Remains of the Day(1993)
Stone me
there were some weaknesses that seemed to stand in
the way of it reaching it's potential.
Firstly, Anthony Hopkins, playing someone who must
have been no more than forty years old, looked a full
sixty.
This distracted me from accepting his position as potential
mate for Emma Thompson.
The second gripe I have is the too easy use of the word
"appeaser" and "appeasement".
The plot blurs and blends this concept with Nazi loving
Blackshirts.
The fact is, that appeasement is another name for diplomacy,
and is not dishonorable or traitorous, but what happens in
everyday affairs of state.
e.g. Korea,Saddam's Iraq,Iran,Russia (now they have invaded
and occupied a neighbour), etc.
The film is a tragedy, depicting the now disappeared values of
loyalty, duty, and personal honour, and how a man gave himself
so totally to these values, he finally buried his soul while alive.
SPOILER
The most poignant parts in the film were where he hears the
sobbing of Emma Thompson, who has failed to stir him from his
job, to get a reaction to her proposed engagement.
He listens, then opens the door, but is struck dumb, unable to express
himself, and instead asks her to attend to some cleaning requirement
in the morning.
Finally, the closing scene where he is gradually reopening the House
and a pigeon flies in. Hopkins and the new owner (Christopher Reeve)
Capture the bird and Reeve releases it. Hopkins closes the window and
stares after the freed bird.
Some people don't like films with little or no action in them. This could
be one of them. I loved it.
Stone me.
Alls Quiet
>
> Some people don't like films with little or no action in them. This could
> be one of them. I loved it.
Emma Thompson stole the film from Hopkins. The minor characters and
political subplot made the movie worth seeing. But the main plot
sucked. Blockbuster and Netflix should make a genre: Cold-Hearted
Unfeeling Bastard British Love Stories.
Sir Blob
> Although I have a strong liking for this film, I felt
> there were some weaknesses that seemed to stand in
> the way of it reaching it's potential.
> Firstly, Anthony Hopkins, playing someone who must
> have been no more than forty years old, looked a full
> sixty.
> This distracted me from accepting his position as potential
> mate for Emma Thompson.
> The second gripe I have is the too easy use of the word
> "appeaser" and "appeasement".
> The plot blurs and blends this concept with Nazi loving
> Blackshirts.
> The fact is, that appeasement is another name for diplomacy,
> and is not dishonorable or traitorous, but what happens in
> everyday affairs of state.
> e.g. Korea,Saddam's Iraq,Iran,Russia (now they have invaded
> and occupied a neighbour), etc.
> The film is a tragedy, depicting the now disappeared values of
> loyalty, duty, and personal honour, and how a man gave himself
> so totally to these values, he finally buried his soul while alive.
jesus i remember that, saw it a decade ago, iirc the aristocrats were
portrayed practically as nazis
>
> SPOILER
> The most poignant parts in the film were where he hears the
> sobbing of Emma Thompson, who has failed to stir him from his
> job, to get a reaction to her proposed engagement.
> He listens, then opens the door, but is struck dumb, unable to express
> himself, and instead asks her to attend to some cleaning requirement
> in the morning.
> Finally, the closing scene where he is gradually reopening the House
> and a pigeon flies in. Hopkins and the new owner (Christopher Reeve)
> Capture the bird and Reeve releases it. Hopkins closes the window and
> stares after the freed bird.
>
myeah i remember
> Some people don't like films with little or no action in them. This could
> be one of them. I loved it.
>
> Stone me.
hell yeah, i love ivory pics, or is it ivory and merchant,
surprisingly the ones about contemporary society, like heat and dust,
mr bridge or, i realised later on, slaves of new york
Sir Blob
> jesus i remember that, saw it a decade ago, iirc the aristocrats were
> portrayed practically as nazis
>
im not sure if this was cuz they were aristocrats or cuz they wanted
to 'fight communism', cant remmeber
Stone me
"Alls Quiet" <mut...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:78fa95a8-4b6c-4a77...@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Maybe it's just me, but I felt that Hopkins was portraying the suppression
of feelings, rather than their absence.
In the scene where he enters her bedroom, I have difficulty in not supposing
that Hopkins has feelings, but has suppressed them for so long and so
completely, he has forgotten how to let them out.
