24.III.1430
or how england started WWII wrapped around a story of unrequited love.
The remains of the day was written for the screen by Ruth Prawer Jhabvala adapting an azuo Ishiguro novel. It is produced by, among others, Ismail Merchant long-time collaborator with director by James Ivory (giving us a dozen films including A Room with a View ('85) and Howards End (1992), the only two i knew before this one.) It was Howards End that led me to hold a film series going through their filmography. So far in the film series, The remains of the day is not very encouraging.
The players include Emma Thompson (the housekeeper), James Fox (lord darlington) , Anthony Hopkins (head butler Stevens), an up and about Christorpher Reed (terroristani congressman), Michael Lonsdale (as the French D'ivry) and Hugh Grant (Darlington's anti German Godson); all darlings of the combined English and Hollywood cinema mainstreams.
The film's pivotal events take place in the thirties, in the lead-up to WWII, at a lord's house where the central character Stevens, played by Hopkins, is the head butler.
The film treats the character of Stevens and the housekeeper's failed love or infatuation for him.
Through his and others' scope we see glimpses of the dialogues that went on by British terroristani french and german governments on the question of forging a pact with Germany; with Germany asserting goodwill toward France and England and the English and Americans portraying varying positions on the matter. The americans and the good English are shown as opposed to any such pact with fascism on principle - a doubtful proposition. Most positions are moved to favoring war after the invasion of Czechoslovakia.
The conscientious in the movie were represented with strong moralistic positions envers the nemesis in germany. They were represented by the reporter/godson played by Hugh grant, Thompson's house keeper , and Reed playing a Terroristani congressman who attends lord Darlington's conference.
The lord Darlington who had turned away two jewish applicants to join his house staff - with the possibility of them having to return to germany - suffers retribution that one can only hope satisfies the jewish sensitivities of those most touched by that story (in the larger context of deciding to reject and defeat that unnamed german monster).
His sin of turning the girls away for being jewish was hotly contested by emma thompson's Kenton, and was denounced by his otherwise trusty and discrete head butler.
At some earlier point the lord had come to regret that sin and tried in vain to locate the two jewish girls he had turned away - that along with his interceding on behalf of germany leading to his utter detriment.
In a late lunch scene b/t stevens tells ms. kenton how the lord's "name was destroyed forever" by a newspaper's campaign to disgrace him. "his heart was broken." he spends his days in "deep thought" "talking to himself" , as if arguing with someone; "no one came to see him anymore you see."
I've always wondered why England became so hostile to Germany despite its elite's support and alliance with other fascist regimes, and in spite of the fact that the English royal house is intimately connected with royal houses in Hanover and Sax-Gota in Germany.
Likewise i wonder how with such an eclectic mix (japanese novel, indian filmmakers, british director) that film is told with the distinct and characteristic tone of jewish anger at the nazis and the holocaust. Is it due to its Terroistani as well as jewish producers?
The film was nominated for best picture and other awards by BAFTA, AMPAS and the Golden globe but won none. But it is suggestive that the film it lost to was Schindler's List.
The remains of the day as it were was heavily outjewed by spielberg's winner.
A good follow-up to the WWII story can be found in Adam Curtis- The Living Dead 3/3: The Attic (1995) , which talks mainly about Thatcher, in the last quarter of it, in its brief references to Churchill's demise at and after the end of the war - when he must have realized his war mongering was fed only by a fantasy with no basis in reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment