this one? IS it a tragedy at all?

    I’ll try to get some of this up in the heading, but we’re going to be quite informal here, say what you will?

    ginny

    Marvelle
    November 19, 2002 - 06:58 am
    I thought the clutching hands were easily understand because it was so visual. Senior's hands clutch his work trolley so he's grasping the most important thing to him; ditto Stevens clutching the romance novel even though he doesn't want to admit it; then Kenton-Stevens hands letting go of that same unfulfilled romance between them (and he really seemed to let go first). So I got the feeling that Stevens would revert back to his father and duty duty duty.

    I actually thought the words that were added were not up to Ishiguro's standard such as Kenton talking of finally loving her husband and 'you see, he needs me more than anyone else in the world' which was blatantly sentimental to me. The movie did a super job with visuals however. Darlington, Senior, Stevens, Kenton are all more sympathetic in the movie and maybe that had to be so yet I was dissatisfied with that aspect.

    Ginny, I do think the movie-Darlington was an idealist concerned about people. He was kind to the Jewish maids until reading the Nazi tracts changed his mind and he had Stevens fire them. He's always reading yet when Stevens enters the room, Darlington will climb down a ladder to walk up to Stevens and talk. This is something the book-Darlington would not have bothered doing. I also consider him an intellectual who relies on the printed page for knowledge and is as insulated in his world of books as Stevens is in his glass-enclosed hothouse. The book had many levels of talking about text and the movie-Darlington was able to add that textual criticism into the film.

    About the accent; I'm not familiar with the nuances with British accents but I wonder if Darlington was what Americans expect the English upper classes to sound like? Someone told me that the actor Oliver Reed was upper class yet he sounded less posh to me than most (such as Darlington).

    Marvelle

    Malryn (Mal)
    November 19, 2002 - 08:03 am
    I was looking for writer Ruth Prawar Jhabvala's name and found out this movie was filmed at Badminton House and Powderhorn Castle. Below are links to what look like old etchings of these estates.

    Badminton House



    Powderhorn Castle

    Marvelle
    November 19, 2002 - 08:10 am
    The idealist, sympathetic to others, intellectual Darlington is also a passive man. He doesn't question what he reads -- would that disqualify him as an intellectual then? -- and he doesn't wonder who wrote a work or why and doesn't look beneath the meaning of words -- in other words, he doesn't connect the dots of critical thinking. He merely accepts the written word as it is written. That, I believe, is the criticism of Darlington made by the movie. The book-Darlington is also concerned about people but it's people of his own social class.

    Stevens world is behind glass and it is effectively visualized in the movie. He's inside looking out and the mullions are like bars but it is his chosen prison.

    Does the movie show a turning point when Stevens chooses between duty and love?

    Marvelle

    Note: Mal, there are links too that show the interiors. I remember seeing one on Powderham with photos of the rooms, including the bedroom (of Darlington) and the blue-walled stairway with the concealed door. Ginny, didn't you say you visited one of these places?

    Marvelle
    November 19, 2002 - 08:42 am
    Mal, those two sites you posted are wonderful. The Powderham exterior is so different from the movie and it looks much older.

    Marvelle

    Malryn (Mal)
    November 19, 2002 - 08:55 am
    To me Stevens Senior's clutching the trolley signified that he was holding on to his life. So was Stevens, in a way, when he clutched the book. By demanding to see the book, Kenton was threatening to go inside to a place where Stevens allowed no one but himself.

    In the bedroom scene, Lord Darlington is not holding on to life; he's preparing to die. Ginny's knight in effigy is very good.

    I don't think Darlington is portrayed as an intellectual. As I recall, in the book Ishiguro says that every time Darlington wanted to tell Stevens something, he had a book in his hand, thus distancing himself from his servant with a kind of barrier. I got the impression from the film that Darlington was gullible and soft. I didn't feel that way when I read the book.

    The library is important, I think, because that's where Stevens found the book which plays such an important part in the very dramatic scene between Miss Kenton and Stevens.

    There's something I noticed which I think is worth mentioning. At the auction a large portrait is seen. When it's held up, Lord Darlington nods his head. Toward the end of the movie the viewer sees Darlington and Stevens hanging that portrait. A symbol of rights of possession?

    I thought Mr. Carlisle, the doctor, was something of a snob.

    Kenton comes through as angular, sharp and a little bit shrill in the movie. This is in sharp contrast to quiet-spoken Stevens. There are a couple of scenes when Kenton is softer -- one when she's crying and looks very feminine and vulnerable, and later when she's older, especially when she and Stevens part.

    Kenton acts very angry when she catches the maid and her lover kissing in the garden. There's a very stiff set to her back when she strides away. Her anger and frustration with Stevens are showing through.

    It bothered me that Lewis was not the older, stocky, thick gray hair, cigar smoking man I imagined when I read the book.

    It was an interesting scene when Stevens sat down with Cardinal and Cardinal told him how Darlington had been duped. Stevens was disturbed; then when the scene came to an end, he picked up the chair and put it where it belonged, setting things in order the way they were supposed to be. A great bit of action which to me showed how Stevens deluded himself.

    Wasn't Benn supposed to be the guest Sir Geoffrey's butler in the film? I'm not sure Geoffrey is the right name. I think we had to see Benn, not imagine him.

    The scene where the servants sit quite formally at the table with Stevens at the end seemed like a replica of what happened upstairs, even to Stevens' tapping a glass with a spoon before he made an announcement, king of the manor in his own domain.

    I think this film is more a wistful love story than a tragic one, but must try to figure out how to rewind the tape on this borrowed VCR, so I can watch it again and decide.

    Mal

    Ginny
    November 19, 2002 - 08:57 am
    I'm having an awful time reading the credits, when I get close they blur, when I back off, they disappear, so forgive these misspellings, hahahaha

    The Duke of Beaufort, Badminton House, Avon
    The Beaufort Hunt
    The Duke of Devon, Powesham (sp??) Castle, Devon
    The Lord Methusen (sp) Corsham Court, Avon
    The National Trust, Dyrham Park, Avon.



    Am going to look some of those up, apparently they shot a lot of interiors in different places, for instance where the red came in I thought, gee I never saw that room (hahahaah) stupid me, those houses probably have 100 rooms, let's see what we can find, thanks Malryn for those neato links I think I misspelled Powersham or whatever it is, maybe google will straighten me out, thanks also Marvelle for that excellent question, it's in the heading.

    ginny

    Ginny
    November 19, 2002 - 09:01 am
    Corsham Court, home of the red room pictured here?

    ginny

    Malryn (Mal)
    November 19, 2002 - 09:12 am
    Dyrham Park

    Ginny
    November 19, 2002 - 09:18 am
    HO! Great minds run together, Malryn, and I think that's IT!

    Here's the back

    And here's the description:
    Dyrham Park
    8 m N Bath off A46, Tel. 0272 372501
    Begun 1692 on older foundations by William Blathwayte, Secretary of State to William III. Odd mix of French and Italianate styles. Large hall bestrewn with portraits. Wood paneling, a state bed, and an extensive collection of Dutch paintings and furnishings.


    Who KNEW?

    I've always wondered what that was, note the statues on top I particularly noticed them over Stevens's head in the film.

    YAY!

    Traude S
    November 19, 2002 - 09:28 am
    After being off-line most of yesterday I am eager to catch up and anxious to join the discussion.

    Alas, the library has not yet called to tell me the video is back and available. Now I am in the process of exploring other possibilities, and I will be back.

    Marvelle
    November 19, 2002 - 11:39 am
    Mal and Ginny, I think the book-Darlington is different from the movie-Darlington which is why I noted that in the movie Darlington will even climb down a library ladder and walk over to Stevens and talk. Very different from the book-Darlington. Also while Darlington reads a lot in the movie, he doesn't cast a critical eye on the works. He doesn't question but instead accepts what the text says at face value without going deeper or looking for oppositie opinions so he is easily swayed. At the same time he has more of a conscience in the movie and more to feel guilty over than is shown us in the book.

    Ginny, I think I figured out the spelling in the credits. Believe it is Methuen and the other credit is Powerham Castle of the blue-walled staircase and Darlington's bedroom.

    Traude hope you find the video. Have you tried video stores?

    Marvelle

    Malryn (Mal)
    November 19, 2002 - 12:08 pm
    Yes, it is Powderham, not Powderhorn.

    The movie Darlington is different from the one in the book. To me he's a naif dilettante with all his fingers in an explosive pie.

    I noticed this time around how Kenton picked up the dustpan and started to take it out of the hall; then stopped, and very deliberately put it back where it was. She had a point to make, and this was a very effective way to do it.

    A scene to remember is when Kenton and Stevens look out the window and see Stevens Senior practicing walking with an invisible tray at the place where he fell.

    There's a great deal of suspense created by the music in the scene where Kenton waits for Stevens to do something about the dustpan. It suggests beautifully the tension between them.

    Did I read that the master, John Williams, did the music for this film?

    When the caravan of cars arrives at the conference, there is an almost adagio type music played with basses and cellos which sounds like a stately warning to me.

    Interesting the way the scene where Stevens Senior is clutching the trolley turns to a scene where Dupont is soaking his feet.

    Hands. Stevens Senior twice asks Stevens, "Is everything in hand?" In the next scene, the blonde fraulein soprano says, "With my hand on my heart. . . ." The placement of the singing of the lied shows the temper and tenor of the international group, I believe -- all pro-German except for Lewis.

    When Stevens stops to see if there's a letter from Kenton, the strings are pizzicato over a basso continuo and a sustained line above. Very effective music.

    Great contrast between the hands pulling bells and the bells ringing by themselves in a very, very busy kitchen.

    Dupont de Vrys has an American accent. Was that his name in the book?

    Stevens' rôle -- to keep everything perfect -- is emphasized by his measuring of the silver place settings.

    More later after I finish watching this film and think about it in relation to the book.

    Mal

    Marvelle
    November 19, 2002 - 12:31 pm
    Powderham, yes. Thanks Mal. With the correct spelling I was able to find the link which shows the blue-walled staircase. Traude, see if you can find the door. These places we're talking about were filmed as being the one estate of Lord Darlington.

    Powderham Interiors

    For pictures of Corsham Court and its relation to the town

    CLICK HERE

    Marvelle

    MmeW
    November 19, 2002 - 01:42 pm
    Ginny: I, too, loved the vision of the bustle of the house preparing for the conference! I also liked the symbolism of the pigeon flying free while Stevens remains trapped in his prison. Thanks for "mullions," Marvelle—I had no idea what those were called. It was even more symbolic as the camera moves back and behind the mullions we see the manor itself.

    I noticed her laying her head down as if on a chopping block, that struck me strange, did that scene strike any of you as odd? Yes, I thought it was very odd, and it did remind me of the chopping block at the Tower of London.

    I rewound to Father’s deathbed scene and I still found no third person dialogue. Father only comes up in the sentence "We have so much to do, Father." But when Stevens reassigns Dad’s duties, he uses 3rd person once: "Because of Father’s accident, it has been decided…" I think any more 3rd person than that might have appeared too stilted. And the film does seem to be a more softened view of Stevens with at least a hint at a relationship. Though he calls him Mr. Stevens at the dinner table, I suppose as an example to the staff.

    Actually, Father’s gripping hands are mentioned in the book, at least indirectly, for Stevens went to his father, "releasing his hands from their grip on the trolley."

    Two other cinematic uses of hands: at the end of the deathbed scene, Stevens almost tenderly reaches out and touches his father’s hand. And twice Hopkins reaches up to his temple, almost as if to ward off a blow. Once when Kenton takes the book, and again after Reggie tells him what a dupe LD is.

    Mr. Benn tries to steer the conversation over to Miss Kenton, Mr. Stevens says listen, listen and continues to enjoy the music No, no! Stevens and Benn are discussing moral stances; Benn says he hears "fishy" things; Stevens says, "I hear nothing." Then he ironically directs their attention to the music. It is only after Kenton brings fresh seltzer that they talk about her.

    I’m surprised no one has mentioned Stevens’s TWO denials of Lord Darlington, which are different here. In the book he denies to the Wakefields and the batman who puts water in his radiator, in the film the first one is to the grocer who has the letter from Kenton (! ), the second to Carlisle. I thought it un-Stevens-like for him to deny LD and then a few moments later admit to the same person that he worked for him. Book Stevens rarely admitted mistakes. I’m sure part of the reason is again to compress the action and characters.

    Another interesting change is the wording of Kenton’s declaration after Stevens said he, too, had been upset about the firing of the maids. Book: "Why, Mr. Stevens, why, why, why do you always have to pretend?" Movie: "Why do you always have to hide what you feel?" (By the way, I’m not sure that was what he felt, but rather hindsight now that LD thinks it was a mistake.)

    I notice in retrospect that some of Miss Kenton’s snippier comments have been left out, such as her requesting written orders. And the teasing exchanges about her leaving. Substituted for that was a lovely conversation where she says what she had said in the book about being ashamed for not leaving, not standing up for her principles, and Stevens replies: "Miss Kenton, you mean a great deal to this house. You’re extremely important to this house, Miss Kenton." (house meaning Stevens, of course)

    I think on the whole we see a much more feeling Stevens in the movie (or at least we see more of his feelings)—the scene just mentioned, the dying scene with Dad, the scene with Benn where he says "I’d be lost without her."

    What I thought interesting about Lord Darlington was his disintegration. He started out as an elegant gentleman, but as the scenes progress and he gets further and further into his right-wing stance, he becomes haggard (as Marvelle said) and morose, unkempt, looking for all the world like a drug addict. There was one scene where he was sitting in what I thought was his coat, but was probably a bathrobe, looking very run down indeed, and of course, the daybed scene.

    Mal: You spoke of Stevens’s returning the chair to its proper place after his talk with Reggie: A great bit of action which to me showed how Stevens deluded himself. I agree, an action underscoring Reggie’s question: "Are you as deluded as he is?" and following Stevens’s eye/temple gesture.

    You asked about the leid; it was Schubert’s "Sei mir gegrüsst" op. 20/1, D. 731, in case you hadn’t found it. The original music was by Richard Robbins, who also did Howard’s End and A Room with a View, amongst others.

    Marvelle
    November 20, 2002 - 04:13 am
    MmeW, Stevens "I hear nothing" runs throughout the film, doesn't it? At the conference's dining table, while speeches on world politics, honor and amateurs are being slung about, Stevens concentrates on the timing of pulling out Darlington's chair for him. He's too focused on his duties to pay attention to what is said just as Darlington is too focused on appeasement to pay attention to Nazi intentions. Both allow themselves to be diverted from the hub of the wheel. They haven't a clue and both, I think, represent England (leaders and the populace).

    I brought up the third person viewpoint of the movie which is sometimes called the limited 3rd person; objective narration; dramatic point of view. As viewers we have direct knowledge of characters' actions and speech but not what the characters are really thinking and feeling except by our process of empathy and reason. We are viewing everything from the outside rather than from Stevens' mind.

    Hopkins' muted emotional responses are there to give us a clue to what he feels while still retaining that sense of repression but the self-deception which is effectively conveyed in the interior monologue of the book is quite muted. What we have in the film that may be its substitute is "I hear nothing".

    Marvelle

    Ginny
    November 20, 2002 - 08:20 am
    Golly MOSES, Roger Ebert sure does not know what he's missing, you all can go to the movies with me any time, (let's start with Gosford Park!) haahahahaha

    Before I get to your comments, I want you to see something!

    LOOK I just had to paste this here, just LOOK at what Marjorie has done, our own page of differences, which we will be adding to as soon as she gets the numbering sequences in order, just want you to see what's being prepared:




    Corsham Court

    Differences Noted in the book The Remains of the Day and "Remains of the Day," the Movie



      This is where the numbered comments will appear



    Dyrham Park




    Malryn (Mal)
    November 20, 2002 - 08:29 am
    Thanks for those great links, Marvelle. It's so much fun to see where the film was shot.

    This movie is an imitation of life. We don't hear internal dialogue in life and can only guess what people are thinking based on their body language and other clues we might pick up. That's why acting can be such a challenge.

    I was watching a scene where Stevens is talking to Kenton and she to him. First Stevens is shown and then Kenton is shown. I thought what great acting it is. In those scenes when only one person is shown, he or she is talking to nothing except a camera and crew. You all probably know that those clips are shot independently of each other, often not on the same day. Acting in movies is very different from acting on the stage. Both of my sons have acted in movies and on television series, as well as on the stage. I learned a lot from them.

    Like Ishiguro, I regard the book and the movie as two separate entities which are somewhat related to each other. For that reason, it is hard for me to compare the two or say one is better than the other. I think James Ivory did a superior job directing this film.

    MmeW, are you a musician? How did you recognize the Schubert lied? Thanks for the name of the composer who did the music for the film.

    Where's Ginny, by the way? I'm anxious to hear more of her opinions about this movie. I hope Traude is all right. She hasn't been in the WREX discussion much lately, either.

    Edit:-- There you are, Ginny! What an elegant page Marjorie has done!

