|
|
Post by topbilled on Feb 25, 2024 19:18:56 GMT
Join us in the coming month for a discussion of some great art-house films.
Merchant-Ivory Productions
March 2: A ROOM WITH A VIEW (1985)
March 9: MAURICE (1987)
March 16: MR. AND MRS. BRIDGE (1990)
March 23: HOWARDS END (1992)
March 30: THE REMAINS OF THE DAY (1993)
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Mar 2, 2024 16:25:20 GMT
Essential: A ROOM WITH A VIEW (1985)
TopBilled:
 Many fine scenes enhanced by locations
There are some good bonus features included with the Criterion re-release of the film, from 2015. The features are comments from director James Ivory (this was after his producing partner Ismael Merchant’s death), as well as comments from three of the movie’s stars— Helena Bonham Carter; Simon Callow; and Julian Sands. I do have to say it was not easy to watch Julian Sands, looking so vital and sounding so knowledgeable, given the sad situation of his recent death a year ago mountain climbing in California. While I expected Ivory to provide more insider information, it was actually Sands whose comments I found most illuminating, as well as Bonham Carter who plays his love interest in A ROOM WITH A VIEW. They talked about traveling to Florence at the beginning to shoot the film’s opening act, and Sands had great comments about why he accepted the job, what it meant to his career as an actor.He also mentioned the framing of the scenes, which Ivory expounded upon…since they had to avoid including things in the background like contemporary automobiles and traffic. Additionally, there was mention of the famous kissing scene between Sands and Bonham Carter in a barley field which brings the story’s opening act to a romantic highpoint. Some of Bonham Carter’s recollections of the scene were quite humorous. One thing I appreciated about her comments overall was how she was able to reflect on herself as an actress learning her craft then, since it was only her second film. Also, she remarked that she saw aspects of her son in her performance. This reminded me we all have different takeaways when watching films. I think when a director or actors look at films they made long ago, they must certainly be reminded of what was happening to them at that point in their lives, whether or not it fully transferred on to the screen. Some of Ivory’s comments were in reference to his casting of Bonham Carter. Apparently, Merchant was not in favor of hiring her at first, though Ivory’s faith in the actress was ultimately verified, and Bonham Carter would go on to make HOWARDS END with them several years later. The casting of Simon Callow was different, since both Merchant & Ivory had wanted to work with him before, but Callow had to drop out of an earlier job with them due to scheduling conflicts. After A ROOM WITH A VIEW, Callow would make more pictures for the pair, and this was an important role. Callow described his less than enthusiastic approach to the part of the reverend, when he accepted the role. He didn’t think it quite suited him, until he realized there were some different elements to the character he could flesh out. In his commentary, he reflects on his favorite scene in the movie, which involves being turned down by Maggie Smith’s character for a lunch date, and deciding to take his niece instead. I agree, it’s a fine scene. The movie is loaded with many fine scenes, all of it enhanced by the beautiful Italian location filming, as well as the filming in Britain, much of it done outside a motion picture studio. The cast is totally in sync…you can tell they all think highly of each other. There is wonderful rapport between various scenes partners— especially between Smith as the cousin and her long-time pal (Judi Dench); poignant scenes between Sands and his father (Denholm Elliott); and the romantic scenes that Bonham Carter has with Sands and with Daniel Day-Lewis who plays her other love interest. Sands praised Day-Lewis’ performance, saying the moment where Day-Lewis’ pretentious character has been spurned by Bonham Carter humanizes him, and that Day-Lewis plays a blinder showing rejection and dignity in a simple scene lacing up his shoes. Personally, I felt that some of Day-Lewis’ acting choices were a bit too contrived, but I agree with Sands’ assessment that Day Lewis redeems the character (and himself as an actor) with the shoe-lacing bit. It may be the best scene in the movie.One thing I should mention is that E.M. Forster, the author whose novel serves as the source material, often included humorous vignettes in his stories…where the plot would temporarily take a backseat so we can see the foibles of the characters. It is a good thing that Merchant & Ivory allow those lesser light-hearted moments to show up on screen alongside the heavier romantic elements. Forster would’ve approved of us seeing the younger brother (Rupert Graves) of Bonham Carter’s character act silly at the piano; witnessing Smith’s character fumble for money to tip a cab driver; and watching two spinster sisters (Fabia Drake & Joan Henley) involve themselves in the affairs of others who live more interesting lives than they do— it is all quite amusing.My review wouldn’t be nearly complete if I didn’t mention the outdoor swimming scene of the three men, that occurs midway into the film. The characters played by Callow, Sands and Graves all decide to take a swim. There is frontal nudity as they jump in and out of a lake, run around and cavort to their hearts’ content— until they are interrupted by Bonham Carter, Day-Lewis and Rosemary Leach (playing Bonham Carter’s mother).  Director James Ivory said that he and Ismael Merchant had a choice of adapting this story, or A Passage to India, when they met with trustees of Forster’s estate. I would say the swimming scene with its homoerotic elements appealed to them, and may be a reason they chose to adapt this story. It is all done in a mostly tasteful art-house film kind of way. Hardly offensive, but certainly memorable. Sands claimed the swimming scene was a lot of fun to film, it was done at a man-made lake, and some of the action was ad-libbed. He said the script indicated he was supposed to run across Bonham Carter and Day Lewis at the end of the sequence, and he created the banshee jumping and hollering when his character realizes he’s been spotted in all his naked glory.  