That's the part I found so tragic. He was more repressed than the people he
served so loyally.
There was a certain characteristic about the upper classes, which favoured
the suppression of emotion, thinking it a weakness. Lots of snide references
in books and plays to Italians and French, and "the Latin temperament".
The idea was that they alone would rule, and lead, in all walks of life, and
especially on the battlefield. Couldn't allow the lower classes to see they
were as human as everyone else.
There are lots of other layers, though it never gives the audience any joy,
the way that Gosford Park does, for example.
Stone me.
Pjk
> "Alls Quiet" <mute...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Emma? Anthony? Assuming I have the right actor, Peter Vaughan as Mr.
Stevens pere stole the show from everyone. Especially when telling the
story of the tiger in the library.
Pjk
Alls Quiet
> There are lots of other layers, though it never gives the audience any joy,
> the way that Gosford Park does, for example.
Well, except for Helen Mirren's final scene, one for the ages, Gosford
Park only gave me a sore ass. From Nashville until this stinker, the
only thing Altman's films did was give me a headache not unlike the
one I get from most of Kaufman's.
Jim Gysin
Stone me sent the following on 1/4/2010 9:19 AM:
> "Alls Quiet" <mut...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:78fa95a8-4b6c-4a77...@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 3, 10:18 am, "Stone me" <sun...@boulevard.hwd> wrote:
>> Some people don't like films with little or no action in them. This could
>> be one of them. I loved it.
>
> Emma Thompson stole the film from Hopkins. The minor characters and
> political subplot made the movie worth seeing. But the main plot
> sucked. Blockbuster and Netflix should make a genre: Cold-Hearted
> Unfeeling Bastard British Love Stories.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Maybe it's just me, but I felt that Hopkins was portraying the suppression
> of feelings, rather than their absence.
Absolutely.
> In the scene where he enters her bedroom, I have difficulty in not supposing
> that Hopkins has feelings, but has suppressed them for so long and so
> completely, he has forgotten how to let them out.
> That's the part I found so tragic. He was more repressed than the people he
> served so loyally.
The only time he slipped, IIRC, was when he dropped the bottle of wine.
And his anger wasn't really at the mess he made with the wine, but at
the mess he had made of things with the Emma Thompson character.
--
Jim Gysin
Waukesha, WI
Howard Brazee
<mut...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Emma Thompson stole the film from Hopkins. The minor characters and
>political subplot made the movie worth seeing. But the main plot
>sucked. Blockbuster and Netflix should make a genre: Cold-Hearted
>Unfeeling Bastard British Love Stories.
I thought Hopkins' acting was amazing. Much more difficult than
Thompson's and done very well.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Francis A. Miniter
Good analysis. Also consistent with that is the outpouring
of emotion at the end when he realizes that so acting gained
nothing at all.
--
Francis A. Miniter
Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.
Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6
Sir Blob
> Stone me sent the following on 1/4/2010 9:19 AM:
>
> >news:78fa95a8-4b6c-4a77...@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jan 3, 10:18 am, "Stone me" <sun...@boulevard.hwd> wrote:
> >> be one of them. I loved it.
>
> > Emma Thompson stole the film from Hopkins. The minor characters and
> > political subplot made the movie worth seeing. But the main plot
> > sucked. Blockbuster and Netflix should make a genre: Cold-Hearted
> > Unfeeling Bastard British Love Stories.
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Maybe it's just me, but I felt that Hopkins was portraying the suppression
> > of feelings, rather than their absence.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> > In the scene where he enters her bedroom, I have difficulty in not supposing
> > that Hopkins has feelings, but has suppressed them for so long and so
> > completely, he has forgotten how to let them out.
> > That's the part I found so tragic. He was more repressed than the people he
> > served so loyally.
>
> The only time he slipped, IIRC, was when he dropped the bottle of wine.
> And his anger wasn't really at the mess he made with the wine, but at
> the mess he had made of things with the Emma Thompson character.
>
> --
the bottle dropping was too fast to make any interpretation one way or
the other.
the film has either a lack of character development or an assertion
about thompson's character's masoquistic attitude to love, either that
or an attachment to mirrored mediocrity in the pic's disorderly order
thesis, perhaps the novel clarifies
> Jim Gysin
> Waukesha, WI