    Mal

    Ginny
    November 20, 2002 - 08:41 am
    Yeah I'm usually just a one post a day type of person and am running late today, unfortunately, but coming on in a mo.

    ginny

    Marvelle
    November 20, 2002 - 09:08 am
    Hopkins and Thompson are great together. Apparently the movie was nominated for 8 Academy Awards, including Best Actor and Best Actress, but didn't win any Oscars. Mike Nichols initially was the producer/director until he had second thoughts about the feasibility of making "Remains" into a movie. He wanted Jeremy Irons and Meryl Streep as the lead actors. Wouldn't have been the same film. And Christopher Reeve, who acted alongside Hopkins and Thompson in "Howard's End" with Merchant Ivory, asked to be in the next Merchant Ivory project without knowing even what the film would be. It turned out to be "Remains" and I suspect that the two Americans in the book were merged to give Reeve a bigger part? Reeve added to his part as Lewis to make him less harsh such as improvising the music room scene with an apology to Darlington as well as his memory of childhood trips to England. This improvisation took James Fox by surprise but he covered it well and that scene with a politely bewildered Darlington remained in the film. Reeve also improvised taking the Frenchman's shoe off and throwing it down. Sometimes it's the actors who change the book and not the screenwriter?

    Mal, where did you see in the film that Stevens disliked or disapproved of the pre-WWII Congressman Lewis? I missed that part and would like to see it again because I think I've missed a lot in my first viewing. Actually I'd like to review the whole film again with a more discerning eye this time round.

    Marvelle

    Malryn (Mal)
    November 20, 2002 - 09:54 am
    Marvelle, I don't believe I said that about Stevens and Lewis. I did say I was bothered because Lewis wasn't as I had imagined him when I read the book.

    Thanks for all the improv information. That happens a lot in the theater and movies. I remember being taken back when my son, Rob, took off on his own in dialogue between us in a performance of an Agatha Christie play we were in. I recovered and pulled us back to the script somehow or other. I don't think we damaged the play at all. For sure, nobody noticed what we'd done except some of the cast and the director. The director wasn't worried about Rob who is a pro, but he certainly wondered what I'd do. There aren't any retakes on the stage.

    Lewis's apology to Darlington seemed okay to me. I love the scene where Reeve takes Dupont's shoe off and throws it down.

    Thanks for the inside info, Marvelle. The Remains of the Day movie was up against Schindler's List, which took most of the Oscars that year. Too bad, really.

    Mal

    MmeW
    November 20, 2002 - 10:47 am
    No, Mal, I'm not a musician. I cheated: the leid was listed in the credits. I do often watch credits for music because I'm curious.

    Marvelle, I don't remember the apology, so I'll have to rewind and look. I do remember his taking the shoe off and wondering about it except it shows that he is a "classless" American, so it wouldn't bother him to take someone's shoe off. I also loved his chasing the bird around, something else I couldn't imagine a British peer doing.

    Another difference: With old Cardinal already dead in the movie, it made a little more sense for LD to ask Stevens to perform the "birds & bees" service. In the book, one wondered why the father would ask LD to do it in the first place.

    Marvelle
    November 20, 2002 - 12:14 pm
    MmeW, perhaps Cardinal Senior and Darlington were in a high enough social/financial bracket to be out of touch with reality; the servants had to deal with the realities of life for them instead?

    I said Lewis apologized but that was me trying to be brief. It was right after the German woman sang and Lewis goes up to Darlington and says in effect "nothing personal; hope I didn't offend you." So it wasn't, to be scrupulous about it, an actual apology.

    Tonight I plan to view the movie again and make a list of differences. Jonathan already did a great job of that.

    Marvelle

    Ginny
    November 20, 2002 - 12:31 pm
    I'm so enjoying all of your posts, you can "go to the movies" with me anytime, there have been several movies I simply had to watch several times to GET it and I'm not sure I always got it in the end anyway.




    First off thank you Malyrn and Marvelle for those marvelous links, it's particularly exciting to me to see where something was shot, no Marvelle I have not been to ANY of these places, nor Castle Howard where Brideshead Revisited was shot and I hope to fix that next year, will send you all a true view of the thing, hahahahaa




    Let's go back to front this time:

    MmeW, you said With old Cardinal already dead in the movie, it made a little more sense for LD to ask Stevens to perform the "birds & bees" service.

    I thought that, too, but do you think his being alive in the book caused the point better that perhaps the upper class just couldn't be bothered? I especially wanted to see Fox's face when he delivered that line, that took great actiing ability!


    Marvelle, Reeve added to his part as Lewis to make him less harsh such as improvising the music room scene with an apology to Darlington as well as his memory of childhood trips to England. This improvisation took James Fox by surprise but he covered it well and that scene with a politely bewildered Darlington remained in the film. Reeve also improvised taking the Frenchman's shoe off and throwing it down. Sometimes it's the actors who change the book and not the screenwriter?

    What? Where is this apology? I want to see Reeve improvise, imagine!!

    I like to listen to the old Basil Rathbone Nigel Bruce Sherlock Holmes radio shows, I have them all on CD and tape. Yesterday in the car I heard something I have never heard before: a mistake.

    One of the minor characters said this long line and there was a total silence. Just total. And there should not have been. Finally Basil Rathbone said something and another said something and suddenly the girl in the piece said the exact same line! It was her line and she had messed it up, and several spoke at once andthey went on, I guess when you tape live in front of an audience as they did standing on the stage you do the best you can, it is riveting, tho, never heard anything like it and I believe those actors on radio read from scripts, not sure where her mind was or why she repeated it, what a mess, delightful 50 years later to hear.




    marvelle, ... win any Oscars. but Hopkins won everything ELSE for that performance, I saw a list yesterday and it’s out the wall, I’m glad he got something, he deserved it.

    Ginny
    November 20, 2002 - 12:32 pm


    Malryn, I liked this: This movie is an imitation of life.

    You all may be interested to hear that in Dr. Parkes's book he does address the movie and he says in one part,


    On a couple of occasions, we find ourselves looking at events through windows and keyholes—ploys that suggest that our point of view is not omniscient but intertwined, to some extent, with Stevens’s.


    I really liked this statement of Parkes’s tho:



    Many of Merchant-Ivory’s changes to the novel lead to simplification, and in some respect this produces an impoverished thematic texture….a major casualty of the translation from book to film, as Ian Buruma complained in the New York Review of Books, is the theme of dignity, which is perhaps more readily conveyed in words than in pictures.


    I had missed the dignity thing being absent too?

    Marvelle, THIS is super:


    Hopkins’s. muted emotional ( Hope I have that right, the doggone insert thing is eating up your words sorry if not)responses are there to give us a clue to what he feels while still retaining that sense of repression but the self-deception which is effectively conveyed in the interior monologue of the book is quite muted. What we have in the film that may be its substitute is "I hear nothing".


    MmeW, This is a good point:


    lovely conversation where she says what she had said in the book about being ashamed for not leaving, not standing up for her principles,


    I don’t recall her saying in the book that that was all her high principles had amounted to and explaining her loneliness, did she?

    MmeW, I did notice the two denials being different thank you for bringing that up, I immediately in the movie started counting but got distracted by all the new stuff, (just like in the book) and did not notice: was there a third?

    MmeW -, Stevens says, "I hear nothing."

    Now here you and Marvelle mention this but I only have the vaguest notion of this being said, does it seem to you a point is being made? I can’t hear that thing without thinking of Colonel Klink, or no, it was Schultzie, wasn’t it? I guess that’s why I put it out of my mind?

    This is a super point, Susan: Two other cinematic uses of hands: at the end of the deathbed scene, Stevens almost tenderly reaches out and touches his father’s hand. And twice Hopkins reaches up to his temple, almost as if to ward off a blow. Once when Kenton takes the book, and again after Reggie tells him what a dupe LD is.

    And thank you for this, too, I completely overlooked it!!!!!!!! (How can we have overlooked ANYTHING IN the book!)


    Actually, Father’s gripping hands are mentioned in the book, at least indirectly, for Stevens went to his father, "releasing his hands from their grip on the trolley."


    Malryn, you asked<



    Dupont de Vrys has an American accent. Was that his name in the book?


    No that’s different too, the Frenchman in the book is M. Dupont. Also super point on your part on the hands:
    Hands. Stevens Senior twice asks Stevens, "Is everything in hand?" In the next scene, the blonde fraulein soprano says, "With my hand on my heart. . . ."


    Malryn, Now here, tho, I ‘m thinking that this scene was also different?

    Stevens Senior practicing walking with an invisible tray at the place where he fell.


    Didn’t he fall on steps something about the summerhouse in the book? Not sure?

    Traude, hope you can get the movie soon, I do realize how difficult it is to get hold of.

    Earlier I said,


    stupid me, those houses probably have 100 rooms,



    What’s the matter with stupid me, last year I had to abandon a plan to go visit the famous “Numbers House” whose name escapes me on the way to Sussex, it’s a house with 365 rooms, 52 fireplaces, 12 staircases, etc? They say it’s a sigh to behold and I will try to see it this year. Imagine. You could go in one room every day of the year and have different surroundings. How would you like to decorate 365 rooms hahahaaha.

    I went to the Duke of Beaufort site and was appalled that it takes him, I think 400,000 pounds to run that thing annually. Imagine then, what it takes to run one of those huge houses?

    There you are, the oldest boy (girl doesn’t count) and that entire pile is yours. It is your home, you grew up there, but it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars annually and your non job if you even have one or even a normal job would not begin to cover it. No wonder so many have been sold or converted into the National Trust, I would faint with the anxiety of having to run such a thing, just IMAGINE, you letting down the hundreds of ancestors!




    Mal, you ask


    Wasn't Benn supposed to be the guest Sir Geoffrey's butler in the film? I'm not sure Geoffrey is the right name. I think we had to see Benn, not imagine him.


    I think, personally, Tim Piggot Smith is too sharp for Benn, I guess I have the movie Lorrie mentioned in my mind but he really has a sharp edge and I thought it a strange match.




    Malryn, you and somebody else (sorry) mention the picking up of the chair, I didn’t see a lot in that, other than Stevens likes order and things to be as they should be. If he had not picked it up it would have been out of place and his fault, I didn’t see any more than that in it, but you guys did, should I put that in the heading?

    Malryn, WHAT?? WHAT??


    When it's held up, Lord Darlington nods his head. Toward the end of the movie the viewer sees Darlington and Stevens hanging that portrait. A symbol of rights of possession?



    Are you kidding? Lord D is at the auction? Lord D and Stevens hang the portrait? REALLY? How on earth did I miss THAT? Many thanks, will rewind!




    marvelle, This is a good point, have always wondered what an intellectual IS? Is it a pejorative term?



    would that disqualify him as an intellectual then?


    ginny

    MmeW
    November 20, 2002 - 01:41 pm
    Ginny: I don’t recall her saying in the book that that was all her high principles had amounted to, etc. She did say it, but it was in the summerhouse that one day, and unrelated to any other scenes except for LD’s telling Stevens that he had been "misguided." I thought it was effective in the movie in that it came right after Lisa’s hiring and thematically tied in with the other love between Lisa and Charlie and their departure.

    There was one word I couldn’t understand in that scene and I rewound it a couple of times: something like "I look out in the world and all I see is lemons. LEMONS? I guess it could be limits. I don’t know.

    was there a third? (denial) No, there were only two denials in the book and two in the movie. The fact that they occurred in different places in the movie confused some readers into thinking there were three in the book, but there weren’t.

    I think, personally, Tim Piggot Smith is too sharp for Benn, I guess I have the movie Lorrie mentioned in my mind but he really has a sharp edge and I thought it a strange match.. I’m unfamiliar with this actor, but I thought he was really good in the role. He had to be a little sharp to stand up so for his beliefs in fishiness to dogmatic Stevens and to quit because of the blackshirts, but I also thought he seemed kind enough for Kenton to marry, and weak enough to not carry through with his plans for a boarding house.

    Mal just made a slip when she said Darlington nodded and hanged the picture; she meant Lewis.

    have always wondered what an intellectual IS? Is it a pejorative term? Agnew thought so: "an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals" (This is a flip remark)

    I liked Dr. Parkes’s explanation of windows and keyholes. I didn’t see much of the dignity theme in the film.

    Jonathan
    November 20, 2002 - 02:24 pm
    First-rate reviewing from all of you. And like the guy who has to consult his critic in the morning-after-the-performance newspaper, I'm getting the benefit of your views before making up my own mind. Naturally, I'm going to stick to my favorite theme; and it pleases me to see Marvelle making such a significant concession in seeing something 'wistful' about the Kenton/Stevens relationship...

    MmeW brings up the question of the mission Stevens is sent on, on behalf of Lord D, who finds the task too 'daunting.' I believe that's the way he puts it, and I believe we can take his word for it.

    Along with the idea of the coming of spring, with its inevitable associations with the fancies of some, and why not butlers, turning to thoughts of love, etc, there is also the huge irony of a man wanting to play a part in rewriting the Versailles Treaty, not being able to enlighten his godson on the simple facts of life. The birds and bees, as well as being part of the furniture of Stevens' memory, are just as important to the dramatic background of the play as the black shirts. Perhaps more. IMO.

    Does anyone feel that Mr Benn was cheated in all this?

    Jonathan

    MmeW
    November 20, 2002 - 02:52 pm
    Oh, yes, Jonathan. Poor Mr. Benn. In both the novel and the film.

    Jonathan
    November 20, 2002 - 02:59 pm
    I spent an hour last night listening to Paul Burrell remembering things. He gave me a good impression of reliability. He is now the propieter of P B Flowers and Gifts. He has authored something called Entertainig With Style. He has been employed by Cunard to entertain cruise passengers on the high seas. His audience, the one shown, was made up mostly of people of a certain age. I hope I'm remembering all this correctly.

    He is every inch a butler. I'm ready to believe that he was Princess Di's Rock. In the best sense of the word. A comfort to have around. With advice to a princess unsure of herself, on what to wear and how to hold up her head at a public appearance. And looking ahead, both for himself and for Princess Diana. At least he said something about 'my desting, as well as P Di's, being aligned with America.

    It got a little eerie listening to him. Among his memories of the tragic event was the thought that: 'in death there is no dignity.' And living on a roller coaster of emotions.

    Did he have anything in common with Stevens? Most certainly. Like Stevens, Burrell felt himself to be 'at the center of the hub' of things.

    Jonathan

    Marvelle
    November 20, 2002 - 03:24 pm
    Jonathan, not a concession about the wistful love between Stevens/Kenton. There was the potentional for love in the book "Remains" but the love angle is definitely played up in the movie. Mr. Benn must have had Stevens' name flung into his face many times whenever he didn't measure up to Kenton's expectations.

    Re "I hear nothing" of Stevens and chairs. The example Mal listed with Stevens and Cardinal and my example at the conference dining table are part of the same motif. Stevens focus on his duty to the extent that he doesn't pay attention to what's happening around him or what's being said. He wards off Cardinal's warnings about Darlington being a Nazi pawn and returns a chair to its rightful place, fulfilling his role as the perfect butler. He doesn't hear the stormy speeches at the dinner because he's focused again on his duty; Stevens concentrates on Darlington, waiting for just the right moment to pull his chair away as Darlington stands for his own speech, then concentrates again for the right moment to push it back as Darlington sits. In the movie Stevens says "I hear nothing" to Benn in the butler's pantry, to (I think) Dr. Carlisle, and to Lewis at the end of the movie.

    There's a lot of difference between the M. Dupont of the book and that of the movie. The movie-Dupont is talked about more, he's known to be anti-German, he's visited London before, he's coming from America, he doesn't know Lewis -- none of this exposition and detail was in the book. But the book has Stevens pressing his ear to the chamber door to eavesdrop on the private conversation between Dupont and Lewis and that hilarious image was not in the movie and could not be I feel because of the tone and overall theme of the movie.

    Marvelle

    Malryn (Mal)
    November 20, 2002 - 03:29 pm
    Yes, I meant Lewis, not Darlington.

    MmeW, I wrote down that line. At least I think it's the one you mean. Kenton is talking to the maid who is leaving to be married and says, "Out in the world, it's living, and it frightens me." That's how I heard it, anyway.

    Stevens denied that he worked for Lord Darlington three times in the book. First to the woman guest to whom he was showing the rest of the house for Farraday. Second to the batman. Third to Mr. Carlisle, the doctor, when he took him to the car after the night at Taylor's.

    I don't recall having seen Tim Piggott Smith in a film before. To me he was perfect as Benn.

    Mal

    MmeW
    November 20, 2002 - 03:53 pm
    Thanks, Mal! That makes a lot more sense than lemons!

    No, Stevens did not deny that he worked for LD to Dr. Carlisle in the book. In fact when he said he worked at Darlington Hall, Carlisle showed no recognition of the name and went on to talk about the folks in the bar and dignity, etc. That's what I meant when I said people were getting the two mixed up.

    Malryn (Mal)
    November 20, 2002 - 04:50 pm
    Sorry, Madame. "The fact is, over the past few months, I have been responsible for a series of small errors in the carrying out of my duties." One will try not to let it happen again.

    Mal

    MmeW
    November 20, 2002 - 05:27 pm
    Very funny, Mal. J Unfortunately, those "series of small errors" on my part have been going on way too long, and I forsee only a worsening of the situation. One has no hope.

    Bill H
    November 20, 2002 - 07:07 pm
    "I have not gotten on a horse..."

    Ginny, I have been lurking in "Remains of the Day" the movie. I didn't read the book, nor have I watched the movie and I couldn't make any worthwhile comments.

    However, I share your thoughts on riding. Many years ago I stable share leased a horse with the owner a woman who most of the time was in California. This was great because I could ride Major just about any time I wanted. I would trail ride through South Park.(no equestrian riding for me, but with my long legs I was a natural trail rider.) South Park is one of two very large Allegheny County parks. One must know the trails well or run the risk of becoming lost. Trail riding is always nice but especially so in Autumn.

    But to the point. Another guy who owned his own horse and had been riding for many, many years, as I had also, was thrown when his horse suddenly bolted, for no apparent reason, over what looked like an open drain. The rider landed on his tail bone and was laid up for ever so long .