Part of the success of the swimming scene is that it has a documentary type feel, where we view something “natural” we are maybe not meant to watch. Indeed, Callow says they were promised the camera would only show them from the navel up. My guess: in the editing room Ivory decided to stick with medium shots and long master shots exposing all the male actors completely, which is what gives the sequence a raw feel.If you think about it, much of A ROOM WITH A VIEW has a raw feel. It’s about people exposing their feelings when maybe they aren’t supposed to do so. After Bonham Carter’s character makes a choice and ends up with Sands’ character, there is a lovely final sequence back in Florence, with the couple on their honeymoon. It brings everything full circle. The beautiful passion of the last shot with them kissing, as we glimpse the view behind them, is a memorable image that stays with the viewer. And it’s no wonder Merchant-Ivory had its greatest hit at the time with this release, and of course, they’d go on to make many more classic arthouse films. ***Jlewis:
Viewed today, the Ismail Merchant produced and James Ivory directed adaptation of E.M. Forster’s A ROOM WITH A VIEW may seem overly talky and slightly dull, but it was a huge international success in its day with its attention to period detail and different-than-usual storytelling. It benefits from a number of familiar faces of the British and Hollywood screen such as Maggie Smith, Denholm Elliott, Judi Dench and some now familiar, but not back then, method actors such as Simon Callow, Julian Sands (whom we lost early last year in a freak accident) and Daniel Day-Lewis (who just had his break-out role in the yet-to-be-released MY BEAUTIFUL LAUNDRETTE and was destined for multi-Oscar glory to come). Heading the cast is wide-eyed Helena Bonham Carter, sort of a British counterpart to Julia Roberts (who started a couple years later on screen) with their similar stubborn, polarizing personalities and similar tastes in roles (albeit Carter favoring more period pieces and fantasies). In an era dominated by action adventures, fantasy-sci fi special effects extravaganzas and “feel good, come to terms” domestic dramas, A ROOM WITH A VIEW was rather unique in its crossover the Atlantic appeal to U.S. movie-goers.It also contrasted from other mainstream blockbusters in at least one provocative way: an extensive skinny-dip scene involving several lead actors in the buff that created much commentary and considerable freeze-framing among VHS renters (as mentioned amusingly in Andrew Haigh’s WEEKEND). In hindsight, this is all rather silly but remember that full frontal male nudity was quite rare outside the adult porn industry prior to this time; perhaps the most famous examples from the previous two decades were also British productions, WOMEN IN LOVE and MONTY PYTHON’S THE LIFE OF BRIAN, since the Brits tend to be less fussy over nudity on screen than the Yanks. Then again, female nudity (if more often just the top half) was already a common sight in anything rated PG-13 and above by 1985. The ladies in this film, however, keep fully covered…and in more ways than one. I personally think the movie would have been perfectly fine without the famous scene, but it does add to the overall theme of Edwardian restlessness, eager to get away from Victorian expectations of an earlier century as England moved into the 20th. Despite this being a straight forward girl meets boy romance, author Forster was giving sharp critiques of no longer relevant customs when the book was initially published in 1908 and our main character is ridiculed somewhat for being obsessed with them.Typical of many early century romances of this type, the focus is on folks with money and personal comforts, although Forster’s later HOWARDS END would spotlight those struggling on the other side of the economic scale as well. The motto: the richer you are, the more responsibility you have to conform to the strict standards of your neighbors and peers. In the Merchant-Ivory adaptation of HOWARDS END, Henry Wilcox (Anthony Hopkins) gave in to the temptations of the less polished sort and when a “ghost” arrives at a lavish wedding party starving with hunger, he is in a state of shock. We will cover that one in another week, but it is good to go into A ROOM WITH A VIEW with this overall frame in mind.Helena Bonham Carter plays Lucy Honeychurch who is wealthy but sheltered in her upper class family circles, not unlike the character of Rose (Kate Winslet) in the later blockbuster TITANIC (and I am sure James Cameron studied this and other Merchant-Ivory films with notebook in hand). Her spinster cousin Charlotte Bartlett (Maggie Smith) plays chaperone when she travels to the sin-infested city of Florence, Italy. I especially enjoy actress Smith playing the polar opposite of her Oscar winning Jean Brodie role of seventeen years back, a character who was far less prudish than Charlotte but, to be fair, Charlotte is not dead in her desires either as she greatly enjoys the lustful suggestions of traveling author Eleanor Lavish (Judi Dench) who can be quite “lavish” in her word usage.The conversations reflect women eager to discuss what they lack, mainly physical pleasures they are forbidden to acknowledge. Discussing the impressionable Lucy to overly protective Charlotte, Eleanor quips “A young girl, transfigured by Italy! And why shouldn’t she be transfigured? It happened to the Goths!” Visiting men Mr. Emerson (Denholm Elliott) and his son George (Julian Sands) enter their domain when they share pensione accommodations, bringing up the film’s title. They exchange with Charlotte and Lucy their room that has a view of the city since it is the gentleman’s thing to do, a view that is to widen up innocent Lucy’s exposure to worldly pleasures. George is well-to-do but maybe not of the same standing of Lucy, who is engaged to uppity and prudish (not to mention antiquated in his views of women and their places in society) Cecil Vyse (Daniel Day-Lewis).It is with George that Lucy sees more than just the sights of the city. They also witness an accidental murder and Lucy faints in shock. He feels something is happening between them but she herself wants