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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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 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).

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?

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?

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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

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.

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."

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

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. . . ."

stupid me, those houses probably have 100 rooms,

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.

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?

would that disqualify him as an intellectual then?

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.

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.

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.

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:

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".

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.

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.

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,

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.”

I think the importance is the framing sequence -- beginning and ending -- of "I hear nothing."

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

-- 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.

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....

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.

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,

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.

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.

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.

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?

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...

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.'

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.

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

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

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.

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.

CLICK HERE for a modern verse on fortune.