    A riding instructor who had attended a military school, where riding was a required subject, was also thrown and broke a bone in his shoulder when his horse suddenly bolted. This was enough for me. Major was a gentile horse but any horse can suddenly bolt. Whenever a rider mounts a horse this danger is always present. I found a young woman who was highly recommended by others and she happily took over my end of the share leasing. I gave it up over twenty years ago but anyone who has done trail riding will understand I still miss it.

    Ginny, I apoligize if this post dosen't belong here but I just had to comment on what you said. It brought back so many experiences, By the way, your heading and pictures are beautiful.

    Bill H

    Jonathan
    November 20, 2002 - 11:08 pm
    Marvelle, I can't understand what you mean by 'there was the potential for love in the book,' an 'angle' that was played up in the movie. In another post, if I'm correct, you talked about an 'unfulfilled' love.

    If I disagree with you, it may be that I see as love almost anything that makes two people special to each other, even, perhaps, only maddeningly aware of each other, in an extreme case. With one or both hopefully sensible of it, but not necessarily. If not that, then obvious to a bystander. As often as not it's a rocky road. A state of tension may be enough evidence. Better evidence, perhaps, than kisses and embraces or a wedding ceremony. It's enough for me that there were tears for her and heartbreak for him. If they don't count as proof of a serious mutual attraction, then how does one explain them. For me the question isn't, was there love, but what an interesting case of love.

    Some things about the movie disappoint me; but not the book scene. That's beautifully done, with Kenton somewhat coquettish, and Stevens in his best reserved mode. And yet for that one moment, as Stevens remembers it in the book, it was something out of the world. And, really, it seems to me Stevens does look entranced for a moment; and Kenton - to me it seems like a look of sad bewilderment. Stevens remembers it as a look of fear in her eyes.

    I see a relationship in the book that shows butler and housekeeper needing each other, for who knows what reasons. That relationship, more than anything is, and was meant to be something for the readers' consideration. The movie has kept that; but the emphasis has shifted, in, as MmeW put it, in a very heavy-handed way. The movie, in my opinion, has turned the book into a morality play.

    Jonathan

    Marvelle
    November 20, 2002 - 11:28 pm
    I reviewed the movie and it was 2 times that Stevens said "I hear nothing". The first time was with Benn in the butler's pantry when Benn said their was talk against certain activities of their employers and what do they say. Stevens replied also that "to listen to the gentlemen's conversations would distract me from my work."

    The second time of 'I hear nothing' was with Lewis at the end of the movie. Lewis remembered the conference of 1935 and how at the dinner "We all stood up and delivered ourselves of our principles. God knows what I said. We got all wound up about it though. What did I say anyway, Stevens?" And Stevens replies "I'm sorry, sir. I was too busy serving to listen to the speeches."

    In between these periods of not hearing there are two similar episodes. When Reginald Cardinal asks him if he isn't curious as to what the gentlemen in the next room are saying, Stevens replies "It's not my place to be curious." And when Dr. Carlisle asks what he thought about the decisions made at DH, Stevens says "I'm a butler. I'm not there to agree or disagree."

    I think the importance is the framing sequence -- beginning and ending -- of "I hear nothing." As movie-Stevens began, so he ends and there is no possibility of change in him.

    Marvelle

    Marvelle
    November 20, 2002 - 11:40 pm
    Jonathan, in the book it was unfulfilled love because Stevens would not admit to himself what he felt, much less admit his feelings to Kenton. It took his journey of the mind to have him face the reality of that love but by then 20(?) years or so had passed and Kenton was not available despite his hopes.

    By saying 'the angle of love' in the movie I meant that there is a more overt emphasis on love in the story than in the book. As I look at the movie I realize that love is not the only theme. There is a sense of solitude in the movie, and regret for what might have been yet I think it isn't restricted to the Stevens/Kenton relationship or Kenton/Benn but also to Lord Darlington.

    Marvelle

    Marvelle
    November 21, 2002 - 12:30 am
    The painting that Lewis bought from the Darlington estate auction and had restored to DH is from the Elizabethan period and is a portrait of "A Portuguese Gentleman." Around this portrait swirls a history of lies, deceit, treachery, persecution, and murder.

    A few highlights of Jewish history in England:

    -- 1) In 1217 English Jews were forced to wear yellow badges in the form of 2 stone tablets to identify themselves as Jewish.

    -- 2) In 1290 Jews were expelled from England. This expulsion lasted for 350 years. Conversos (Jews who publicly converted to Christianity) fled to the Low Countries, often disguised as Spanish or Portuguese Roman Catholics.

    -- 3) 1594 saw the trial and execution of Roderigo Lopez, a Portuguese Converso and the personal physician to Queen Elizabeth I. He was accused by the Earl of Essex and Lord Burghley of accepting a bribe to poison the Queen. Reluctantly and under pressure, Queen Elizabeth I signed the death warrant and Lopez was hung, drawn and quartered. Historians have argued that he was framed. Essex himself was executed for treason in 1601 by order of the Queen. The execution of Lopez in 1594 gave rise to anti-Jewish feelings. There were several dramas with Jewish villains including a revival of Marlowe's "The Jew of Malta" and in 1596 a new play by Shakespeare, "The Merchant of Venice" dealing with revenge, treachery, suspense mixed with romance. Lopez was mentioned by name in Marlowe's "Dr. Faustus".

    -- 4) In 1609 Portuguese merchants were expelled from London on suspicion of being Jewish but by mid-17th Century a new Converso colony grew in London.

    -- 5) In 1649 (350 years after their expulsion) Oliver Cromwell came into power and readmitted Jews into England.

    -- 6) 1858 Emancipation of Jews

    -- 7) 1858 the Jewish Baron, Lionel de Rothschild, took his seat in the House of Commons after an 11-year debate over whether he could take the required oath.

    See the following for more information including the period of "Remains" and modern times:

    History of Jews in England

    IMO the history of Jews in England, particularly Roderigo Lopez, with the threads of bigotry, betrayal, treason, and treachery for power is symbolized in the portrait of "A Portuguese Gentleman." I believe that's why it was featured twice in the movie -- once at the beginning and again at the end of "Remains".

    Marvelle

    Malryn (Mal)
    November 21, 2002 - 12:53 am
    Who painted it, Marvelle, and when?

    Mal

    Marvelle
    November 21, 2002 - 06:56 am
    Don't know who painted it and when, Mal. Wish we had an art expert here although I think it may not be an actual historial painting but one designed for the movie. In the movie Lewis (Reeve) had just bought, rather casually, another painting. Then this painting is placed up for bid. The auctioneer calls it a painting of 'a Portuguese Gentleman from the Elizabethan period'. He says Elizabethan not Renaissance, a not subtle hint that this is not a continental picture.

    Lewis is very very anxious to win it. He squirms in his chair, raises his hand higher, keeps his hand up throughout the bidding. The picture then is another framing story. A history of Jews in England (conversos are well known history) and Stevens who 'hears nothing'. Lewis sees both as historical. Remember the photo he takes as Lewis drives off in the Daimler? A house by the way symbolizes a nation and also a person with windows for eyes and door for mouth. Ears? Lewis puts the painting back in the house. Would like to know the words of the song which I bet has symbolic worth too.

    Marvelle

    Ginny
    November 21, 2002 - 07:11 am
    BILL!! I am so glad to see you here this morning! I think you have ESP, for some reason, (you won't believe this) I woke up thinking about Bill whose Truman discussion is three months old and going strong.

    I wish you did have the movie but I'm so glad to see your comments, and you're totally right. While being a Poll Manager in this last election I asked the owner of the big farmers supply about those floating horse trough defrosters (mine is rusty) and we got to talking about horses and when we left the Poll Manager to my left and I continued talking horses and it was a string of the MOST horrific accidents you ever heard of in your life, death, coma, permanent paralysis, and it went on and on. Just here locally.

    Then you see them riding so blithely to hounds, galloping merrily over hill and dale and wonder what the difference is? But if you talk to people who have spent a lot of time around horses, you find out most people who deal with horses have had usually several bones broken, I myself by 21 had a broken nose, broken ribs, broken toe and cracked shin in separate incidents, not to mention some near misses which still make ne shudder, and still kept going till Christopher Reeve, I hope he not only walks again I hope he runs a marathon, his story is so inspiring. Not to mention our local vetinarian who bred and owned and sold the World Champion Arabian mare to one of the Rolling Stones, Charlie Watts I think, pictures with him, horrifically injured by one of his patients.

    (As an aside they do say that Veterinarians are now opting for small animal practice, much easier and much less dangerous than the large ones, there's an article on it in the new Progressive Farmer).

    I am so glad to see you here, BILL! (And it's a shame you don't have the book, the background subject matter is probably something you know a lot about, due to your Truman readings). We need more collaboration between our discussions, so glad you stopped by.


    More anon on what you all have said, I like, like Jonathan, to have my own ideas and then the joy of savoring them against your own thoughts and perceptions, I'm newly intrigued by that potrait now, especially since it seems I misread the fist time and it's NOT a real painting, it would have been easy enough to use a real one, wonder why the imagined title?

    Malryn, I have to say this, when I rewound the movie to the hanging of the painting I saw Lord D for an instant in Lewis, it was like a flash, I thought it was deliberate, another fade out and watched it twice more, I am still not sure what I'm seeing but Lewis's hair is made to look suspiciously like Lord D's, like...I dunno but it's quite striking, to me, and even tho you meant Lewis, it's kind of a ghostly thrill, I enjoyed it and will watch once more.

    more ....

    Marvelle
    November 21, 2002 - 07:41 am
    About riding to hounds in the movie "Remains" of course the message is not about the hazards of riding a horse but an issue of class privilege. People in England know that which is why the pro/con of hunts is pretty cleanly divided on class lines. The gall to the anti-hunt people is not just animal welfare but the assumption of privilege and the historical image of aristocrats rampaging over the countryside, after a little fox that had no say in the matter if he wanted to be hunted. The riders had a choice, but not the fox.

    What I wanted to say about the painting being symbolic is that the movie uses a lot of visuals and symbols which substitutes for the reduction of words that are naturally in the book. The book "Remains" is rather lyrical and more so is the movie. It's constructed almost like a poem. A poem is so condensed that every bit of space counts and symbolism and imagery are frequently used for big impact. Words or images, if repeated in the limited space of a poem, mean "pay attention; this is important."

    That's what I think too about the movie "Remains" with the two frames to it of 'I hear nothing' and the painting. The movie has a poetic construction to it. The auctioneer's words were meant to bring up the memory of the infamous execution of Elizabeth's physician. The execution for treason was famous in its time, hence the dramas, but is now infamous today. It was an important historical event in England.

    Ginny, I'd like to hear what you think is the connection between Lewis-Darlington-Portuguese Gentleman. And Mal's discerning eye might have caught the image of Darlington in Lewis that the rest of us missed? Are we beginning to piece the puzzle together? I definitely have to rewind the film and view again.

    Marvelle

    Malryn (Mal)
    November 21, 2002 - 08:12 am
    Below is a link to the words and music of Schubert's "Sei mir gegrusst". As far as I can find out, sei mir gegrusst means "I greet you". I can't find the English words. Perhaps when Traude is feeling better, she'll translate it for us. She wrote to me and said that her back has been painful since the problem she had with her car window, and she's had to rest.

    Yes, Lewis is made to look like Darlington in that portrait hanging scene. The English suit he's wearing, which he mentions to Stevens, also reminds me of Darlington.

    Sei mir gegrusst

    Ginny
    November 21, 2002 - 08:17 am
    Marvelle, was going out the door for a mo but saw this and had to respond!



    About riding to hounds in the movie "Remains" of course the message is not about the hazards of riding a horse but an issue of class privilege. People in England know that which is why the pro/con of hunts is pretty cleanly divided on class lines. The gall to the anti-hunt people is not just animal welfare but the assumption of privilege and the historical image of aristocrats rampaging over the countryside,


    The Duke of Beaufort's Hunt site is amazing, I recommend spending some time there, the riders are divided into categories, including farmers, who are then also divided into small land holders, etc, it's amazing. I guess if you plan to ride over MY farm you better let ME participate if I want to . ahahahaha I found that site which you submitted to be one of the more interesting links we've had.

    The message? I had a decorator tell me once that in some parts of the country all you need is a hunt print or two. Maybe, as in the game of Polo we have an idea of what certain class and lifestyles entail and maybe like Dr. Parkes said, the movie visually (paraphrasing) shows the perceived cultural mythology of what we perceive England to be, or what we think that kind of life was like. We know there are fox hunts today, obviously the Duke of Beaufort and smaller hunts, but the hunts are changing, as we have seen by public outrcy if nothing else, and the lands they hunt over are more and more in the hands of people who don't want to participate or allow them. I just skimmed the site which is huge and voluminous and that's some of what I hastily saw there.

    The book, you recall, also tries to deal with this past DAY of greatness, what's a country house without a fox hunt, right?

    Sorry for the segue into injuries, can’t look at a horse, and not the prettiest scene without remembering, hahahaha

    By the way, I think we need this review badly if we can get it, apparently it's negative, it's by Ian Buruma in the New York Review of Books, and he states in addition to what I quoted from him above, on the character of Lord Darlington:

    Quoting from Parkes’s (p,79)

    But by eschewing the voice-over technique that Martin Scorsese employed so effectively in this 1993 film of Edith Wharton’s great novel The Age of Innocence (1920), Merchant-Ivory denied themselves the novel’s primary means of expressing the theme of dignity: the private musings of Stevens's narrative. In addition to diminishing the political subtext of the novel, the effect of this decision is to oversimplify Steven’s character and also that of Lord Darlington , a complex and melancholy figure in the novel whom the film as Buruma argues, turns into a “ one-dimensional simpleton.”


    Now when I look at a movie I like to hear the negative thoughts, too, so do you all agree with Buruma (can one of you find that article, I’d love to read it) that the character of Lord Darlington in the MOVIE is that of a “one-dimensional simpleton?”

    What do you think?

    ginny

    Malryn (Mal)
    November 21, 2002 - 08:41 am
    Ginny, the Ian Buruma article in the New York Review of Books is only available to subscribers. It's possible to buy the electronic version of the article for four bucks for a week.

    NY Review of Books about this article

    Ginny
    November 21, 2002 - 10:10 am
    Bummer, Malryn, thank you for finding that, I'll check with the library here, I really want to read it now.

    Working back to front, (and I now am corrected on the title of the giant painting, I wonder why they did not use a real painting, maybe because of the provenance and that might suggest a real personage? Dunno).




    Marvelle, thank you for the History of Jews in England link, that’s very interesting. Also I liked this, “ Jonathan, in the book it was unfulfilled love because Stevens would not admit to himself what he felt, much less admit his feelings to Kenton.”

    Somewhere in his book Parkes talks about the difference in the film Kenton and the book Kenton in that the difference symbolizes that Stevens (whose mind we see in the book) could not admit to himself that Miss Kenton was so.. alive, she did not play that part (or he would not admit she could) in his life, that was why she was so…less vibrant than she is in the film.

    Hope I got that right, that’s what I understood him to say.




    Super point here, too, Marvelle: “As movie-Stevens began, so he ends and there is no possibility of change in him.”

    Ah maybe the major significant difference (to me, anyway, who did see change in the book). The film has Stevens behind glass, freeing the pigeon and enjoying vicariously its flight but shutting the window, not sadly, and turning and walking away, no change, that’s clear.

    I saw change in the book.




    Womderful point also on the arrangement of the scenes, Marverlle:
    I think the importance is the framing sequence -- beginning and ending -- of "I hear nothing."


    Makes you appreciate filmmaking, doesn’t it?




    Jonathan!! EXPLAIN, PLEASE~!!!!!!!!!

    The movie, in my opinion, has turned the book into a morality play.


    Fabulous, do explain how!




    Jonathan mentions,


    And, really, it seems to me Stevens does look entranced for a moment; and Kenton - to me it seems like a look of sad bewilderment. Stevens remembers it as a look of fear in her eyes.


    I thought there were several wonderful moments where the acting on the part of both Hopkins and Thompson was so good that you could almost read their minds, they are both fabulous.




    Malryn, you mention, “ don't recall having seen Tim Piggott Smith in a film before….” And Mme mentions also her unfamiliarity with Piggot Smith:

    I think Lorrie is right and he was the cruel guy in the Jewel in the Crown, but I looked him up on the internet and he’s HOT in London, playing Scrooge in A Christmas Carol (F. Murray Abraham is playing Scrooge in NYC this season) and played Cassius for which he got rave reviews last season at the Barbican, the guy is HOT over there.




    marvelle, “waiting for just the right moment to pull his chair away as Darlington,” … again I noticed that leap to get the chair and somehow it struck me as wrong, I remember Jeeves and his “shimmering” in and out of rooms, I think that was exaggerated, but I can’t recall why on Stevens’s part.




    Jonathan, I missed this and agree it’s EERIE and SPOOKY:

    'in death there is no dignity.' and as you say apparently being in the “hub” of things is still important, I wish I had seen that, maybe they’ll reshow it:

    Most certainly. Like Stevens, Burrell felt himself to be 'at the center of the hub' of things

    Jonathan asks, Does anyone feel that Mr Benn was cheated in all this?

    In the book, yes. In the movie, no. Felt very sorry for him in the book, not in the movie, for some reason, maybe it’s the actor, even when he’s saying he’d be lost without her etc, his eyes say something else, to me. They’re a poor match and bad chemistry, again, to me.




    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jonathan again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! there is also the huge irony of a man wanting to play a part in rewriting the Versailles Treaty, not being able to enlighten his godson on the simple facts of life.

    Wow, THAT one goes on our original list of irony in the book, are you just now seeing that (I am) and is it because of the movie somehow?

    Super points, you all missed your “calling” as movie reviewers!

    Lots of good questions and points for us to ponder today, penny for your thoughts, I’m off to find the New York Book Review article if I can.

    ginny

    Marvelle
    November 21, 2002 - 10:26 am
    Ginny, like the idea that the foxhunt is part of the book's theme of the past DAY of greatness. Steve Reeve was not on a fox hunt -- and I don't know if I approve or disapprove of such hunts because I've never been around that? Reeve was showjumping which is incredibly dangerous to a rider because he is asking his horse to take (not an easy thing for a horse) increasingly difficult jumps. The potential for injury to a rider is immense. Yet you've never seen such concern for the well-being of an animal; much more concern for the animal I believe than what I've seen at horse shows. It is terrifying to think that the serious injury to a man in superb physical condition could also happen to us. I'm not in his condition so who knows how much more serious it would be to me? I can understand why people decide to stop riding after Steve Reeve's accident.

    Thanks Mal for the song. Hope Traude feels better.

    Ginny, I think the Buruma article would be useful to consider different opinions. But Darlington as a "one-dimensional simpleton"? I don't see him that way at all but as deluded, naive, without originality of thought, yes. Also a man of conscience. Will try to get the NY Times article.

    Marvelle

    Jonathan
    November 21, 2002 - 01:46 pm
    Whatever he was when he set out in his father's footsteps, aiming 'to be of service to one's employer, a superior person', as he put it to Mr Benn, in the end he seems just a haunted old man. For all his best efforts, he takes a battering from everyone, except Lord Darlington. Doesn't Mr Benn think of Stevens as Lord D's hatchet man? (RH: one whose job it is to execute unpleasant tasks for a superior, as critizing or dismissing employees)

    What Stevens is made to suffer in the movie (as in the book, but with much more emphasis) makes him almost a tragic figure. The insinuations from all sides, taking many forms, with their implied criticisms and accusations, become a heavy cross for him, giving him almost a hang-dog look at times. He tried so hard. And what did he get?

    From his father: stern admonitions to keep things in hand, always with an imperturbable mien of dignity.

    From Kenton: determined efforts to break through that imperturbability, which, she told him, in desperation, consisted of hiding and pretending.

    From Harry Smith: a lecture on dignity and equality, contrary to Stevens' ideals.

    From Lord Spencer: a snooty, aristocratic evaluation of the butler's place in the scheme of things. A put down, which even the other lords found hard to stomach.

    From young Cardinal: all the recriminations in the questions hurled at him. 'Do you care at all?' Don't you see what's going on?' 'Are you as deluded as he (Lord D)?'

    From Mr Taylor: an opportunity to contemplate the sad fate of Taylor's son at Dunkirk, when he is given the dead son's bedroom for the night. An echo here of his own brother's fate because of bungling.

    From Dr Carlisle: an insinuation of cowardice and hypocrisy with his questions. 'Did you share his opinions?' 'You trusted him?' Where do you stand in all that?'

    From Mr Lewis in the end: a forced confession that he, Stevens, never did know what was going on. It was his role to see that it got done...well. I doubt if Mr Lewis will ever want to be second-guessed by his butler, or asked for advice.

    And always there is Miss Kenton, with her defiance and her teasing ways. 'What is that book you are reading?' 'Why do you hide what you feel?' 'That smile tells an interesting story.' Can it be that you are 'a man of flesh and blood, who can't trust himself?'

    Stevens: 'You must be right, Miss Kenton. You're always right.'

    Stevens was never more tender than when he reminds the sobbing Kenton of something left undusted in the breakfast room. He was never more himself. His inner turmoil, evident already in the angry DAMN! over the broken bottle, when his mind and heart were elsewhere, was just as great as hers. I agree, MmeW, it was cruel. But that was his professional way of handling dicey questions, including matters of the heart. Kenton was just as professional; but without the toughness expected of the matron by both Stevens and Mr Lewis, awaiting the arrival of the new housekeeper.

    The movie, to my mind, makes too much of the evils of the 20th century, with Stevens being seen almost as that Everyman who is asked to take on himself, along with his sins and crimes of ommission, the heavy guilt of having contributed to the woes of the world. It's an excellent movie; but I can't help feeling that Stevens' story underwent a sea change in its artistry. The background to what was meant as a searching look at relationships, at the hallowed ground of the human heart, has been allowed, for the sake of dramatic whistles and bells, to obscure a merry, heart-breaking love story...or ghost story.

    The face in the window, looking up, belongs to a haunted man.

    Jonathan

    Malryn (Mal)
    November 21, 2002 - 02:19 pm
    Applause, Jonathan. I have great admiration for your Post #76.

    Mal

    Malryn (Mal)
    November 21, 2002 - 02:24 pm
    I, too, was struck by Stevens' having to sleep in the bedroom of the Taylors' son who was killed at Dunkirk. Stevens' brother is not mentioned in the movie, as far as I can see, so what does this mean? Is it a reflection on Darlington and on Stevens' unquestioning loyalty to him? "I was there not to agree or disagree." The poor bloke was just doing his job in the best way he knew how, wasn't he?

    Mal

    Marvelle
    November 21, 2002 - 02:41 pm
    Jonathan, as usual an eloquent post. Did Harry Smith expound on dignity in the movie? However, the unfulfilled love story of the book is given greater presence in the movie since Stevens is allowed to show, however briefly, emotions on his face and does not deceive himself that he hasn't such feelings. Yet, as I believe Dr. Parkes said, the love story is a red herring for the theme(s) of book and movie. The love story is one of the stories of the movie. Ginny, what is the major theme of the movie? Is it different from the novel?

    Marvelle

    MmeW
    November 21, 2002 - 03:26 pm
    Marvelle, Ishiguro's literary agent said the theme of the movie was emotional repression, and I think Jonathan expressed it very well, emotional repression on all fronts, not just love. They all dished it out and Stevens took it, displaying no emotions except for his one "damn"!

    Mal, I see the ones (Leonard in the book and the Taylors' son in the movie) who went off to war as (ironically enough) the ones who "lived." Also in the movie Dunkirk as a contrast with the "important events" going on at Darlington Hall. Who was Stevens kidding?

    Jonathan, bravo for a great post!

    Marvelle
    November 21, 2002 - 03:47 pm
    MmeW, thanks. We were posting at the same time and I had realized I meant storylines rather than themes so here goes the corrected post.

    Oops, I asked Ginny a question that I wasn't even thinking about. Not what is the major theme of the movie -- we already have that -- but what are the various themes, motifs, symbols, stories that are in the movie? I feel as if the movie has 3 main characters Stevens, Kenton and Darlington. IMO Darlington-Lewis are pretty much the same except for nationality and their power base. In the book Darlington was less a presence.

    I still see Stevens as the Everyman who represents the populace and Darlington represents the leaders. Is Lewis the new ruling class? "The King is dead, long live the King?" Is there much difference today in the power of the rich as opposed to the past in the power of the aristocracy?

    The most urgent question for me is what is the meaning of the motifs of "I hear nothing" linked with the portrait of the Portuguese Gentleman? Or am I wrong to see these two motifs as being somehow related? I think the portrait is a warning of history repreating itself for what happened in 1549 and 1617 and 1620 also happened in the 1930s and 1940s and can repeat again so long as people 'hear nothing' and let others make the decisions and mistakes for them. Not sure if I'm connecting these two motifs into anything understandable but I'll keep working on it.

    Could a marriage between Stevens and Kenton in the movie be less disastrous than how it would be perceived from the book? I personally feel that movie-Stevens, if he ever got to the point of admitting his feelings so that they could marry, would do alright and he and Kenton would make a good pair. Yet, whatever Stevens feels, he keeps it repressed and occupies himself in his cage of work. In the end, he's still living a second-hand life as observer rather than participant but without hope for change in the movie.

    Marvelle

    MmeW
    November 21, 2002 - 04:09 pm
    Marvelle, I love your interpretation of the "I hear nothing" motif.

    Ginny
    November 22, 2002 - 08:49 am
    Why, Mr. Jonathan, how fabulous you are, super points by all, let's put some of your questions in the heading and look more closely at some of the points you all have raised:




    Back to front:

    Marvelle said Could a marriage between Stevens and Kenton in the movie be less disastrous than how it would be perceived from the book?

    It would be warmer, that's for sure. He's have a better soul mate, I watched the beginning of it again, "OH Mr. Stevens, " she sighs, a lot of passion there, warmth, he'd be happier.




    Marvelle, you said, "linked with the portrait of the Portuguese Gentleman? " A couple of you have mentioned this, and it's not Portuguese, it's "portly" I listened to it twice yesterday. Portrait of a portly gentleman and his face is quite familiar to me, can't quite place it but I think it's a stylized combination of Reeves and somebody else, not sure who. Whoever it is, he’s got a very knowing look for the viewer.




    Mme, Mal, I see the ones (Leonard in the book and the Taylors' son in the movie) who went off to war as (ironically enough) the ones who "lived."

    This is an electric point. Why do you see the dead as the ones who really lived? “They also serve who only stand and wait,” no?




    Yes, Marvelle, you're right, Reeves was doing stadium jumping when he got hurt and he also is a very tall man with a long torso from waist to head and his horse (as shown in films of him after the accident) appears to me to be quite small: short coupled and short necked, which would tend to make him dangerously overbalanced, which is not that uncommon in professional show jumping. But he’s not the only one, if you ever get any of the Wild Feeds of the various European competitions in jumping the accidents are truly horrendous, it’s a miracle any of them live, regardless of their own physical size; this past Grand Prix which I saw in Rome this year was horrific, just, I’ve gotten to where I can’t watch them, really, it’s very artificial and in some ways cruel.

    I thought one scene in the movie about the hunt, where Stevens stands there holding up the drink while the huntsman waves his hands and chats obliviously to Lord D was superlatively done, showing the nature of the “service” Stevens does. Also another point in the movie at the beginning on this subject, when Stevens is serving Mr. Lewis breakfast, and Mr. Lewis says thank you Stevens, Stevens turns and stammers, he’s so used to saying Milord but can only finally get out…”Mr. Lewis”….. Super job there and again very telling of the changes Stevens is going thru.

    (Another note, in the scene with Stevens and the huntsman, the huntsman is the real thing, has a perfect “seat,” his foot correctly in the stirrup, that’s one litmus test for riders in movies, the position of their feet in the stirrup, you can tell in a second who rides and who does not, just a fun thing to look for, but sometimes it makes the result hilarious.

    Marvelle, you said Ginny, what is the major theme of the movie? Is it different from the novel?

    I don't accept the literary agent's view of the theme of the movie, not without thinking about it myself, let's do. I know what the theme of the book is, or the major theme, in my own opinion it 's a journey of the mind. I don't think that's the theme of the movie and I would like to hear other thoughts which may differ from Ishiguro's literary agent or secretary's remarks. Thank you for that question.




    Somewhere in Parkes’s book I thought I saw him say that most of the significant action in the BOOK takes place in the past, I had not paid that any attention, I’m not sure that’s true for the movie, what do you think?




    marvelle, Did Harry Smith expound on dignity in the movie? No, and that's a point Parkes makes as it dilutes the dignity theme further and as we've seen with Jonathan mentioning Burrell, "dignity" is apparently a big thing with butlers.

    Ginny
    November 22, 2002 - 08:52 am


    Malryn mentioned that . Stevens' brother is not mentioned in the movie, as far as I can see, so what does this mean?

    Excellent question, let’s see what everybody thinks, going up in the heading, we get the MOTHER and a strange explanation of why dad divorced her, and no brother, no kin. Neither, if you note, did Miss Kenton have the aunt.




    Jonathan, The movie, to my mind, makes too much of the evils of the 20th century, with Stevens being seen almost as that Everyman who is asked to take on himself, along with his sins and crimes of omission, the heavy guilt of having contributed to the woes of the world.

    What were his sins of commission? We all have decried his sins of omission?

    What a perspective here!!!

    Stevens was never more tender than when he reminds the sobbing Kenton of something left undusted in the breakfast room.

    Oh you see that as tender and most have seen that as cruel, is this a masculine POV or something else? He was trying to get her mind off it and on to something she could deal with? She does a fantastic job in that scene you can read her face, bewildered, hopeful, hopeless, fascinating, well done wonder how many takes that took?

    He tried so hard. And what did he get?

    Ahem. At the risk of …well I won’t say it, but this comes dangerously close to the shattered idealist theory first mentioned in the book discussion actually. Which one shows this better, the book or the movie?

    Still thinking about the themes of the movie and which is the strongest, we get a big dose of the cultural mythology of England, the turn over of the old to the nouveau riche Americans, the transfer of generations of culture to whoever can pay, not sure what the main theme was tho? Was THAT it?

    Where does the love story come in?

    ginny

    Malryn (Mal)
    November 22, 2002 - 09:00 am
    I watched the movie for the fourth time last night to find out if I could see what Marvelle refers to when she talks about the portrait.

    I saw several portraits of Portuguese gentleman in my search for the one in the movie. It seemed a popular subject for artists to paint for many centuries.

    It would be a long stretch for me to think more than the fact that the movie portrait was used at the auction in the beginning to show the downfall of a great house, and used toward the end to show that Lewis was bringing back the opulence, splendor and original character of that house. The bustling around and removing of the sheets from the furniture in a following scene would corroborate that for me. What's interesting to me is that this is being done by an American. Power and wealth have changed hands. Lewis, the more liberal thinker, is now in control of Darlington House and all that implies.

    I don't consider Stevens Every Man. Harry Smith and the people at Taylors' were Every Man. Harry Smith talked about equality (all men should be considered gentlemen) and democracy (we fought for it, didn't we?) I don't recall Smith's talking about dignity. Stevens and his father talked about dignity at the servants' dinner table.

    Stevens' insistence that he heard nothing, that he was there not to agree or disagree were all part of his job. There were expressions of surprise and concern on his face at times which gave clues to the way he was thinking. I remember how he looked when Lord Darlington told him the two maids had to be fired, and that he reacted, if subtly, when the prime minister and Ribbentrop were ushered in. Stevens' position appeared to me to be that he knew his place (and he really did have one as a butler) and was going to do everything he could to keep it in the most dignified way he knew. The viewer can only guess at what he went through when Lord Darlington was disgraced. It is notable that loyal Stevens never left his lordship's side.

    The repressed love between Stevens and Miss Kenton is the principal theme of this film. What Lord Darlington did and the consequences are the ship of fools in which Stevens lived. Darlington was not a paper character to me; he was misguided in a way that made me sad. Benn was Kenton's pawn.

    How can anyone call Stevens' life "second hand"? He had strong beliefs about who he was and what he did, and his principles were very strong. He lived up to them and kept them, presumably all of his life.

    Edit:-- "Portly". That explains it.

    Mal

    Malryn (Mal)
    November 22, 2002 - 09:09 am
    Just saw your post, Ginny. Last night when I watched this film, I heard Stevens' father say something like "When I found her playing around, I fell out of love with your mother." At the time I thought this must have something to do with Stevens and Kenton. What I came up with was how Stevens felt when Kenton came back and told him she'd agreed to marry Benn. It's so interesting. The loudest chord I heard in the whole movie comes when Kenton walks in and shuts the door. It's a very, very tense moment with Stevens doing everything he can to stay in control.

    Mal

    Marvelle
    November 22, 2002 - 12:16 pm
    Ginny, portly not Portuguese? Another of my theories shot? I'm really going to have to view the first part of the movie again because I swear it was Portuguese but must admit that I've had a hearing problem since childhood. But ... portly? Are my eyes going too? (No surprise if they are.) I didn't see the man in the portrait as portly. Well, back to viewing the movie again and then some.

    I didn't see Stevens as "tender" when he walks up to the sobbing Kenton and talks about undusted furniture. This was a turning point for Stevens; he could have let his feelings through but instead he talked about the job! As he distracts himself with work, so he thinks he'll distract Kenton but it isn't what she needed.

    Marvelle

    Jonathan
    November 22, 2002 - 12:23 pm
    For ever wilt thou love, and she be fair!'

    Why marriage? Love is of various kinds. Stevens feelings may seem repressed to the world; but nothing of them is left unfelt or unseen for the reader or movie-goer. Stevens' love is genuine, the real thing, even if left for ever unravished, like the beautiful one on Keat's Grecian Urn.

    Does Dr Parkes really say that the love in the story is a red herring? Then why are some of us crying? With all due respect, I think that would be a serious lack of discernment. Most unfeeling. But in a work of art, theme is what the viewer makes of it. Different folks. Different strokes.

    I'll pass on the bliss, to keep the love for ever fresh. And besides, fulfillment is a will-o'-the-wisp. For ever elusive...

    Jonathan

    betty gregory
    November 23, 2002 - 02:26 am
    Not a sadder moment in any love story movie than when Stevens opens his mouth to bring comfort to someone he loves....and all his fear will permit is something about tending to dust in the breakfast room. Just moments before, we witnessed the only uncovered glimpse into his heart when the wine bottle shattered and he momentarily lost his protective shell. "Damn!!" Truth!

    Jonathan says it better, if somewhat differently, than I do...."Stevens was never more tender than when he reminds the sobbing Kenton of something left undusted in the breakfast room. He was never more himself. His inner turmoil, evident already in the angry DAMN! over the broken bottle, when his mind and heart were elsewhere, was just as great as hers."

    Those two moments give us the depth of love felt and the ironic and sad and so-true-to-life and universal-baggage-that-forever-gets-in-our-way-of-embracing-life fear, and so we pull back, I mean, Stevens pulls back into safety. And life goes back to a protected sameness.

    -------------------------------------------------

    I don't begin to understand how someone (Parkes) could call the love in this movie a red herring, but neither does it make sense (to me) that he labeled Virginia Woolf characters (many who are evaluating or assessing life) "psychotic." (A unique perspective.) I know some male critics are criticized for devaluing "love" themes, opting to assign more importance to meatier themes....i.e., mental journeys, etc., though I don't know this to be true of this particular critic. I just don't understand and don't agree with the "red herring" thought. (...and I recognize the subject of cognitive/mental being valued over emotional/love themes....think of the expression "Just a chick's movie.")

    ---------------------------------------------

    I understand, I think, what you mean by "unfulfilled love," Marvelle, but the movie (even with all of its differences from the book) underscores with facial expression, exquisite music and all the other scenic and directing decisions....felt love, in my view. What Miss Kenton and Stevens are feeling, conveyed by the superb acting plus the words uttereed, is what feeds our yearning for a resolution of some kind. The mystery of what will happen grows larger. We feel invested because we sense that they are, too. Those who felt sad at the very end may not have been that surprised, really, but are acknowledging through the sadness how much was at stake.

    Betty

    betty gregory
    November 23, 2002 - 02:39 am
    Pardon all my mixed verbs. I never can decide if a poster "writes" or "wrote" or if a character "went" or "goes," or if the sun "is setting" or "set." So, I mix them, past and present in every sentence. Somebody, HELP!!

    Betty

    Ginny
    November 23, 2002 - 05:59 am
    -- I just don't understand and don't agree with the "red herring" thought. (...and I recognize the subject of cognitive/mental being valued over emotional/love themes....think of the expression "Just a chick's movie.")

    --Does Dr Parkes really say that the love in the story is a red herring? Then why are some of us crying? With all due respect, I think that would be a serious lack of discernment. Most unfeeling. But in a work of art, theme is what the viewer makes of it. Different folks. Different strokes.


    No he didn't say anything at all about “red herrings” and the movie?

    I hope to goodness I didn't quote the now infamous red herring remark in this discussion, with Clipmate, tho, anything is possible, it's a miracle I haven't quoted the Declaration of Independence. I won't look back, but if I did quote in this discussion anything at all about red herrings in the movie the mistake is mine and I apologize.

    Parkes did not say anything about red herrings and the movie.

    His remarks, if you check back in the book discussion, pertain to the author's timing in the BOOK of using aspects of a love story (you may recall Parkes wrote the book was very much a love story) when something important was happening in Stevens's journey of the mind?

    That was what the red herring thing was? Not about the movie, sorry for that apparent misunderstanding, hope that clears the air on the red herring incident, I want to say let's kipper it but am afraid of being misunderstood (again) so won't. hahahahaha I like it smoked with sour cream and red onions but will not persevere unless encouraged? On New Year's Eve.




    Marvelle, I hope it's not a question of hearing, because if it IS I'm in big trouble. I went back to see more about the large painting and could not understand a word so ran it three times on the loudest thing the VCR and the TV could do, and got portly, finally, the guy swallows his vowels and clenches his teeth and yesterday again ran it again and even the dog came running in to see what massacre was occurring, you weren't the only one saying Portugese (sorry about the theory, my own Leonard Theory also bit the dust, unfortunately, but it was fun while it lasted)...




    Betty it's good to see you here, I think I'll go out on a limb and answer Marvelle's question in the heading that the main theme of the movie is unrequited love, or...how about Love's Labours Lost? What can you say, when it finally comes to Miss Kenton from Stevens, or I guess when he finally acknowledges it (does he?) to himself ...here is where the movie and the book also differ, a lot, to me...) it's too late. I think there's a literary term for this but don't know what it is?

    I'm trying to remember and I have to take the movie back today, if she actually says in the movie she loves Mr. Benn, does she?

    I don't think so, that's foggy there.

    He also does not ask her if Mr. Benn mistreats her, or I don't think so, another difference in film and book. I'm slow getting up that HTML page but Marjorie has it ready and all I need is the list from your posts, am a bit behind. Any volunteers to get up the list of the differences you all have found and who said each?

    What I want to do with the movie now is run it to the end quickly to see the credits, because I have my own new pet theory aborning.

    You know the thing where Stevens stands there ignored like a dog holding up the silver chalice (could that be symbolic of something?) for the huntsman? And the huntsman keeps on chatting with Lord D?

    Well that plummy accent, and the age of that huntsman and the sheer glee with which he snatched off his hat and said something like (am not putting it up at earsplitting decibles to hear again) "Good morning, M'Lord," makes me think that's the Duke of Beaufort himself! Talk about crazy theories!

    I think it's he. And so finally having ascertained that Lord D calls him "Ian," I'm going to find "Ian" if I can and see if it's HE!

    Anybody have any comments on some of the super questions raised in the heading by our viewers?

    ginny

    Ginny
    November 23, 2002 - 06:46 am
    Just a few brief comments on your latest thoughts,

    Betty: “Those who felt sad at the very end may not have been that surprised, really, but are acknowledging through the sadness how much was at stake.”

    I thought the scene with Stevens behind the rainy windshield was really restrained. She’s crying and gets on the bus. It’s raining. He’s sitting behind a windshield with the tears…er…rain, running down the glass in front of him but HE is not crying, the camera does not close in on that, he’s under glass just like at the end. Thought that was subtle.

    Just moments before, we witnessed the only uncovered glimpse into his heart when the wine bottle shattered and he momentarily lost his protective shell. "Damn!!"

    I spent some time wondering how he got that off him, am I the only one? And again not in the book.




    Jonathan, interesting point: Stevens' love is genuine, the real thing, even if left for ever unravished, like the beautiful one on Keat's Grecian Urn.

    And he loved more than one person, at least in the book I thought, do you agree?


    marvelle, hahaha, Are my eyes going too? (No surprise if they are.) I didn't see the man in the portrait as portly.

    We’re falling apart together then because I thought (and am not going back to look) I saw a wasp waist and a thin face with a very knowing expression, is that a stylized Steve Reeves?




    Malryn, I liked this point, The loudest chord I heard in the whole movie comes when Kenton walks in and shuts the door.

    I noticed the music in the movie up to a point, missed this entirely, and the only time I began to notice the music was near the end in the scenes where it was not there, if I had time I’d go back thru the movie and see where it ebbs and flows, I do think it’s important, thank you for mentioning that.

    By the way, I personally found the scene where Mr. Lewis walks alongside the car, taking snapshots of it as it leaves the grounds incongruous, am I the only one who thinks so?

    What were we to make of that? Surely he had opportunity to take snaps of his own car other than that, or IS it his own car?

    ginny

    Marvelle
    November 23, 2002 - 08:48 am
    Ginny, yes I really wondered how Stevens got the wine off himself. Imagine serving Darlington and guests when your shoes smell of wine! Stevens would never ever allow that to happen. He would have gotten the wine off somehow.

    I still believe the love is unfulfilled because Stevens did not admit it to Kenton or even to himself; he kept it inside. Dare I say, repressed? The turning point is either the book scene or the guillotine scene, I haven't decided yet. But the movie is like a symphony rather than a piano solo and there is more than one theme to the movie. The repressed love is part of the overall repression that Stevens practises.

    The snapshot Lewis took of Stevens in the Daimler was interesting and replaced IMO the scene in the book where Stevens was meant to be a trophy to Lewis' guest, with the Lewis' attitude of 'this is the butler who served the infamous Darlington. Now he's my butler.' Stevens is a showpiece in the movie and the book. And Lewis puts him in a German car and takes a picture! I believe, on no evidence whatsoever, that the Daimler was part of Darlington's estate or else Lewis bought it as appropriate to the infamous appeasement period of Darlington Hall.

    Ok, you didn't hear Portuguese, Ginny? Well that theory bites the dust. However, the history of Jews in England is still viable to the book and movie in showing the cycle of hatred and acts against Jews. It gives Darlington's easy acceptance of 'the evil of Jewry' legs. (By the way, the library rooms are from Cosham Court. I could live in that library without any of the other rooms although I'd have to replace Darlington's books.) More about the possibility of a 'one-dimensional nincompoop' Darlington later....

    Marvelle

    Malryn (Mal)
    November 23, 2002 - 03:20 pm
    Christopher, Christopher, Christopher Reeve. Steve Reeves was a bodybuilder who played Hercules. ; )

    Lewis must have bought the Daimler with the house, and what a beautiful car it was. All I could think was that Lord Darlington favored the Germans so much that he bought a German car. Daimler merged with Benz in 1927, I believe.

    Perhaps Mr. Lewis was amused to see his butler drive away in his motor car? Was that the reason for the snapshot?

    I didn't see anything "guillotine" about Kenton's crying scene. She was sitting on the floor by a footstool. When Stevens left the room, she put her head down on it for some comfort. That's how I saw it, probably because I've done it. Stevens' tone certainly was gentle in that scene. I can imagine that he thought talk about work would bring her back to that moment and help her regain her control. I'm sure it would never have occurred to Stevens to put his arms around her and pat pat her back. After all, she had just told him she was engaged to be married to another man.

    I think the film director used the death of the Taylors' son to point out how terrible World War II was and remind the viewer about Lord Darlington's part in it. Stevens' brother's death would not have done this.

    Neither of these war casualties appeared to me to have more life than anyone else in this film. There was life in Darlington Hall, lots of it, and there was plenty going on. Stevens and Kenton lived where they worked, as many people do. I had a job as a musician in a lounge in a hotel once. Part of my pay was room and board at the hotel. That world was encased, so to speak, but I saw more intrigue among the staff, most of whom I knew, and heard about more crises than I experienced at any other job I had.

    Well, the video is on its way back to the store, so from now on anything else I write will be unreliably narrated from my memory.

    Mal

    Ginny
    November 23, 2002 - 03:29 pm
    hahahaha, it's hopeless, I'm doomed, I simply CANNOT get it straight, it's Christopher Reeve and George Reeves who played Superman, Christoper is in the movie (wonder why my mind keeps doing this, do you suppose his real name is Steve? hahahaha)

    ANYWAY not only that but I can't find one thing about the Duke of Beaufort and he was not identified by "Ian" in the credits, and I took mine back too but the one I ordered came in the mail so I'm good to go, I guess, can't even find out the Duke of Beaufort's first name (wanna bet a lunch it's "Steve?") hahahaha

    hahahaha

    Marvelle
    November 23, 2002 - 04:04 pm
    Christopher Christopher Christopher -- he is an actor and when he played Superman he built up his body to look the part. George Reeves was the original Superman of TV fame. Steve Reeves was a bodybuilder who became an actor, starring in Italian extravaganzas such as the Hercules epics. But we are talking about Christopher Christopher Christopher.

    Marvelle

    Ginny
    November 23, 2002 - 04:29 pm
    now don't miss Steve Caesar, which we'll do in March, or Steve Sisters which we'll do January 2, I'm currently rereading the House of the Steve Gables, it's very good, hahhaahha

    Found this about Ian (thank you marvelle ) he of the Beaufort Hunt: he was 46 in 1993, when was this movie made?

    Name - Farquhar Captain Ian (Joint Master of Duke of Beaufort)

    Address - Warren Cottage, Acton Turville, Badminton

    Convicted - 3/9/93

    Fine - 2 year conditional discharge and £4000 costs

    Magistrates - North Avon

    Age/D.O.B - Aged 46

    Also convicted - Alone

    Notes - Found guilty of interfering with badger setts.

    Marvelle
    November 23, 2002 - 04:51 pm
    Ah Ginny, here's some additional information about the people of the hunt. The movie was released around 1986 so Ian Farquhar would have been near 40 years old? He is joint Master of the Beaufort Hunt, sharing the title with the Duke. He's a close friend of Prince Charles who, along with his lady friend Camilla, rides with the Beaufort Hunt. So our Ian must be upper class esp. with that plummy voice? Some trivia I read, his family put out a cookbook with contribution from Prince Charles (or was it Camilla?).

    The 11th Duke of Beaufort (David Robert) was born in 1928 so would have been about 58 when the movie was made. The 10th Duke was Henry Hugh Arthur Fitzroy, 1900-1984. The family name is Somerset.

    Marvelle

    Ginny
    November 23, 2002 - 04:57 pm
    So the question IS, HU is that man with the plummy accent called "Ian" by Lord D? I KNOW this is an inside joke, I just know it. Is it IAN who was 40 or was it the Duke of Beaufort (and I won't tell you how I have heard THAT pronounced) who was 58? I'd say the man on the horse with the plummy accent is closer to 60, what say you all?

    (Are you sure his name is not Steve?) hahahaah

    I KNOW that's an inside joke, I just don't know HU it is.

    Steve

    Marvelle
    November 23, 2002 - 05:12 pm
    Dear Steve,

    You've got me anxious now to see the beginning of the movie. If the "Ian" in the film is nearing 60 then waddaya bet it is the Duke? He was 58 at the time; Ian Farquhar was not quite 40. Steve, you know English accents so if you say that plummy accent is the Duke's I believe you even if you can't hear Portuguese when it's spoken.

    Ciao,

    Marvelle

    Malryn (Mal)
    November 23, 2002 - 05:42 pm
    Steve, what I want to know is do they say B U F O W D or B O W F O W D?

    Mal

    Marvelle
    November 23, 2002 - 07:36 pm
    Mal, I'm afraid of Steve's answer to your question but I'm dying to hear it.

    Here's another bit that I was curious about the opening auction scene and the losing bidder for the 'Portly Portuguese Gentleman.' Corsham Court is an Elizabethan building famous for its art collection. In 1981 Lord Methuen had to sell for taxes Corsham Court's famous painting, Van Dyck's "The Betrayal of Christ."

    So naturally I wonder if the close-up of the losing bidder was that of Lord Methuen himself? Perhaps the painting was his also? This is just a question and I won't pursue it for this discussion. I was just curious about it.

    Marvelle

    Malryn (Mal)
    November 23, 2002 - 08:11 pm
    Here's a link to a review I hadn't seen before. In it there's a description of a scene between Stevens and the stranger in which Stevens sheds tears about the past. This scene was left over from the original Harold Pinter screenplay to be used when Mike Nichols directed. After James Ivory took over, he told Ruth Prawer Jhabvala to omit the scene, as you will see in this review.

    Another review of The Remains of the Day

    Marvelle
    November 23, 2002 - 09:42 pm
    Mal, what interested me is that Hopkins wanted the crying scene with the retired butler. In the movie I felt the loss of that scene but can see that it didn't fit the filmmakers' vision. They wanted a Stevens with no hope for change.

    The opening and ending scenes are tied together too. In the opening scene its as if we, the filmgoers, are driving up to the estate behind a line of other cars, like walking up the aisle of a movie theatre. Then we're gradually made part of the auction and the film.

    At the end, Kenton and Stevens clasp and unclasp hands and to me it's like saying goodbye to dreams and what might have been. And we see Stevens face behind the windshield of the Daimler with rain pouring down. He's cut off from the world -- of which Kenton is a part -- by that layer of glass. Rain stands for emotion, the tears he doesn't, cannot outwardly shed.

    Back at DH Stevens tells Lewis that 'I hear nothing' because he's too busy to pay attention to what's happening around him. At that moment a pigeon flutters down the chimney into the room and tries to get out through the skylight (more glass). Lewis, not Stevens, catches the pigeon -- in his hands -- and releases it to the outdoors while Stevens stays in the background making encouraging noises. Another second hand experience?

    Stevens closes the glass doors and looks briefly out at the world between the mullions like bars in a cage. This is the last symbolic choice we see Stevens make but his course was set long before IMO. The final shot is a pigeon's view of flying away from the estate over the countryside, leaving Stevens and his choice behind.

    My belief is that the pigeon, no insult intended, is the filmgoer -- us. We were auction-goers making a cautious, standard entrance to our seats, and after the auction we flew up to the roof to eavesdrop (like novel-Stevens) at the chimney opening. It took the new owner to shoo us out when we fell down the chimney and into the storyhouse where we were interlopers. We didn't belong in that house behind the glass and Stevens did.

    Why does the film have us fly away? We fly because we feel a release or elation? We fly because we've learned something or some lesson? I'll have to consider that. Don't know if the filmgoer as bird makes sense but I'm trying to figure it out.

    Marvelle

    Malryn (Mal)
    November 24, 2002 - 08:27 am
    I think when Lewis captures the pigeon, it reveals that he has not yet learned the rôle of master. I think there are hints of this earlier in the burned toast scene and the camera scene.

    The ending of this movie reminded me of the end of "Forrest Gump" where the viewer is transported far up in the air and away by the white feather. Frankly, I was sorry to leave Darlington Hall. I don't know about you.

    I read last night that Anthony Hopkins became a citizen of the U.S. this year. I believe he still holds English citizenship, but am not sure. I also read that he is frequently seen at AA meetings in various places around the world. I think he's a genius as an actor. Maybe tonight I'll watch "Shadowlands" again.

    Mal

    Marvelle
    November 24, 2002 - 10:20 am
    Lewis hasn't learned "the role of master"? Yikes! I hope that idea of a master is past in Europe. Lewis is used to giving orders but he is American, not from the England of Darlington, and he'll always rush in to do things when an emergency arises. Taking action is a very American trait. Lewis came from wealth so there is no question of being unused to servants. Perhaps he's more egalitarian? Whatever it is, Stevens is disconcerted but will do his duty as a butler by adapting to the situation.