to ignore such unexpected feelings and return to the life she is most secure with back home. Home is in Surrey, England, where there is no father but mother and brother are doing quite well in the lapse of countryside luxury, and we officially meet Cecil with Day-Lewis playing him off as a conservative nitwit. Yet he is not a completely shallow creature. I sense he is extremely shy and awkward with a more strict upbringing than Lucy’s, commenting how much more comfortable he is reading about “life” in books rather than experiencing it, including one book by a certain Eleanor Lavish that ironically is set in Florence and creates much concern to Lucy.We do meet Cecil’s mother, played by Maria Britneva, and she is rather sweet and kind-hearted, if slightly snobbish herself. Cecil’s first kiss with Lucy is downright awkward with his glasses getting in the way (how often is that stereotype milked in movies?), compared to George’s passionate one back in a poppy field of Fiesole with Charlotte interrupting. As fate would have it, George is back in England with them all as well since his father is renting a house in the neighborhood owned by Sir Harry Otway (Peter Cellier). Amusingly, this is Cecil’s own fault in his arrogant arrangements, which creates a romantic triangle of trouble, trouble, trouble. I must admit that I sometimes feel sorry for Cecil despite how much of a mismatch he is to Lucy since her final rejection and very harsh criticism of him later does visually upset him.George, not Cecil obviously, joins playful-but-obnoxious little brother Freddy Honeychurch (Rupert Graves) and both even persuade the good reverend Mr. Beebe (Simon Callow) into some communal naked bathing. Freddy is still a boy who has yet to grow up in the same way like sister Lucy, who stopped skinny dipping years ago when she decided to become all prim and proper. Amusingly, he causes no harm with onlookers, merely embarrassing himself in front of her and mother (Rosemary Leach) who are already familiar with his exploits and giving Cecil a reason to hack up the shrubbery like it is a wild and forbidden jungle full of dangerous beasts.Speaking of Mr. Beebe who “why not?” disrobes along with the other fellows, he is certainly less Cecil-ish than the other religious authority we met earlier in Italy, the no-nonsense Mr. Eager (Patrick Godfrey) who stops Italian chauffeurs from canoodling with blonde maidens instead of staying focused on the road. Beebe is like a bridge between two worlds and also quite gossipy at times, much like his little sister Minnie (Mia Fothergill). As he explains to George: “You’re naturally drawn to things Italian, as are we and all our friends…” After all, George is attracted to a female Honeychurch, a name that blends a sweet taste to the “church”. (Daddy Emerson does request Freddy and George to get plenty of “milk and honey” on one of their errands.)As with TITANIC, you just know Lucy will end up with George instead of Cecil just as Rose would leave Caledon Hockley for “ship rat” Jack in the 1997 film, only this time there is no ship that is sinking and nobody drowning. Yes, if you saw that film and this one afterwards, you may feel a bit of “been there, seen it,” unlike folks like me who saw it back in the eighties. Yet Lucy is constantly fibbing to others and to herself to avoid too much trouble with peers (whom we never really see since everybody, including the elderly Alan sisters played by Joan Henley and Fabia Drake, are such sweethearts), meanwhile maintaining her stress level with plenty of piano playing.. and MORE piano playing. Daddy Emerson is, no surprise, the one who breaks through her Plutonic mask in our grand finale. Tony Pierce-Roberts handled the principle photography and many talents were involved in the Oscar winning costumes and set-designs (I should at least list some names here since an awful lot of work went into this: Gianni Quaranta, Brian Ackland-Snow, Brian Savegar, Elio Altamura, Jenny Beavan and John Bright), making many images resemble vintage impressionist and landscape paintings.Speaking of paintings, I always love that special Merchant-Ivory touch in a few of these films with characters being dwarfed by paintings far larger than themselves, as in MR. AND MRS. BRIDGE with the couple visiting the Louvre with all of its sensual temptations and this film featuring Cecil absentmindedly offering a house rental close to his fiancée to George and his daddy in front of “The Battle of San Romano” by Paolo Uccello, a tapestry of masculine battle rivalries. (George is focused on the painting while Cecil is focused on the negotiation.) The scenes in Florence certainly encouraged many to visit there in the ’80s– including myself making the trip four years later.
|
|
|
|
Post by cmovieviewer on Mar 6, 2024 7:33:48 GMT
Thank you for this interesting topic. I feel I need to watch/re-watch the films before I can fully absorb your comments. Accordingly I went on a search to see what is available. Here are some additional notes as to where they can be seen: March 2: A ROOM WITH A VIEW (1985/1986) - Criterion Channel, MAX, britbox March 9: MAURICE (1987) - Criterion Channel, tubi, YouTube March 16: MR. AND MRS. BRIDGE (1990) - some pay-per-view sites such as Amazon
March 23: HOWARDS END (1992) - cineverse, tubi, YouTube (nice copy available) March 30: THE REMAINS OF THE DAY (1993) - PlutoTV, coming up on TCM April 2nd at 10:30p ET |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Mar 9, 2024 17:51:18 GMT
Thank you for this interesting topic. I feel I need to watch/re-watch the films before I can fully absorb your comments. Accordingly I went on a search to see what is available. Here are some additional notes as to where they can be seen: March 2: A ROOM WITH A VIEW (1985/1986) - Criterion Channel, MAX, britbox March 9: MAURICE (1987) - Criterion Channel, tubi, YouTube March 16: MR. AND MRS. BRIDGE (1990) - some pay-per-view sites such as Amazon
March 23: HOWARDS END (1992) - cineverse, tubi, YouTube (nice copy available) March 30: THE REMAINS OF THE DAY (1993) - PlutoTV, coming up on TCM April 2nd at 10:30p ET
After Ismael Merchant's death, TCM aired a retrospective of Merchant-Ivory films but they did not include MR. AND MRS. BRIDGE...which happens to be my favorite title of theirs.
