The Remains of the Day

I believe that some of the best discoveries when it comes to films are those where you have no idea what you will be seeing ahead of time. Yet so often that really isn’t the environment in which I see something. I don’t live near any major cities where there are blind showings, so whenever I go out to the cinema, I am fully aware of what it is I am about to see. Usually, I have seen trailers, have read about the production of the film, or have been hearing about it everywhere well in advance of the release. The same cannot always be said for older films that I seek out for various reasons, including for the purpose of review. 

When I set out to do this website, I knew that two-thirds of the films that make up the Best Picture nominees I had already seen before. The other third I either knew by reputation or had never heard of at all. A select few I knew by title alone but nothing else. In the case of the latter films, I had an impression of what they were but no real knowledge of them. That is the case with The Remains of the Day, a film I had seen the box-art for over the years when I would browse my local Hollywood Video or Blockbuster but had never rented. That artwork gave the impression that it was a stuffy British drama, something my younger self would never choose to watch. It came from the same director who made Howards End, a film that I appreciate but don’t love; I rated it highly but have not been drawn to revisit it. All of this is to say that I had a mental picture of what this film was going to be like before I saw one frame of it. I didn’t watch trailers nor did I read a synopsis. I went in blindly. 

At first, my impressions were exactly what I expected them to be. But as I got further into the film, I discovered that I wasn’t correct at all. This was a film that caught me off guard because there is so much going on, many themes at play, and it left me so impressed with the whole affair that I wanted to immediately start it over and rewatch it again. My time is limited, and I couldn’t do that, alas, but this is one of the rare surprises that I know sooner rather than later I will be rewatching. In a way, I am glad that I waited until now to see it because the younger me would not have appreciated this film as much. I am at that age now where I am far more susceptible to the themes on display and can also appreciate a film that takes its time laying the groundwork for such a thought-provoking story. 

The film covers two different time periods: the 1930s England and the late 1950s. We are seeing the slow buildup to World War II and the decade afterwards through the eyes of Stevens (Anthony Hopkins), the butler of Darlington Hall. Stevens comes from a line of butlers and sees the world only through his duties to his master, the Earl of Darlington (James Fox). The film opens in 1958 when Stevens receives a letter from the former housekeeper, Miss Kenton (Emma Thompson), now Mrs. Benn. Their past employer, the Earl of Darlington, has died a broken man, his legacy destroyed by his pre-World War II support of Nazi Germany. The stately country house has since been sold to retired US Congressman Jack Lewis (Christopher Reeve), who has ordered Stevens to hire a staff again to get the house prepared for the arrival of the rest of his family. Stevens borrows the car to travel to the West Country to see Miss Kenton for the first time in decades in the hopes she will return to Darlington. 

The bulk of the film takes place decades earlier in the 1930s. A younger Stevens hires Kenton with the strict provision that she is to have no male suitors at the house as the previous woman left under less-than-ideal circumstances over it. Stevens is a perfectionist who derives his entire identity from his profession, repressing any real sense of his own individuality. His own father, Stevens Sr (Peter Vaughan), now an under-butler, is aged and is no longer able to perform his duties, but Stevens refuses to accept the obvious, causing him to butt heads with Kenton when she points out that the elder Stevens is making mistakes and unable to keep up with the heavy workload. When his father suffers a stroke during an important gathering of fascist-sympathizing British and European aristocrats, Stevens remains on duty despite Stevens Sr dying during the festivities. 

Lord Darlington, bowing to Nazi racial laws, dismisses two recently hired refugee German-Jewish maids despite their exemplary service. Kenton threatens to resign over this decision but has to admit she has nowhere else to go and is a “coward” for choosing to stay. Stevens, though he disagrees with the decision to dismiss the girls, remains loyal to his master because that is his station in life. He is a servant, a different class of person than his master, and it is not his place to do anything but serve him faithfully. 

As an American, it is difficult for me to comprehend the notion of class structure in England. I was raised with the belief that anyone can raise their stature in life if they work hard enough and have the smarts to make things happen. The idea that someone could be of the servant class, born and bred for nothing else, doesn’t sit right with me. Stevens represents that kind of thinking. When asked by his superiors about his opinions on political matters, he states that he has none and is ignorant of such things. This sparks the acidic comment that those in the lower stations cannot comprehend political matters and shouldn’t have the vote or any say whatsoever on important political decisions. It’s a mindset that seems archaic and backwards, yet this wasn’t all that long ago. 

Stevens’ mindset is that whatever the master requires is the most important thing in the world, which leads to him staying in service of him and his guests even as his father is breathing his last somewhere else in the house. Not until it is well past Senior’s death does he finally pay him a brief visit and then only to touch his forehead, as if to check his temperature, and ask the doctor attending him to go see to a guest at the gathering who has sore feet. The guest’s comfort is of more importance to him than the care of his deceased father.

Lord Darlington is a bit of an enigma. He is branded as a traitor and a fascist for his support for Nazi Germany during the war, yet he is not portrayed as an evil character. He has empathy for his staff, showing genuine concern and trust in Stevens and the others. We get this early on when Stevens vouches for his father as under-butler despite his obvious old age and infirmities. His infatuation with Germany during this time of economic downfall due to the repercussions from the Great War raises some eyebrows, but it isn’t until later that that infatuation raises more serious alarms. Even at that point, though, he expresses remorse and tries to make amends for an earlier decision to dismiss the two servants for being Jewish. We don’t see any of the actual war years and what he did to be branded so harshly, but we do know that Stevens stayed by his side through it all, assuming that because he was a nobleman, he must be making the right decisions. 

Stevens denies himself any of the real joys in life, which includes having a wife and family. We get the sense that he might have had just that with Kenton, but he never let distractions into his life, and eventually, she settled on another man who took her away from service to Lord Darlington. In 1958, when Stevens comes to visit her for the first time in years, she is divorced and is tempted by his invitation to return to the house with him. But last-minute news of an expectant grandchild changes her mind, and she stays behind, one less opportunity in life that Stevens has lost. The life his own father led, unable to see anything but the work he’s always done, seems to be in store for Stevens, only this time he will not be leaving that legacy and that fate to the next generation. 

The Remains of the Day is poignant and eye-opening. In some ways, it reminded me of Ruggles of Red Gap, where Charles Laughton couldn’t envision himself as anything but a servant until he was finally forced to be his own man. That never happens to Stevens, and we never get the sense that it ever will. He is firmly within his station in the serving class. Even Congressman Jack Lewis, who talks down the class system, seems hypocritical when he purchases the Darlington house and now has servants of his own. This is a thought-provoking movie and a well-made adaptation of the novel by Kazuo Ishiguro. It’s far from the stuffy British drama I was expecting and instead had me invested in it almost from the start. 

Academy Award Nominations:

Best Picture: John Calley, Mike Nichols, and Ismail Merchant

Best Director: James Ivory

Best Actor: Anthony Hopkins

Best Actress: Emma Thompson

Best Screenplay - Based on Material Previously Produced or Published: Ruth Prawer Jhabvala

Best Art Direction: Luciana Arrighi and Ian Whittaker

Best Costume Design: Jenny Beavan and John Bright

Best Original Score: Richard Robbins

____________________________________________________

Release Date: November 5, 1993

Running Time: 134 minutes

Rated PG

Starring: Anthony Hopkins, Emma Thompson, James Fox, Christopher Reeve, Peter Vaughan, Hugh Grant, Michael Lonsdale, and Tim Pigott-Smith

Directed by: James Ivory