    Marvelle

    Malryn (Mal)
    November 24, 2002 - 10:39 am
    I thought Lewis was newly rich, having made his money in "Dry Goods".

    Here is a link to an excellent review by Alan Stone. It's a long one, so be prepared.

    Stone review

    betty gregory
    November 24, 2002 - 10:46 am
    I think you're on to something, Mal, about the pigeon scene and the scene of Lewis taking pictures of his car. You said he had not yet learned his role of (British?) master. I also think there is still an air of excited tourist, as new owner, about Lewis as he snaps pictures, possibly to mail off to friends in the U.S.

    There is also the contrast to the story of dignity passed down from Father Stevens to son Stevens (told at the servants' dinner) of the tiger who invades the dining room and must be dealt with before dinner can be served. The "situation" is handled by the butler and his dignity preserved by not divulging any details of emotion or risk. This is also a prime example of how separate are the roles of master and servant.

    You've made me think of another way Lewis blurred the boundaries of master and servant roles.....that of bantering with Stevens. Bantering assumed a familiarity that didn't honor the clearly defined separate roles of British master and butler/servant. This blurring of the boundaries must have felt like culture shock to Stevens!! (almost all of which we learn in the book, not the movie) And what about his life long efforts to perfect dignity....which is all about not showing emotion and preserving the distance between roles!!

    What a book. Even while enjoying reading these posts about the movie, I'm still slowly making connections about the book. And what a group. Thank you, everyone, for making the book so much more than it was by itself.

    Betty

    betty gregory
    November 24, 2002 - 11:03 am
    An afterthought. I think Lewis must have idealized the old world of Britain before WWII and thinks he can recapture it in Darlington Hall. Stevens lived in that world. There are things about that world that Lewis doesn't know because he didn't live it. He may have visited, but he didn't live it.

    Betty

    betty gregory
    November 24, 2002 - 12:49 pm
    What an interesting review, Mal, long, but worth the time. A good look at book vs. movie and he touches on so many of the different issues brought up in both discussions. Also, whether one agrees with each point or not doesn't really matter because good writing like this is such a joy to read.

    Betty

    Marvelle
    November 24, 2002 - 02:00 pm
    Lewis was not newly rich and was well used to servants. As a child his family took him on trips to England which is not the actions of a poor or middle class family of those days. He was also a Congressman which also indicates a background of money and influence.

    Perhaps the idea of "newly rich" came from the movie-friends of Darlington. But whether his parents or grandparents or great-grandparents made the Lewis fortune, Lewis himself was raised with money and definitely was comfortable with the role of employer and in giving orders. He just has a different style than Lord Darlington.

    'Master' to me is an offensive term. The period when that would be acceptable went out years and years and years ago. In America it ceased with the end of slavery.

    One of the themes is the changing of the guard from aristocratic power to the power of money. DH was the site of a significant defeat for Lewis during the conference but he ended up on the winning side of WWII. The car, the artwork, furnishings, the English clothes all symbolize the victory of Lewis; a taking over. Even employing Stevens is symbolic of the changing of the guard but Stevens will need to adjust to an American employer rather than an aristocratic 'master.' Despite the changing of the guard, and the cosmetic differences of egalitarianism, I don't see any significant change. I believe that power is power whether the foundation is money or force or titles. One guard merely replaces another guard.

    The talk of bantering doesn't exist in the movie. Lewis does tease Stevens once about 'is she your girlfriend?' and then qualifies it with 'I'm only kidding' when Stevens appears uncomfortable. There is no extended theme of bantering or attempts to banter with Lewis or exercises at bentering which all occur in the book. Again the movie does a good condensed sense of the problems facing Stevens with a new employer. And neither does dignity get talked about except for the brief downstairs dinner.

    The movie gives more play to the dynamics between Stevens and Kenton and the general repression of Stevens feelings. Darlington gets a larger role. I'll try in my next post to respond to the reviewer's comment of the "one-dimensional nincompoop" Darlington. I haven't read the review so will be setting up my own thoughts. I also won't read Mal's posted review until after I've submitted my posts since I don't want to be influenced initially. It sounds from Betty's response that it is a well-written review even if we don't agree with all the points.

    One thing to beware of with movie reviews is that there isn't a criteria to be met in order to be a movie critic which is a transitory medium, unlike publishing a book where credentials are expected and where a book will be subjected to ongoing examination. Having worked for national newspapers and magazines, I know that any writer can be tapped to be a movie critic. There are some reviewers whose opinions I respect immensely but I still read movie reviews with a cautious eye.

    Marvelle

    Malryn (Mal)
    November 24, 2002 - 02:36 pm
    Marvelle, I read all reviews very cautiously, don't you?

    Okay, substitute "Boss" in your mind for where I've written master. It seems to me that master is what such employers were called in England, weren't they?

    Mal

    P.S. Congressman Barney Frank from Massachusetts certainly doesn't come from a rich, powerful and influential family, and I'm sure there are others like him in the U.S. House of Representatives. The old Yankee who was my mentor spent six months of every year in Leicester, England when he was a child in the early 1900's because of his father's job in the leather business. That family wasn't rich by any means. His mother took dried beans over there with them so she could cook Boston Baked Beans every Saturday night. Makes me smile. If you say Lewis was rich, that's all right with me.

    Ginny
    November 24, 2002 - 03:12 pm
    Steve hahahaha is used to the South Carolina pronunciation of Beaufort, which differs in the area of the state you're in, it's Beeeu fort up here but it's Bo fort closer to the town of Beaufort which I think reflects the colonization of the South by the British well, there are a LOT of Britishisms left in the language of the South.

    Anyway, having an Eureka! moment I recalled we have two Bookies from England posting in the Mystery section, viogert and roidininki, and asked them early this morning and have had one reply:



    Ginny - it's Bo fort. Just when you think it couldn't be pronounced like it looks, it is. There's a Duke of Buccleuch - (there's a dirty limerick about HIM.) Pronounced Buck loo - half us Brits usually don't know how toffs names are pronounced. I speak for myself of course - what about you Roidininki?


    And I'm very glad to hear how Buccleuch is pronounced and will NOT tell you how I thought it was.




    Marvelle, "nearing 60 then waddaya bet it is the Duke? He was 58 at the time; Ian Farquhar was not quite 40."

    I agree with you and have asked at the Remains Movie Fan Club which seems not well attended, they may not know but I know SOMEBODY does and will pursue it, I love things like that.

    Also I love your theory on Lord Methuen also, but I think perhaps that would be painful for him, so am not sure that he'd agree to do it, but you never know. I don't recognize the face, and he IS listed in the credits, too!

    Good eye!

    I loved this of yours!

    My belief is that the pigeon, no insult intended, is the filmgoer -- us.


    Our position in this film is not the same as in the book, that's for sure.




    Betty, I think this is a good point on Lewis's photographing: still an air of excited tourist, as new owner, about Lewis as he snaps pictures, possibly to mail off to friends

    That makes the Daimler almost certainly not his, or by that I mean he's bought it, too, and is still excited about it as well. I sure would be. You can bet your bippy I'd be taking snaps and the movie mentions something I did not catch in the book, Mr. Lewis's family is soon coming, don't recall anything about Mr. Farraday's family and I assumed the Ford was his.

    I did NOT take it that "Americans always take photos."

    By the way, what did you all make of Lewis's remark about Stevens and that car being made for each other?

    What did that mean?




    Likewise in the book Mr. Farraday was the first to suggest the outing, not Stevens.




    Malyrn thank you for both those reviews, they are very interesting, I have printed them out to read more slowly. I guess I'm going to have to pay 4 bucks for the Buruma, I really want to read it. One of those of Malryn's was in 2002, too, so is quite recent.




    I will be off almost all day tomorrow, but please post your own thoughts on the film as you think of them. Do you think the political theme in the film was more or less important than it was in the book?

    I have to struggle to even recall the political theme, what is your opinion on Lord Darlington, he seems bemused by the beautiful German singer but other than that we don’t seem to hear many of his ideologies, or do we and I missed them?

    I’m trying to remember if he was always attended by Stevens’s voice over, was he?

    Can’t recall much of him at all, I wonder why. I guess I better watch it again.

    Steve

    Malryn (Mal)
    November 24, 2002 - 03:25 pm
    Maybe Lewis thought Stevens and the car were "of an age" -- almost antique. They certainly were representative of a time that wasn't Lewis's.

    Beaufort, NC is pronounced Bo-fort. You're right about British pronunciation, Ginny. My hometown is pronounced the English way -- Hay-vrull, and is spelled Haverhill. Wonder how the Brits pronounce Methuen? Methuen is the next town up the Merrimac River from Haverhill, MA.

    Mal

    GingerWright
    November 24, 2002 - 03:55 pm
    Just so you all know I am still observing and did post and it was caught by one of our group that really liked my post but I had deleted it just before getting the email as I thought that my thoughts were different remember Ginny we do not think alike (but I do think we do_. To me it was a Beautiful Love Story both in the posts I read from the book and in the Movie. The Movie we have seen the expression of the lovers and it did make a diffence to me, Ah such Love not meant to be makes me weep.

    John, I love the romance in the book and the Movie as you do. I truly am sorry for not leting my post stay.

    To All Thank you for all of Your posts.

    Love from the Lady Butler Ginger who has done that very same thing. Smile, Weep, Whatever.

    Marvelle
    November 24, 2002 - 05:33 pm
    Thanks Mal for the latest post. Although I prefer employer to boss, both are much better than saying 'master'. About reviews. What I'm saying is that I am particularly careful with movie reviews for they are generally unfounded opinions, the writer doesn't need to meet any criteria, and reviews are not subject to scholarly scrutiny. We don't get that with literary criticism. Some movie reviews are insightful and some are poorly thought out.

    All the evidence points to Lewis being raised with money. Lewis remembers how his family always took him on trips to England; he has an easy familiar acquaintance with being served; there was mention of the family fortune made in something -- the friends of Darlington were making fun of this fortune and one opinion was the fortune was made in "dry goods" and "what is dry goods?" Darlington's friends were amused by their remarks.

    The fact is, we've been part of another in-joke. Many of the aristocracy made money in business and with influence became titled. Lord Methuen's family also made their fortune in dry goods (clothing). That's the in-joke; that plus the fact that the ninny friends of Darlington don't know their own origins.

    Unfortunately for the Methuens their fortune eventually disappeared. Steve, one more thought on Lord Methuen -- if it is he in the film -- he could use the money for taxes by leasing Corsham Court, being in the film, and having a little fun as well. Perhaps he was the unlucky bidder before the one who lost the "Portly Portuguese Gentleman"? Although I favor the latter person I have a feeling he was in the auction scene. The auctioneer wasn't posh enough was he or of the right age? I wonder what scene had the Earl of Devon in it?

    I will try tonight to "get at" Darlington but need to take a break first. Later...

    Marvelle

    Malryn (Mal)
    November 24, 2002 - 05:57 pm
    The quote below is from an article written by the Rev. Charles H. Oliphant, Pastor of the First Church, Congregational (Methuen, Massachusetts) for the September 1900 issue of New England Magazine. It's interesting that Paul Methuen, Esqr. of Bradford is mentioned. Bradford is the town just across the river from my hometown, Haverhill, MA. It seems as if there is some association with the area where I grew up and this part of England. I found this quote HERE.


    "How the town got its name is not perfectly clear. There is no reason to doubt that it was chosen by Governor Dummer, but whether as a token of respect for Lord Methuen or to commemorate a region of that name in Scotland familiar to him may never be ascertained. In the cabinet of the boudoir at Corsham Court., the home of the present Lord Paul Methuen, is a miniature of Paul Methuen, Esq., of Bradford, 1604. His father, John Methuen, left Scotland during the persecutions, and was considerately treated by Elizabeth, who took him under her protection, 'presenting him to valuable ecclesiastical preferments in the county of Somerset.' John Methuen died in 1606. Paul's son Anthony was prebendary of Wells and Lichfield , and vicar of Frome from 1609 to 1640. His second son Anthony was the ancestor of Paul Methuen, for whom this town is supposed to have been named.



    " In 1703 a famous treaty between England and Portugal was negotiated by Paul's father, the Right Honorable John Methuen. By this treaty Englishmen drank cheaper port wine and the Portuguese wore cheaper dresses. The son of John Methuen, Sir Paul, was prominent in English politics and a privy councillor. One Doctor Doran alludes to him in the following anecdote:



    " 'In the reign of George II, there lived a Wiltshire gentleman named Paul Methuen, who had a passion for reading the weary, dreary novels of his time. Queen Caroline loved to rally him on his weakness, and one day asked him what he had been last reading. May it please your majesty, said Paul, I have been reading a poor book on a poor subject, the Kings and Queens of England.'



    "The latter part of Sir Paul's life was passed in strict retirement. His memory and that of his father are preserved by the following inscription in Westminster Abbey:



    "Near this Place lies the Body of JOHN METHUEN Esqr. who died abroad in the Service of his Country Anno Dni 1706.



    "And also that of his Son SIR PAUL METHUEN Knight of the Bath who died April 11th 1757 In the 85th year of his Age."

    MargeN
    November 24, 2002 - 07:37 pm
    I am totally impressed by all of you and your movie reviewing! In fact I wonder if I will have the nerve to get back into a book discussion after this one. I was amazed at the depth of the analysis and the contributions of the participants. Thank you for letting me be a part of it. Even though I just lurked during the movie part, I was reading it all. And a special thanks to Steve aka Ginny. Marge

    Traude S
    November 24, 2002 - 08:00 pm
    Before I fall behind any further, I'd like to pen my impressions of the movie. I got the video Friday afternoon, viewed it and then read the posts. By then it was past midnight, and I was overwhelmed .

    Literally-minded as I am by virtue of my training, I noticed first the differences between the book and the movie, found myself actually a bit disgruntled (!) by some basic changes and additions, and then wondered how anyone who has not read the book could possibly understand the movie. Well, the Oscar Committee knew better, and I am glad.

    I know that certain exigencies (e.g. visual) must be met when a book is adapted for a movie, that additions may be necessary, omissions inevitable, and whatever focus there is in the book might slightly shift. An admirable job was done in this case, but I for one prefer the book.

  • In the movie, I frowned at and disliked the fusion of Mr. Faraday into Mr. Lewis (moreover, I imagined Mr. Lewis older - and certainly nothing like Christopher Reeves).

  • Then there was Mr. Benn, who was totally unseen in the book and had no role whatever at DH.

  • In the book the maid escaped with the unnamed footman leaving behind only a note. No notice was given.

  • In the book Stevens did NOT go into Miss Kenton's room - and many of us here thought that was a a failing.

    Summa summarum, I think the movie has its virtues, and so has the book - actually more so, in my opinion. And that's swhere I will leave it.

    P.S. Mal, Sei mir gegrüsst is a poem by Friedrich Rückert (1788-1866), set to music by Franz Schubert, and was thank goodness already translated, see

    www.recmusic.org/lieder/r/ruckert/d741/html. It's hard to translate poetry, especially to do justice to rhyme. So I'm glad not to have to do the work here !!

    P.P.S. Mal, after all the wonderful links, Paquin's review was most helpful to me. Thank you for that link.

  • Traude S
    November 24, 2002 - 09:08 pm
    On the pronunciation of names in Massachusetts alone -- where do we begin ? Why would we even try ? Well, for the sake of accuracy and tradition.



    I find myself irritated when local newscasters, who certainly should know better, mis-pronounce certain towns' names: i.e. WAREHAM - pronounced Ware-ham,



    whereas (the upsacle) HINGHAM is pronounced Hing - am.

    I am not sure whether that makes any difference and, if so, to whom.

    Malryn (Mal)
    November 24, 2002 - 09:39 pm
    O you, who have been snatched from me and my kiss,


    I greet you!


    Reached only by my yearning greetings,


    you I greet!



    You, given by the hand of love to this heart,


    you who from my breast


    have been taken! With these flooding tears


    I greet you.



    Defying the distance that fiendishly separates us


    and lies between you and me -


    to irritate the envious powers of fate,


    I greet you!



    Just as you always did in the fairest Spring of love,


    coming to greet me with a kiss,


    so now, with my soul a glowing flood,


    I greet you!



    A breath of love erases space and time;


    I am with you, you are with me,


    I hold you in these arms, embracing you;


    I greet you!





    Translated to English by Emily Ezust

    Marvelle
    November 24, 2002 - 11:25 pm
    My taking on of Darlington will have to wait until Monday. I will check the movie to see Darlington's reaction to his friends' jokes about "dry goods." Lord Methuen and the Duke of Beaufort probably provided much of the information about their particular interests and the history of their families. I don't think the filmmakers would have spoofed them but rather had their cooperation in spoofing the concepts of aristocracy and the stereotypes. People are individuals and there are some aristocrats who are worldly and self-knowing (as I believe of the current Lord Methuen and Duke of Beaufort) and there are the others such as the friends of Darlington and perhaps Darlington himself.

    Traude, glad to see you here. I prefer the book too but the movie is still haunting on its own. I wish Kenton had been given more scope in the ending scene. Somehow I felt she was made to be too pedestrian there while she shines in the beginning and middle sections of the film. I wish Stevens had the crying scene with the retired butler -- Hopkins could have pulled it off sans sentimentality -- but then there would have been a different message to the film.

    Marvelle

    betty gregory
    November 25, 2002 - 01:16 am
    My comments about Lewis/Farraday blurring the lines of master and servant come from his behavior in the book and movie, not about his background and not about whether or not he had ever dealt with servants. My comments stand about bantering blurring the boundaries of roles. I'm aware of differences between book and movie.