Back in January when Jlewis and I were going over some European art films directed by Joseph Losey, we both felt that THE GO-BETWEEN seemed very much like a Merchant-Ivory type production. And this caused us to say 'hey we should do a month focusing on some of our favorite Merchant-Ivory movies!' |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Mar 9, 2024 17:58:06 GMT
Essential: MAURICE (1987)
TopBilled:
Maurice & Clive & Anne & Alec
This Merchant-Ivory production is part of a cycle of films based on the works of British author E.M. Forster. Producer Ismail Merchant and his partner James Ivory had already adapted material by Forster– their most recent effort was A ROOM WITH A VIEW. That film had earned raves from critics, established a Merchant-Ivory house style if you will; and proved successful with audiences. This time, instead of a trip abroad to Italy, the main characters take a more inward journey. The story was first published in 1971, after Forster’s passing. Forster had written it as a short novel six decades earlier, in his thirties, but decided it shouldn’t be made available until after his death. He had written some other short stories with homosexuality as a theme, which were also published posthumously. The socio-political climate in Britain was such that authors might see their literary careers destroyed if they found themselves persecuted, or in Oscar Wilde’s case prosecuted, because of “crimes” that were homosexual in nature. Supposedly, Forster based the central idea on friends he knew. But one gets the impression the title character’s longings stemmed from the author’s own longings. College-aged Maurice Hall (James Wilby) and his new friend Clive Durham (Hugh Grant) form a somewhat unorthodox bond. According to co-screenwriter Kit Hesketh-Harvey, who shared scripting duties with James Ivory, the film’s director, the novel has several important scenarios as the title character develops and comes to terms with his sexuality.The first part is his sense that there are others like himself; the second key event is Clive’s declaration of homosexual love which baffles Maurice; the third part is Maurice’s declaration of love; the fourth and most dramatic turning point is Clive’s rejection of homosexuality and his shunning any ongoing sexual relationship with Maurice; which is then followed by the fifth part, Maurice finding love with a rough outdoorsman, Alec Scudder (played by Rupert Graves, who had been featured in A ROOM WITH A VIEW). During the section of the film where Clive and Maurice seem to be fully in touch with their same sex attractions, we may assume both are/were gay. There is open affection they demonstrate towards each other. Something has been awakened inside both of them. After this, we might ask if Clive still remains gay but chooses a life in the closet when marrying a woman (Phoebe Nicholls) to preserve his position in society; or if Clive’s sexuality actually does change, while Maurice’s does not. At first, when Clive goes straight, Maurice is stuck in limbo. Clive chooses as his wife a socially acceptable woman, yet still maintains ties with Maurice. I find this the most intriguing portion of the narrative: Clive still needs Maurice in his life; just as Maurice probably still needs Clive in his life.One aspect of the story is Maurice questioning himself when he’s in limbo, after “losing” Clive and before “gaining” Alec…he undergoes hypnosis to be cured of his same-sex affliction. This effort fails, because something more is awakened inside him when he meets Alec who works on Clive’s estate. To say the drama becomes a full-fledged quadrangle– a respectable one– is an understatement. Merchant-Ivory’s film uses memorable images and passionate music to capture the feelings of an intense love. Love that is repressed and yet erotic all in one unique set of circumstances. If you’ve ever fallen for someone you can’t have, or have had to deal with someone falling you that can’t have you, then you will relate to this story. You will relate to the kind of melodrama these characters find themselves in with not much of a way out. Forster’s story and this film present a happy ending (for Maurice) and a somewhat unhappy ending (for Clive). The two long-time friends from college don’t end up together, obviously. But the journey they take in discovering what their limitations are and what can release them is an exhilarating ride. ***Jlewis:
 Although it did reasonably well and made up for its ambitious budget, had MAURICE been released in the more progressive 1970s when the E.M. Forster’s source novel was posthumously published or ’90s, it probably would have enjoyed more financial success than it did. The 1980s (this one filmed in ’86, released ’87) was a dark decade when the AIDS epidemic took its toll both physically and psychologically (never-mind how many heterosexuals contracted it, it was still considered a “gay disease” by many back then) and a much more conservative political landscape that was less accepting of “alternative” lifestyles.Hollywood and the major European movie companies that catered to a more mainstream audience tended to back-peddle in this arena; this being a bit more Art House but also bigger budgeted than most. Since the Merchant-Ivory team had successfully tested the waters in A ROOM WITH A VIEW with a very “straight” romance enhanced by some undressed “bro-bonding” in innocent aquatics, they decided to push the envelope further with such activities leading into a bedroom as well. Of course, it featured actors who bragged about their girlfriends in the press and didn’t do all that much on screen that actors today of any orientation would consider that big of a deal. Simon Callow (one of the few out cast members of our ensemble) is introduced as teacher Mr. Ducie explaining to a boy at the beach about sex, drawing diagrams in the sand and confusing the kid. “Your body is a temple” he suggests and it should not be “polluted.” This establishes our scenario of people worried a great deal about what they do to their bodies regardless of what emotions they feel towards other people and maintaining a certain expectation that all “civilized” humans must subscribe to. In a curious twist, Mr. Ducie meets up with the boy as a grown man, Maurice Hall (James Wilby, in a performance very much the opposite of his snooty Wilcox brat in the upcoming HOWARDS END), when he is at the British Museum just before the Great War and with a much evolved notion about “human nature.”There is a delightful scene of Cambridge University student Maurice first meeting Clive Durham (Hugh Grant in his key break-out role) going through phonograph cylinder recordings that pinpoints the era we are examining here…78 discs were around before the 20th century, but they did not become the music recording standard just yet (and I recall an antique store in Pennsylvania that was stocked with them but only a few devices to play them on). Yes, I am going off topic here, but what I love about the Merchant-Ivory films is their incredible attention to detail, right down to each and every antique used for the screen. It is the winter of 1909-10 as the two men enter their second and third years of education respectively. One little physical trait that fascinates me is that Maurice is blonde-haired with fair skin and Clive is a dark brown brunette but both comb their hair parted in the front to resemble each other in these early scenes. Later, their hair styles evolve differently as their relationship gradually fades off from its romantic connections and they live separate lives. Maurice sports a mustache later on and then shaves it off before Clive grows one of his own.Hugh Grant plays Clive as a real talker and over-analyzer who lectures about his feelings without much preparation. He, in fact, is the one who first tells Maurice that he loves him, a total shock to the other. Fittingly, he is the one who will inevitably break Maurice’s heart when his mind again attempts to multi-task and over-analyze. Maurice gets kicked out of Cambridge for upsetting a teacher (Barry Foster) when he and Clive take a trip to the country instead of attending a lecture of his. Yet, he soon gets a job as a stockbroker under the suggestion of family physician Dr. Barry (Denholm Elliott) and to please his mother (Billie Whitelaw) and sisters (Kitty Aldridge and Helena Michell).Clive, for his part, continues another year at Cambridge but his own mother (Judy Parfitt) is expecting him to inherit the country estate at Pendersleigh and all of the servants, but also marry a fine woman who will become hostess. Clive is still emotionally entangled with Maurice and the feelings are mutual as they steal away for much cuddling and kissing but nothing further, as Clive is repulsed by that sort of thing. Thus, these two are more “gay” in their minds than in a physical sense. We are introduced to servant boy Alec Scudder (Rupert Graves) when he is asked by Mrs. Durham to deliver a letter. An Argentinian immigrant, he is pretty much ignored by the upper class members who later have him under hire as gamekeeper at Pendersleigh. However, Maurice is well accepted among the Durhams without any notice of his secret relationship with Clive. Well…except for all seeing Simcox the butler (Patrick Godfrey, appearing in three titles we are reviewing this month) who provides additional concern for both in his subtle suggestions to blow their cover. When another Cambridge ex-student both guys knew personally, Lord Risley (Mark Tandy), is arrested for soliciting a soldier and sentenced to six months hard labor, the relationship becomes even more secretive. Clive takes a trip to Greece (we are now up to 1912) to see if he can get his feelings for Maurice out of his system. The two have a spectacular break-up scene that sends Maurice spiraling out of control.Clive marries Anne Woods (Phoebe Nicholls) the following year but still maintaining a friendship with Maurice (use “our estate” as a “visiting hotel” is the suggestion) who, right about this time, starts getting rather curious looks from also resident Alec. Maurice then decides it is time to cleanse his own system of Clyde as well. He first tries to explain his dilemma to Dr. Barry but he scoffs it off as some hallucination. Yet he can’t stop watching the gymnastic antics at the shower after boxing lessons. (Like A ROOM WITH THE VIEW, we are treated to some wholesome male full-frontals here and in later scenes.) Then there is that gatekeeper Alec at Pendersleigh who makes an unexpected sneak-in with the ladder to Maurice’s guest room at Clive’s estate and deflowers his…er…virginity. Ben Kingsley is the biggest name involved in this drama and his role is as a “conversion” therapist and hypnotist named Lasker-Jones who aids Maurice with his unwarranted desires. “England has always been disinclined to accept human nature,” as he sympathetically explains. It is Maurice’s ultimate decision to break his ties with Clive as a Platonic friend and follow his passion with Alec regardless of mandatory secrecy, at least after he is certain that Alec is not blackmailing him with curious love letters and making a potential departure back to Argentina. From my homework on this story, I learned that Forster started writing this in 1913 after visits with pioneering gay activist Edward Carpenter and then tinkered with it again in the early ’30s and on again, off again through the ’50s with little expectation that it would be accepted by publishers.It is rumored that D.H. Lawrence may have read an early draft of it in the 1920s, since many of these authors operated in close circles, and was inspired to incorporate some elements like the gamekeeper role into his own “straight” novel Lady Chatterley’s Lover but, again, this is mere rumor. The happy ending crosses social barriers, but it wasn’t until the more enlightened year of 1971, following the author’s death, that a mass publishing market was ready for stories like this. At least at this high level of attention. Oh… yes, that is Helena Bonham Carter in an amusing cameo during the cricket match.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Mar 9, 2024 18:54:33 GMT
Afterword
While putting my review together, I re-watched MAURICE a few nights ago. It had been probably five or six years since a previous viewing, and quite frankly, it’s better than I remembered. Though I didn’t mention this in my review, I do think the film’s low budget is obvious in some scenes, especially where there is no background music probably because they ran out of time/money.
If this film was made today, the young guys’ faces would have to be scrubbed very clean without any signs of acne and something would probably be done to edit out shots where Hugh Grant’s bad looking teeth are visible. Sorry, I know that sounds like a negative comment, but Grant and the other two guys are playing romantic ideals, and they do need to look ideal in every sense of the word. Since Rupert Graves is playing the less privileged, less moneyed character who works outside, he could get away with a rougher looking, less perfect appearance…but Grant’s character should look so attractive from every possible angle that he’d be hard for another person to resist.
I think James Wilby gives the best performance as the title character...followed by Graves, then Ben Kingsley as the hypnotist and Simon Callow as the teacher. I do wish Callow had more screen time, because he is just such an excellent performer in how he conveys the layers of a character, even with limited dialogue.
Again it will sound like I am into bashing Hugh Grant (truly, I like his personality) but I have to be honest here…Grant’s acting is quite poor as Clive. I don’t buy his scenes where Clive interacts with his mother and sisters, and the scenes with Clive and Clive’s wife Anne lack any real shades of complexity as I think Forster wrote it and the film’s screenwriters adapted it. Overall, he gives us a very flat performance. In one of the Criterion features Grant says he had much more time to get ready for the film than Wilby did and he admits to over-analyzing the role and the character’s motivation. Maybe he analyzed it so much that it removed any real spontaneity his performance might otherwise have had.
By comparison, Wilby grabs our attention with his character’s obtuseness AND blossoming sex life, all done sincerely and intelligently.
I did think some of the romantic bed scenes with Wilby and Graves had a bit too much hugging, as if these straight actors were willing to do kissing for the important close-up moments but not a lot of extra kissing during the long shots and retakes if they didn’t have to. Personally, I don’t think sexually repressed gay men who get to unleash their lust want to hug, they want to get down to business. And after they’ve finished the deed they probably fall asleep or are awake and want to do it again. They want sex, they don’t want hugging. Yes? I found the hugging a bit silly, like it was supposed to suggest intimacy and stand in for real homoerotic passion and excitement when the straight actors could not fully get into the moment. Sorry, that’s how it came across to me.
There is a fun comment on the Criterion extra where James Wilby says James Ivory, who was normally soft spoken, lost his temper with Billie Whitelaw one day during filming. Whitelaw plays Wilby’s mother on screen. Apparently Ivory was not happy with Whitelaw’s performance and said ‘you are (over) acting too much.’ He wanted a more natural and subdued performance. Whitelaw retorted: ‘this is what we do, we ACT!’
There are a lot of goodbye scenes in the movie, which I hadn’t noticed before. There’s the scene at the train station after Maurice gets expelled. There is a scene where Maurice is leaving Clive’s estate in the rain. And there is the scene at the end where Clive is looking out the window and remembers the time Maurice had left college.
Another thing I noticed in the film is the relationship that develops between the two families…I hadn’t realized before that Maurice’s family and Clive’s family become very friendly with each other, due to their sons’ relationship. Much of this has great irony, since the two mothers do not realize their sons are in love. And the sisters are all hovering around, liking their brother’s friend, not realizing the brother’s friend may not exactly be straight or a possible love interest for them. But all that aside, I do like how we get to see the two families become friendly, despite the class division between them, since the Hall family is a bit more middle class than the upper-middle Durhams.
It’s been awhile since I’ve read the book. And I do have a copy of it here at home, which I should find and re-read. So I am not sure if something uttered on screen is in the book or not. But there’s an intriguing scene where Alec tells Maurice he knows about Maurice & Clive’s relationship. Perhaps this was added for the movie, to cause Maurice anxiety that Alec will blackmail him…or maybe added to suggest that Clive may have been lusting after Alec, which Alec caught on to, and had assumed Maurice must’ve had a sexual relationship with Clive. It does give us an extra dimension to the relationship between all three men at the estate, even if some of this (the Clive-Alec stuff) is not actually depicted on screen.
Finally, I should mention that in the Criterion extras James Ivory says that Forster’s admirers (and maybe even Forster himself) thought Clive’s sudden change of sexual interest was unrealistic in the novel…and Ivory worried that while they needed this plot device in the film to depict the two divergent paths Maurice & Clive take in life…he also felt it may be a weak aspect in the film. Personally, I think this contrivance works, because Clive’s “reformation” comes directly after Risley is sent to prison for violating the anti-sodomy laws. I think it makes sense Clive would recoil from any sort of open demonstration of homosexuality upon seeing what has happened to Risley in court.
Yes, I know some might insist Clive wouldn’t change his sexual orientation out of fear, but I do think he’d take dramatic pains to hide his true orientation if he felt it necessary. This change in Clive’s “nature” seems more plausible to me in the film than I remember it seeming when I initially read the novel…chiefly because in the novel, Forster suggests Clive’s transformation results from Clive’s sudden illness and visit to Greece, where those events trigger the change. But personally, I think it makes much more sense that Clive’s redirected orientation is a direct result and visceral reaction to Risley’s public humiliation and imprisonment. If this is the correct interpretation, then it means Clive losing Maurice at the end is even more poignant because his fear has pushed Maurice away and caused Maurice to replace him with Alec.
Oh another thing…I don’t think the wife Anne would be as dense as she is in the book and as dense as she is in the film. A wise all-knowing wife would glom on to the fact her husband is struggling with something. She may not ever verbalize this but we’d see her perceptiveness in this regard, with Anne loving and accepting Clive despite his conflicts and torment. It would make her a most acceptable wife to him, that she has the patience and kindness to stand by him, despite knowing she is not exactly Clive’s first choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Mar 16, 2024 16:15:51 GMT
Essential: MR. AND MRS. BRIDGE (1990)
TopBilled:
 The reproachable “character” of the American bourgeoisie
Merchant-Ivory’s MR. AND MRS. BRIDGE is based on two classic American novellas– Mr. Bridge and Mrs. Bridge– both written by Evan S. Connell. There was a ten year gap between the two publications, and the one on Mrs. Bridge appeared in print first.The books are rich with detail about the Bridge family’s daily lifestyle, much of it based on Connell’s own upbringing. Connell renounces his upper class background in his stories. These two volumes serve as an indictment, a scathing look at an ultra class-conscious segment of American life that Connell knew as a child. He examines the lifestyles and attitudes of people he grew up with in Kansas City, Missouri, starting with his parents then splintering out to include other high society types they associated with during those years. The chapters, which feel more like vignettes, are mildly satiric. He tells us these people are grand and amusing, and also that they are pathetic and worthless.For the screen adaptation Ruth Prawer Jhabvala does a remarkable job, utilizing the best elements of the original source material. But of course she couldn’t include each incident, so the books are a must-read if the characters make an impression on you, which they did for me. Jhabvala’s screenplay contains about 30 to 40 pages of scenes that were cut from the final film. So you can see how the material might have been a bit unwieldy and not only did Jhabvala pick and choose, but director James Ivory and his partner Ismail Merchant also chose which parts of the screenplay were most vital and faithful to the spirit of Connell’s writing. I think what wound up in the film gives us a very good glimpse into the lives of Walter and India Bridges, and people of their ilk. In some ways, the family is under a constant state of attack. Not only because the country is heading into the second world war, but because mores are changing. So the Bridges’ brand of respectability, carefully cultured and phony on so many levels, is under siege as well. How can it possibly survive?The Newmans, who really seem to believe in the material, play the main couple with great precision and skill. There’s a scene where Mr. Bridge looks at his daughter Ruth (Kyra Sedgwick) sunbathing and is interrupted by his wife. His reaction at being caught in such reverie is to pull his wife into a passionate embrace. However, Mrs. Bridge has her own problems, which her husband thinks is remedied with a glass of beer (she doesn’t drink). Assorted oddball characters pop up in the country club scenes. Simon Callow has a field day as a vulgar businessman who goes through women like water. The latest one is young enough to be his daughter.There’s also an emotionally unhinged banker’s wife named Grace Barron (superbly played by Blythe Danner) who implodes. After years of embarrassing her husband because of her erratic behavior, she decides the only honorable thing to do is to free him from the wreckage of their marriage and have a heart attack by taking too many sleeping pills. Heart attack becomes code for suicide and everyone comments on Mrs. Barron’s “heart attack.” When Grace Barron dies, India Bridge is particularly bereft. Meanwhile daughter Ruth has gone off to New York to pursue her artistic ambitions. Then there’s a second daughter named Caroline (Margaret Welsh) who just entered into an ill-advised marriage with a wife beater. We can’t forget the Bridges’ youngest child, son Douglas (Robert Sean Leonard). He has become increasingly distant and alienated. When Douglas joins the military and goes off to fight in the war, the Bridges have even more adjustments to make.While it is correct to say the film as a whole is a character study, it is really not a study about Mr. Bridge. And it is not a study about Mrs. Bridge, either, though she sometimes dominates the action a bit more than her husband does. Nor is it a treatise about children or family acquaintances. It’s about the reproachable “character” of the American bourgeoisie. It’s about how people cling to each other while clinging to outmoded values. Yet despite the damning tone, Connell and the filmmakers who’ve adapted his work, somehow manage to convey the idea that the two central characters have a constant, if not strange, love.***Jlewis:
 This is probably my favorite of the Merchant-Ivory productions, although it certainly has its flaws. What I’ve always liked best are the lead performances of Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward as the title characters of Walter and India, with Woodward stating in interviews at the time that they channeled aspects of their own marriage to flesh out the story.One could debate if this method acting deviated too much from the source material by Evan S. Connell (as two stories covering MRS. and MR. published a decade apart in 1959 and ’69) but, apparently from what I’ve learned, director James Avery and screenwriter Ruth Prawer Jhabvala took quite a few liberties as the novels were consolidated so it may not matter in the end. Over the years and multiple viewings, I’ve become a little less impressed by the Bridge kids but this may be because the casting didn’t involve matching up performers who resemble Newman and Woodward physically (the eye color in two of them being rather obvious). Daughters Ruth and Carolyn and younger brother Douglas are covered by Kyra Sedgwick, Margaret Welsh and Robert Sean Leonard respectively and all three became popular stars on TV by the early 2000s, so this is no reflection on their talents.John Bell handles fleeting appearances as the younger Douglas since the earliest material is set in the summer of 1937 and his final scenes (as adult Leonard) span to late 1941. Too bad the sisters aren’t also played by different actresses since Sedgwick and Welsh don’t come off too convincing as teenagers in our opening scenes. Sedgwick and Leonard appear to be enjoying themselves more in their roles than Welsh. Welsh plays the grumpy