    Betty

    Marvelle
    November 25, 2002 - 08:26 am
    Here is a short history of the Methuens. Corsham Court was bought by Paul Methuen in 1766 (occupied by him since 1745). The Methuen family made their fortune in dry goods (clothing). The current title of barony was granted in 1838.

    From the encyclopedia, 66.1911encyclopedia.org/M/ME/METHUEN_BARONY_OF.htm:

    METHUEN, BARONY OF. The English title of Baror Methuen of Corsham (Wilts) was created in 1838 for Pau, Methuen (1779—1849), who had been a Tory member of parlia ment for Wilts from 1812 to 1819, and then sat as a Whig foi North Wilts from 1833 to 1838. His father, Paul Methuen, wa~ the cousin and heir of the wealthy Sir Paul Methuen (1672—1757) a well-known politician, courtier, diplomatist and patron of ar and literature, who was the son of John Methuen (c. 1650—1706) Lord Chancellor of Ireland (1697—1703) and ambassador ti Portugal. It was the last-named who in 1703 negotiated th~ famous “Methuen Treaty,” which, in return for the admissior of English woollens into Portugal, granted differential dutie favouring the importation of Portuguese wines into England ti the disadvantage of French, and thus displaced the drinkinl of Burgundy by that of port. He and his son were both burie in Westminster Abbey. The 1st baron was succeeded in th title by his son Frederick Henry Paul Methuen (1818—1891), am the latter by his son Paul, 3rd baron (b. 1845), a distinguishe soldier, who became a major-general in i8qo, and general office commanding-in-chief in South Africa in 1907. The 3rd baron joined the Scots Guards in 1864, served in the Ashanti War of 1874 and the Egyptian War of 1882, and commanded Methuen’s Horse in Bechuanaland in 1884—85....

    There are numerous references that "... the Methuens made a fortune as clothiers...." as seen in lucknampark.co.uk/introduction/history.htm

    Some ninnies like Darlington's friends, however, thought they themselves sprang from the earth as aristocrats since time began. That isn't the case. I think the philosophy was that only kings ruled by divine right yet that too was a problem when one person thought they were meant by god to be the ruler and another claimed the same. Could 'might makes right' be the rule of thumb in the deciding? However, titles like the barony usually were given due to wealth which means power or for help in securing a ruler's control or excellence in a field. A title is a reward. That's why rock stars and actors can become lords. They've proved themselves in excellence in their fields. The Methuens proved themselves.

    Marvelle

    Malryn (Mal)
    November 25, 2002 - 08:40 am
    I saw bantering in the movie in the burned toast scene with Lewis and Stevens. Stevens did react to what Lewis said, the blurring of boundaries Betty mentions. Lewis then said, "I'm just kidding, Stevens", or words to that effect.

    I also saw bantering on the part of Kenton in the scene when she and Stevens left the summerhouse, and she teased him about pretty girls. I think that's where he said, "You're right, Miss Kenton; you're always right."

    I'm not sure what the Duke of Beaufort and Lord Methuen had to do with this movie except to give permission for the Beaufort Hunt Club to appear and permission for filming to be done at Corsham Court. I'm sure the producers hired many researchers to help with facts for the movie, including some about the Stirrup Cup custom, which was poured and held up to a huntsman for such a long time by Stevens. One of the Stirrup Cup recipes I found said it contained brandy, cherry brandy (kirschwasser?), lemon juice and powdered sugar. That'll get you going early in the morning.

    I wonder if there really was an inside joke, or if the English do not call the fabric and clothing business "dry goods"?

    Mal

    Malryn (Mal)
    November 25, 2002 - 08:43 am
    Don't forget that Sir Anthony Hopkins was knighted in 1993.

    Mal

    MmeW
    November 25, 2002 - 11:46 am
    Greetings from California! I had to leave the computer off for a couple of days, just to have the time to pack, but I’m here now!

    Ginny, I checked the credits looking for “Ian” but no luck. I did find that Dupont’s name in the movie is Dupont D’Ivry. I think we had come up with something different?

    Mal, great review from Paquin, and I agree with him about the final “stranger” scene. And I agree with both you and Betty about Lewis not knowing how to be a proper “master/boss” despite his apparently wealthy upbringing. (I don’t know who said it, but I don’t think he made his fortune in dry goods; I seem to remember that was just an example of weird things Americans made their fortunes in. And I don’t think Lewis was present.) Even though there are exceptions to only rich people traveling, I think the implication was that Lewis was from a wealthy background. And most all rich Americans were nouveaux-riches in the eyes of English peers. (On my cast list, I see no Lord Methuen.)

    Betty, what a beautiful post on the love story in the movie. I liked it quite a bit. And it proved, to me at least, how different, basically, the book was from the movie. I still maintain that many folks’s opinion of the book was colored by the movie (and on the other hand, it was hard for me to objectively view the movie after having read the book).

    I must say I found quite a positive note at the end of the film in that the house was going to be “unwrapped” and opened up and a full, lively family (young blood) was going to be living there, quite unlike the end of the book.

    That said, it’s been a great discussion and thanks to you all.

    Have a great Thanksgiving!

    Marvelle
    November 25, 2002 - 12:23 pm
    MmeW, how is California? I'm from there originally and miss the Sierra Nevadas and trees, lovely trees, and the water. Can you tell I'm living in the desert at the moment? New Mexico has a beauty of it's own with a rather Martian landscape. But I do miss California.

    Lord Methuen is mentioned along with the Earl of Devon and the Duke of Beaufort (and the Hunt and the houses) at the very very end of the credits. The person who mentioned 'dry goods' was one of Darlington's friends when they were guessing where the Lewis fortune came from. The comment (I'm remembering the general words) from one of the friends was 'a fortune from dry goods ...what are dry goods anyway?' I think it's interesting that's how the Methuen's made their fortune which is why I think it's an inside-joke.

    The house being "unwrapped" is exciting and there's a lot of hustle restoring its splendor and with the Lewis family on the way; but Stevens doesn't have a chance now. He isn't going to change and that is incredibly sad along with losing all hope of a love with Kenton. Still wish the retired butler had been there in the movie but it wouldn't fit with the film's message.

    Afraid that I we have to agree to disagree that Lewis doesn't know how to be an employer. He's well used to giving orders but Stevens isn't used to his style yet IMO.

    Marvelle

    betty gregory
    November 25, 2002 - 01:01 pm
    That felt good, Susan, and thank you for your comment. I'm worn to a frazzle, spending the book discussion being told what I thought may have been in the movie, but not the book.....and in the movie discussion, that what I thought was not in the movie, but in the book. I'm the first to admit that seeing the movie influenced my view of the book, but after looking closely at both, I have to say that the movie's emphasis captured well the sad journey of the heart of the book. As I see it.

    I respect the other points of view. In fact, they have actually helped me become clearer and clearer about my own view, something like a weight that I had to learn how to lean against. I don't envy salmon, though. It's really hard work going the other way.

    Betty

    betty gregory
    November 25, 2002 - 01:07 pm
    How about this, Marvelle? The employer Lewis doesn't realize that the servant Stevens has spent his life in service in a traditional, British master-servant relationship.

    Betty

    Ginny
    November 25, 2002 - 02:08 pm
    Just dashing thru the snow here or the gorgeous fall day to say roidininki from England has now reported the following British pronunciation of Beaufort:


    Bofut it is,say it quickly.I mean how do you say Beau Bridges? Bo? Bew? Baw ?I say Bo.


    More on your points in the morning, just passing thru.

    ginny

    Malryn (Mal)
    November 25, 2002 - 04:03 pm
    Though I thought I'd seen this movie before I read the book, I hadn't, and I'm glad. How could anyone think "Howard's End" is "The Remains of the Day"? Well, I'll tell you; they both have tents on the lawn scenes.

    I'm also glad I read what Ishiguro said about this film. He said it is "Jim Ivory's Remains of the Day, related to mine." I kept that in mind when I watched it. There are omissions and additions I wish were not there, but I still think it's a beautiful film and a gloriously sad love story with very fine actors telling it.



    Betty, I think the whole thing boils down to the fact that, rich as he might have been, Pennsylvania Yankee Mr. Lewis was not old school British the way Darlington and his like were, and Stevens was in no way American. Lewis might have been less perplexing to Stevens if he'd been a true Southern gentleman from an old Virginia family.

    It's okay to swim against the current, Betty. Isn't that what you and I and a lot of us have done all our lives?

    Mal

    Marvelle
    November 25, 2002 - 04:32 pm
    Betty, I don't think it's a matter of Lewis not understanding but not caring? He has his own way of operating as an employer and it will have to be Stevens who adapts, as he has had to do unfortunately throughout his career as a butler. Lewis as the employer does not need to adjust. One of the pluses of the new employer is that I doubt Lewis will ask Stevens to talk about 'the glories of nature' with his children.

    I'm feeling rather beat-up on my opinions and on introduction the unreliable narrator from the book and now here with the movie but I will persevere. IMO we each have our way of seeing things but most of us are looking in the same direction.

    Steve, it's Bofurt? I was raised in California but with a Slovene father & deaf mother. I have an accent and I don't think I can say Bofurt in polite company.

    Marvelle

    Ginny
    November 26, 2002 - 08:09 am
    I appreciate everybody's remarks here, MME!! So glad to see you!! Isn't the internet wonderful, we don't miss a beat here at all!

    Love it!




    I guess the time has come to, as Robert E. Lee said, "Strke the tent," we've done about all we can do (or I have anyway) with the movie, now is the time to post any last minute remarks, if you have them?




    Reading back to front, commenting on a few of your points:

    Betty: I don't envy salmon, though. It's really hard work going the other way.

    I'm sorry you feel that way, I personally relish the opposing viewpoints of others, I almost always have a different point of view than others do, and I like the freedom to express it, also. In fact, I am going to express it, come what may.

    I regret I personally was not able to view the movie until after the book discussion, so really could not comment on the movie until this discussion began.

    If it's any consolation I do know how you feel because I always feel that way, and yes, I guess when you look at it, it is hard work, much easier to go with the crowd, but ultimately, much more rewarding, for everybody concerned. Or so I hope.




    Marvelle, general words) from one of the friends was 'a fortune from dry goods ...what are dry goods anyway?' I

    You and Malryn I think mentioned the dry goods thing and I don't know how the English perceive "dry goods," but I do know people of Lord D's stature frown on being "in trade," as they are not and that's why they lost so many of their homes to those who were.

    I don't know where the Duke of Devon and Lord Methusen (sp) were in the film, but it's delicious to speculate, have had no answer to my query to the fan site, but I KNOW that huntsman was "somebody" and it's an inside joke, the very fact his name is NOT in the credits shows that.


    Mme: I think we had come up with something different?

    Yes the book had M. Dupont


    Marvelle, I will check the movie to see Darlington's reaction to his friends' jokes about "dry goods."

    I don't think he had time to have one, wasn't that when the butler fell on the terrace?




    Traude thank you for the name of the poem and Malryn, thank you for the actual words, which do seem apropos:



    Defying the distance that fiendishly separates us
    and lies between you and me -
    to irritate the envious powers of fate,
    I greet you!


    Poor guy, he was really taken in.


    I thought this was an interesting statement, Traude, and then wondered how anyone who has not read the book could possibly understand the movie.

    What do you all think of that? Could the movie stand alone and if so what would it convey? To me the themes are different between the movie and the book.


    Ginger, thank you for your comments, always cheery and your point of view.




    Marge, thank you for your comment, too I was amazed at the depth of the analysis and the contributions of the participants.

    Ginger, that’s another super quote (Ginger is our quote meister and collects the comments made by those posting on our boards, that’s a good ‘un Ginger, let’s save it) thank you Marge!)


    Malryn thank you for that very interesting history of Methuen, Massachusetts, it reminds me of the origin of the word “Pennsylvania,” and “Bucks County,” which was named for William Penn, (Penn’s woods) and the county of Buckinghamshire (I think) because that area of Pennsylvania where I grew up, reminded him so much of Buckinghamshire in England (and it does, you can find at Longwood, for instance, Copper Beeches (like the title of the Arthur Conan Doyle tale) that I’ve seen in America, for one thing, the rolling hills are very reminiscent of England), but I digress.




    Are there any uncovered areas of the movie experience we have not touched on that you’d like to bring up?

    Any final reviews? Compared to the book, how do you think the movie rates or is it not fair to compare the two artistic efforts?

    Steve

    Malryn (Mal)
    November 26, 2002 - 10:19 am
    Steve, it's my opinion that the book and the movie are two separate and different works. My prediction is that Ishaguro's novel, The Remains of the Day, will become a classic. The movie is superior and beautifully done.

    Many thanks to you for your leadership here, and thank you to all who have participated in these discussions, two of the best I've ever been in.

    Happy Thanksgiving to everyone!

    Mal

    MmeW
    November 26, 2002 - 12:06 pm
    Marvelle, I’m in Sunnyvale in the Bay Area and California is beautiful. (Though since my son hasn’t finished expanding his house, the furnace isn’t hooked up yet and it’s a tad chilly in the evenings.) For many reasons, however, I’m not a California fan. I love New Mexico—the first time we drove into New Mexico, it was twilight and all the mountains were purple. I really felt it was the land of enchantment. We lived in Albq for four years and if I could live anywhere now, it would be NM. And believe me, it seems very green compared to southern Nevada.

    I thought the unreliable narrator was very interesting except when you think about it, we’re all unreliable. It’s fun to sit around the dining table and hear my son regale his sons with his youthful exploits, while I’m sitting there, thinking, “What?”

    By the way, Steve says “Bofut,” not Bofurt. Maybe that’s easier to say in polite company. haha

    Betty: “the movie's emphasis captured well the sad journey of the heart of the book” Yes, indeed. “Swimming upstream,” us? Never! (I’ll still never convince anyone there were only two denials!)

    Mal: “How could anyone think "Howard's End" is "The Remains of the Day"? Well, I'll tell you; they both have tents on the lawn scenes.” LOL Nothing like a good laugh to start the day! As it turns out, I’d seen BOTH movies, but remember nothing of either (except that they were good), not even the tents-on-the-lawn scenes.

    Again, happy Thanksgiving to all! Thanks again, Ginny, for all your work. (We’re giving thanks in “First and Last Bookle”). I’m thankful for Ginny and for all of you for making our discussion so profound and alive. (Nothing like a little dissention to get the blood going!)

    Marvelle
    November 26, 2002 - 12:36 pm
    MmeW, I am currently living in Albuquerque NM and it is exotic with the purple mountains at sunset and the mesas all around. I've made some good friends here, mostly Navaho, and love the variety of people but I still miss the Sierra Nevadas. The Bay Area is beautiful and life is vibrant. Every place has its own uniqueness I guess.

    I've pretty much said everything about the movie too. I was dazzled by Darlington's library -- which is at Corsham Court -- and assumed he was an intellectual at first. But once you think about it, he had romance novels there and when he checked facts, which is all we see him do in the library, he has to climb to the top of the stacks which is generally where out-of-date books are banished. We don't know the quality of his library besides the romance novels and the old fact books. He certainly isn't an original thinker and is easily misled. Although he isn't a complex man I don't see him as one-dimensional. He did wrong but had pangs of guilt for firing the Jewish maids, he did care about Stevens in a general sort of way, he did try to muddle through problems. What a man for Stevens to follow!

    Steve, the inside joke about Darlington's friends making fun of 'dry goods' is that the Methuens made their money in dry goods and later become lords. So the friends didn't know that their own origins could be as mundane as dry goods while the actual Lord Methuen probably did. I don't see the film makers putting in such a remark unless it would be alright with him. After all, Merchant and Ivory need to keep good relationships to make more films. The Duke of Devonshire once said (and I must paraphrase) that the government 'can take away all my hereditary titles and honorariums, they aren't important but I must have my home, art and books as long as I live.' I think that also is, in all probability, Lord Methuen's thinking.

    I want to thank everyone for a fun discussion. As usual I learned a lot and I loved the movie although I still prefer the novel. I think reading the book first isn't necessary to understand the film which can stand on its own merits. Loved eavesdropping down the chimney at the 'Stately Homes of England.'

    Marvelle

    Jonathan
    November 26, 2002 - 12:56 pm
    Marvelle, the plus-side of feeling 'beat-up', must be that your opinions mattered very much to the discussion. I'll be forever grateful that you brought up the matter of the unreliable narrator. Being forewarned like that made all the difference in the way I looked at the butler's story. On the other hand, Stevens certainly put the lie to the old adage that old men forget.

    I'm left with the feeling that Mr Lewis would love to adjust to the world that Stevens is leaving behind. He seeks something in old Darlington Hall that has been missing from his life. He would love to play at being a lord. How would that be for irony?

    Ginger, I cried more tears, when I read your post about 'a love that was not meant to be.' We know that Love has flown from Darlington Hall. Or was it that Lewis thrust it out of doors, when he flung the dove out the window? Stevens knew very well what was happening. But the halls will remain haunted for him. He will hear her footsteps. He will recognize her form in the shadows.

    Farewell, all, let's do it again.

    Jonathan

    GingerWright
    November 26, 2002 - 01:57 pm
    Jonathan, I was my first Love that was not to be, I was 16 he was 19 but he came to me and told me how much he loved me and that he had gotten a girl pregant. He respected me. I told him to marry her for the baby's sake and he did. He has passed lately. Maybe this don't belong here but what the heck it is about over.

    Ginger Ps. Ginny I hope it is ok.

    Ginny
    November 26, 2002 - 03:22 pm
    Of course it's all right, Ginger, and so is eveyrthing everybody else said, how clever our Jonathan is, note the "dove." That alone we might discuss, no? I was quite surprised at a pigeon, something normally found in the city, and not a different bird more at home in the country coming in the window there at the last, loved the dove thing, let's DO do this again, maybe in Julius if any of you are game about two weeks prior to Ides of March in 2003?

    Steve

    Marvelle
    November 26, 2002 - 03:48 pm
    Jonathan, thanks for the comments. It makes bringing up the unreliable narrator worthwhile. The halls will be haunted for Stevens, seeing people who fade into the walls, looking through keyholes for someone long gone.

    Ginger, I appreciated your comments and they certainly belong. I think everyone has put in tremendous thought into the posts and it's been exhilarating.

    Steve, I'm excited about the Ides of March but its such a long wait. I hope another discussion comes up in the meantime as challenging and rewarding as the novel "Remains." In the meantime, I might actually catch up on reading -- well, at least make a dent into my list of 'books I have to read' before it is over.

    Marvelle

    GingerWright
    November 26, 2002 - 03:59 pm
    Marvelle I have read every post in the book and seen the movie and enjoyed it all. Thanks to All. It brought back many memories. Sorry to be so personal as to my Love that was not to be.

    Traude S
    November 26, 2002 - 06:46 pm
    As we are summing up, I'd like to express my gratitude to all of you for an exceptional discussion.

    Ginny, the crowning glory really was the Buruma review of the movie. Thank you so much for that !

    I am rather glad I did not see the video until AFTER I read the book. As Mal said, the book and the movie really are two different entities, both memorable in their own way ---- even if the historical/political background was very different in the movie and altered the perception of Lord Darlington's persona.

    I agree with the Buruma review regarding "gilded prisons", "stilted language" (and said as much), amd --- "lost some of its finesse".

    But we had a glorious literary adventure here and I thank you all.

    betty gregory
    November 26, 2002 - 10:04 pm
    Be still, my heart!!!! Ginger, I love you for telling us a way the story prompted a memory. And how brave that it was such a personal one. THAT's what I wish we could do more of, and just how you did it...at the beginning as we're getting into a discussion or at the end, as we're wrapping up. Thank you so much.

    These comments are to everyone. I will forever see/feel groups as group-centered, so my comments are never just to a discussion leader.

    My curiosity about what draws us to a story remains high. It's all part of the "couldn't put it down," or even what was it in the reviews initially that started the heart pounding? Why am I reading this particular book and is it what I thought it would be? For some books, especially like Remains, what did I take from it? Did the author intend a statement of philosophy? Even if not, was there something that made a difference, changed me? Or, just moved me?

    The last reviewer from Mal kept using the phrase "wasted his life" about Stevens. That's a little extreme, but even in a milder form, such as "missed an opportunity," did that ring a bell with anyone? Did I learn anything, or did the book confirm what I already knew? I'd be interested in hearing more personal reactions in the context of a discussion that is organized exactly like this one and looks seriously at the writing, just as we did in this discussion. I'm saying this to you, my reading friends, not just to Ginny. (I haven't compromised what I wish for, I just said it poorly before.)

    A decision made in early adulthood I regret, but it seemed the right thing to do at the time. My son's father and I shared custody, then a slow evolution of my son living more time with his father seemed the right thing to do for him. So, when Stevens looked back and questioned his life, that felt familiar.

    I struggle with hindsight wisdom. What is the purpose? You can't know what you will know later. So, the righteous part of me that tells Stevens he should have, he should have....is a fraud.

    Betty

    GingerWright
    November 26, 2002 - 10:41 pm
    Betty, Raymond and my life was so messed up after that as he got a divorce and I was married so the remains of the day brought back almost to many memories. Such is life and we carry on. I do like my life as it now as I do what I want when I want no questions asked. Smile, Ginger

    betty gregory
    November 26, 2002 - 11:15 pm
    I second Jonathan's appreciation of your contributions, Marvelle. I'm guilty of losing track of who introduces an important concept or observation, especially after it takes on a life of its own, as the unreliable narrator comments did. I'm glad you spoke up, because it stopped me short. I must do that more than I realize....losing track of what people contribute. Jonathan and Ginny are wonderful at recognizing and appreciating. Great models for us all. While I'm busy wishing for other things, I would do well to look around at the bounty.

    Betty

    betty gregory
    November 27, 2002 - 01:26 am
    ....uh, I meant Jonathan and Steve. so sorry

    Sam

    Traude S
    November 27, 2002 - 06:30 pm
    Ginger, Betty, thank you. thanks to everyone.

    It is hard to let go of a book, isn't it ?

    Yes Betty, I too have thought of roads not taken, or of taking the wrong fork in the road, more than once, but what good does it do now ? Could/would I have chosen a different path ? Yes indeed, but only in hindsight. Did I gain, did I lose, did I learn anything ? Well, ultimately the experiences we had have made us what and who we are. Under the best of circumstances we can arrive at a state of serenity (yes, yes, I know you don't want me to use the word 'resignation' again).

    Now then let me turn to the point I made earlier in the discussion concerning a specific aphorism I thought applied to Stevens.

    I am referring to the Aphorisms of Marie Baroness von Ebner-Eschenbach (1830-1916). She was a great novelist but, I believe, her aphorisms - hard to translate as they are, make her immortal. I won't go into needless detail here, especially since there is web site. Just let me say that I have taken enormous comfort from those words of wisdom at critical times in my life.

    Returning to Stevens, I am not sure from the book or the movie whether he felt any remorse.

    But if it was remorse, here is the aphorism.

    What is remorse ? But an infinite sadness that we are what and how we are.
    ------------

    The actor who played Mr. Benn will always be connected, in my mind, with the role of the sadistic Major Ronald Merrick in The Jewel in the Crown . That is how good he was (and is) !

    Weather permitting I will be in New Hampshire tomorrow and may not be back until Friday.

    Wishing all of you a wonderful Holiday.

    Ginny
    November 29, 2002 - 05:24 pm
    I have debated whether or not to post this and I believe I'll take courage in hand and go for it.

    I think, speaking frankly and personally, that the discussion of the book was in many ways ironic, just like the book, at least for me. I wonder if you all recall the short story about the man who spent his life looking, was it, for a tiger, waiting for the tiger and when it came he did not recognize it? I often get that one confused with the one about the tiger behind the door. I thought that Ishiguro, by introducing the “ tiger” concept into the book, since I’m always so conflicted over the different stories, and the shooting of it was saying something exquisitely subtle about Stevens, as well as all of us.

    It’s possible to be idealistic about something that others might not see in those terms, that others might dismiss as trivial or even unworthy, or egotistic, that others might laugh at or not take seriously. It’s possible to keep that dream going, even in the face of obstacles and increasing evidence as you travel that road (“I hear nothing,”) and you keep getting little sniffs and hints that something is rotten, something is not right, but it is possible, and we have seen it in the book, that a person would persevere on, still holding up the light of the ideal, still keeping on, until they finally meet with the irrefutable evidence that they have failed.

    In my expereience, when an idealist involves other persons with his goals, he tends to put those people on pedestals like Stevens did Lord D in his quest, and inevitably he finds they, too, have feet of clay, and they, too, were not worthy of his efforts. This is a double whammy: it’s devastating, and you can see it in Stevens, his grief and anguish. Idealists are not like other people, and it may be that they are defective in many ways: as you have noticed in Stevens, (I know you don’t all agree that’s what he was, but he is a textbook case if ever there was one), and I eagerly await the author’s response to my query about that issue: Idealists may be flawed half people, they do live in a world of their own but like all human beings they seek the light, they just intensify that search to the exclusion of everything and everybody else, including themselves.

    A wasted life? Stevens? Not on your bippy, at least he tried? And positively. That makes him, in my book a heck of a lot better than those who don’t.

    With the unarguable downfall of Lord D, he has to finally hear, and to come to terms with what he thought was gold, as he’s suspected, (what IS that smell) and then finally has to admit, it was dross all the time: HE was gold, and he threw HIS own glow over it, but you can just make so much out of a sow’s ear, it never will become a silk purse, no matter what thread you use, ultimately it rends.

    In his single minded pursuit of this goal he pushed aside and denied everything else, and everybody else: he was living the pure ideal and hoped, vicariously, to be rewarded as one of the benefits of the goal realized.

    We could have told him, huh? If he’d only asked us, we could have told him there’s no pot o gold at the end of that rainbow, no reward for effort, and the rainbow itself is only tinfoil in a brief dying light, the remains of his day, and of ours.

    So what does he do? He grieves, how deeply he grieves, I gave it everything I had, he says, and I have nothing left to give. Can anybody read those lines and not be moved? But he does, he goes back and tries again, and this time he’s dancing, cognisant, on the ashes of his former dream but still he goes on, and in so doing justifies the former effort by his own integrity.

    And that takes tremendous strength, I don’t possess it.

    Don’t you see it was his own integrity all the time which mattered, but like the man who spent his life looking for the tiger or whatever it was, he never realized it.

    Lessons for EveryMan, a profound book in every sense of the word, not so the movie, but I’m very grateful for everything you got out of it and all the insights you added to my own perceptions. I would not take ANYTHING for the names of the actual houses and where it was shot, on my trip in 2003, God willing, I will go to at least Corsham Court and Dyrham Park and am sufficiently enthused to look into the Coutnry Houses course taught by an historian at Oxford but more on that later on.

    Thank you for your wonderful film criticism, Traude is right, it IS hard to leave it, but leave it we must, see you all in Julius I hope in March.

    Steve

    Jonathan
    November 29, 2002 - 11:26 pm
    Ginny, I'm in a quandary. To post, or not to post. Your wonderful insight and conclusions should serve as the fine, meaningful end to the discussion of a very remarkable book. Wasn't it the nature of the book, that it meant something different for each of us? Your understanding of it certainly makes it far more meaningful than anything I could find in it; but you make it so convincing, and who can't admire idealism wherever it is found, that I'll be rereading the book again, using the perspective which you supply in your thoughtful post.

    For that reason I will post. To let you know of my appreciation for the courage you show in the face of great difficulties. Stevens has a kindred soul in you, in my estimation. God bless your endeavours.

    Jonathan

    Marvelle
    November 30, 2002 - 10:19 am
    Beautiful post, Ginny. So long as you aren't trying to harm others, Joseph Campbell says:

    "Follow your bliss, and don't be afraid."

    Marvelle

    SarahT
    November 30, 2002 - 07:15 pm
    Ginny, I have been a sporadic participant here, but I cannot begin to thank you for an amazing journey with this book and the movie. You and Ishiguro deserve to be put on a very high pedestal and worshipped!

    And the same goes for all of the partipants here. You all are brilliant, and it has been a true pleasure following along with your insights. I give thanks for each of you.

    betty gregory
    December 1, 2002 - 02:13 am
    A very persuasive rendering, Steve. I couldn't quit thinking about the last reviewer's words on lost "dignity" and found integrity, but your description was different and better and captured better Stevens' strength and, what jumped out at me, his lack of bitterness. Your shift of emphasis to the going-on is definitely worth a double-take. Yesterday, in a hand written letter, I was attempting to explain the acceptance of what is, as in Zen. That came to mind when I read your post.

    It means a lot that you posted this. I never would have known what the book meant to you. You've written to the author about flaws? You'll let us know when you hear?

    Sam

    MmeW
    December 2, 2002 - 09:41 am
    Ginny, your interpretation of Stevens’s "remains of the day," he goes back and tries again, and this time he’s dancing, cognisant, on the ashes of his former dream but still he goes on, and in so doing justifies the former effort by his own integrity, sounds so existential, I can’t help thinking of Camus, the absurd hero and Sisyphus. I don’t want to toss out your idealism, but it does seem that Stevens’s awareness is the key. (from the Myth of Sisyphus: "crushing truths perish from being acknowledged.")

    I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain! One always finds one's burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. … The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.


    Like Sisyphus, one must imagine Stevens happy.

    Ginny
    December 2, 2002 - 01:55 pm
    I do appreciate everybody's very fine remarks, many thanks to you ALL!


    Oh yes, if Ishiguro does write you all will know the instant it comes, even if he says oh for heaven's sake I'll rewrite the thing, nobody gets it. ahahahha




    I came in here to see if you all have seen notice of a new book everybody is talking about, on the Versailles Treaty and how that did NOT impose crippling straits on Germany?

    It's all over the NY Times yesterday and has a two page spread in US News and World Report, it's Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World by a Canadian scholar, Margaret MacMillan.

    Among the startling points she makes is, on the issue of Reparations, originally set at 33 billion. MacMillan argues that Germany paid only $4.5 billion in the entire period between 1919 and 1932 , slightly less than France paid after the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71, with a much smaller economy. Another book by historian Stephen Schuker American “Reparations” to Germany 1919-1933 goes even farther and brings in the interest on American loans paying off the debt, it’s fascinating, and takes up much more than the reparation issue, such as the geographic divisions, I think if you’re the least bit interested in history since reading this book, you might like these. Of course this does not change the story, that’s how things were perceived then, and may be, in the minds of some, now.




    Susan, Sisyphus happy?

    He was in Hell?

    Is that….I think we need to read some Camus, what book is that from, people have referred to this before and I would like to know Camus’s take on it, was it that even in Hell you can be happy? Boy the implications, huh?

    Speaking classically,


    Sisyphus: a legendary king of Corinth, reputed the most cunning of mankind. When Autolycus, another master of roguery, stole his neighbor’s cattle and changed their appearance so as to avoid detection, Sisyphus was able to pick out his own, having marked them under their hoof.

    It is also related that when Death came to take him, the crafty Sisyphs chained him up; so that nobody died till Ares came released death again.

    For misdeeds on earth, variously related, he was condemned in Hades to roll to the top of a hill a large stone, which when it reached the summit rolled down again, so that his punishment was eternal. In post-Homeric legend Sisyphus was the father of Odysseus.---The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature


    Where does Camus address Sisyphus, what a take on it, would love to read it.

    This has been SOME set of discussions!

    Many thanks to you all,

    ginny

    Marvelle
    December 2, 2002 - 04:39 pm
    To say that Sisyphus is happy is only partially correct. It is his awareness of his sorrow, his ability to distinguish day from night, that allows him to accept his condition in a conscious resignation even while he toils onward. Here's a link to Camus' interpretation of Sisyphus as the absurd hero:

    Sisyphus

    Of course, Ginny, this means that we must have a discussion of Camus' "Stranger", his essays, and also Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning." We don't have anything else to do, right?

    Marvelle

    Ginny
    December 2, 2002 - 05:03 pm
    Holy cow!!

    Look at THIS:



    and his passion for life won him that unspeakable penalty in which the whole being is exerted toward accomplishing nothing. This is the price that must be paid for the passions of this earth.


    I think we need to read this, (wanted to steal the graphic but it says it's copyrighted. haahahah)

    Thanks Susan and marvelle for the connection and the link! Have printed that one out to savor.

    Traude S
    December 3, 2002 - 10:27 pm
    Ginny,

    I read the review (by Tony Judt) of Margaret McMillan's book in last Sunday's NYT. It prompted me to order the book.

    The initial point the author seems to make is the fact that after the Great War of 1914-1918, four old multinational empires had fallen : the Russian, the Austro-Hungarian, the German and the Ottoman. The peacemakers who met in Paris from January to June of 1919 faced a daunting task : how to give the newly liberated peoples their own spaces, self-determination in other words - Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Slovenes, Serbs, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Romanians, Bulgarians, Italians, Greeks, Jews, Arabs, Armenians, Kurds.

    Artificial, arbitrary, ultimately non-viable constructs resulted, two examples may suffice : Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. Yugoslavia has since broken into separate regions, and Czechoslovakia has separated into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Moreover, there was never EVER a common language, the Czechs spoke Czech,the Slovaks Slovakian. (And Patchett's reference to Czechoslovakian in Bel Canto is wrong.)

    As the NYT suggests, anyone who wants to understand our present world (hate-filled as it so lamentably is) might be well advised to go back to the spring of 1919. There was considerably more at stake than the reparations imposed on Germany.

    Marvelle
    December 4, 2002 - 12:27 pm
    I couldn't fine the time during the book "Remains" to go into Stevens' idea that he is the hub at the wheel so here is my interpretation now. By considering himself the hub, Stevens felt that his fortune would be stable and neither rise nor fall. He felt safe but he found out, as we did in the reading of "Remains", that Stevens could not escape his fate/fortune.

    Lydgate's "Wheel of Fortune"

    The Wheel of Fortune -- or Rota Fortuna -- has been an important metaphor for centuries. In artwork there are usually 4 figures with a king at the top of the wheel and a beggar at the bottom. Cicero, Boethius, Dante, Chaucer and Shakespeare all used the Wheel metaphor. Architects adopted the image in the great rose wheel windows of cathedrals.

    O Fortune
    like the Moon
    changeable in state
    always waxing
    or waning;
    detestable life
    at one moment hard
    and at the next cares for
    the witty games of the mind
    poverty, power
    it dissolves like ice.

    -- Carmina Burana, 13th Century

    CLICK HERE for a modern verse on fortune.

    Marvelle

    Ginny
    December 8, 2002 - 07:12 am
    WONDERFUL point, Marvelle, the Carmina Burana and that "hub" thing Stevens kept talking about, kind of made me think of Ezekiel, a wheel in a wheel thing, thank you for that, and thank all of you for every insightful comment you made, you've done yourselves proud with this book and the movie.

    This discussion is now concluded and will be archived, thank you all very much for your wonderful input and insights.

    ginny