middle sibling who gets the spoiled wedding scene but constantly gripes about her husband afterwards (but Remak Ramsey has a good minor role persuading Walter in his lawyer office to allow him to marry his daughter even if his bossy behavior may lead to potential spouse abuse later). Her storyline is far less interesting than the other two anyway.The relationship between Ruth and her father, being the one most outspoken and rebellious but also managing to get daddy to cave in to her, is an interesting one since he himself may have resembled her in his youth before he settled down. Then there is the relationship between Douglas and his mother who, like with Ruth and Carolyn, has a tendency to be overly “motherly” and fussy. Douglas gets angry at her for ironing his Scouts scarf and refuses to express gratitude to her at the ceremony, something Walter picks up on and sympathizes with India. Later, India accuses a post-military Douglas for being “just like your father” (a.k.a. strong willed) when he refuses to shave off his mustache and his response is “who would I not be like but my father?”Walter trusts Douglas to look after his mother in case something happens to him (Walter worries about his heart condition with recent doctor visits) as they go through old WWI military stuff in the attic in ominous preparation for another conflict overseas. Thus, the relationship between Douglas and India will some day turn around as he “mothers” her accordingly. Those of us who had to take care of a parent in their final years can relate to these types of films better than other viewers. In some ways, this is the story of children seeking independence from a stifling cocoon, but also realizing that their parents did generally love them and only wished the best. Ruth cries when reading her mother’s letter on the train with its “I may not always understand you but…” dictation. I am guessing that Connell made the parental characters more stuffy and ridiculous than they play out here.The “Mysteries of Marriage” book that India gives to each of her children rather than explaining the “birds and the bees” is a source of humor. India and Walter are from an earlier generation who haven’t quite gotten “continental” with the changing ways of the 20th century and even realize that Paris is a very different place than it used to be on the eve of war declaration, September 1939. Equally important as a reflection of the Bridges are the lives of others in their neighborhood even though this world has become more confined to the Country Club district in the recent years. (Special acclaim must be given to the wonderful on-location filming in Kansas City, Missouri with a few shots of Ottawa in Ontario incorporated as blend-ins.)Most important is Grace Barron (Blythe Danner), married to a banker associate of Walter’s and Ruth’s best friend, but also another whom India feels she must “mother” because she is restless and feeling restricted in her domestic lifestyle. Before tragedy hits (I won’t spoil here), the two have a second re-connection with an old art teacher who brought them together in painting classes, a Mr. Gadbury (Austin Pendleton). As India tries to explain to Grace, “we are very lucky” with all that they have and should appreciate it.The hired help get attention only when forced upon the wealthy Bridges. Secretary Julia (Diane Kagan) remains faithful to boss Walter despite no pay raise over the years but still gets drunk enough to tell him off when she has to. Also as hired help, Harriet (Saundra McClain) surprises Walter after he gets her out of a drug-related jam involving her loose boyfriend by saying a nephew of hers is trying to get into Harvard. I really like the racial angle here because that is exactly how middle and upper-class “white” America operated prior to the 1960s and ’70s but pretty much took everything for granted. Not enough historical films reflect that accurately unless they milk it all the way to the bank as in DRIVING MISS DAISY and GREEN BOOK. Then there is the radical Dr. Alex Sauer (Simon Callow) whom the Bridges only socialize with in order to impress others. His dirty jokes and marriage to a lady much younger than him are quite the affront to them. Yet even he recognizes their love for each other as Walter visits the florist for Valentines ’42. Then again, I think his part was mostly elaborated upon by Ivory to find Callow a good role in this ensemble, with his very eccentric personality.I guess a possible turn-off to many may be its meandering, episodic quality that ends with black and white 8mm home movies over the end credits. Yet I greatly enjoy its pace and careful reflection of the era, with many locals in Kansas City providing the production team antiques of all kinds to reproduce late thirties and wartime Americana beautifully (and at little cost too since the screen images capture so many collector items in vivid detail for future generations to enjoy).The final scenes of India getting stuck in her car in the garage in the snow and we viewers wondering if she will survive is fitting as symbolism of the kind of life style the Bridges willingly trap themselves in. Yet we are clued in the end credits that Walter rescues her as a damsel in distress (just as he got her through a tornado earlier while staying in the country club dining room) and despite losing the Valentine flowers in the process.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Mar 23, 2024 19:35:53 GMT
Essential: HOWARDS END (1992)
TopBilled:
Only connect
 The phrase ‘only connect’ serves as a reminder that when Forster wrote his greatest novels, he was concerned with the ability (sometimes the inability) of the British social classes to connect during times of hardship and crisis. We see this in A ROOM WITH A VIEW when Lucy Honeychurch (played by Helena Bonham Carter in Merchant-Ivory’s film version) is torn between a high class suitor and someone she met abroad who is more her equal. In MAURICE, also adapted by Merchant-Ivory, Forster shows differences between the upper middle Durhams and the middle class Halls and how the two families come together when their sons form a relationship that may be scandalous.Howards End is considered the author’s masterpiece, and here once again, he is exploring the harsh class divisions of Edwardian England, as well as a slow changing of the guard to what he hoped would be a more enlightened era. Again the Merchant-Ivory team has adapted the novel, the third in their famed Forster trilogy. Some performers from the previous adaptations are back on screen: Helena Bonham Carter as middle class intellectual Helen Schlegel; as well as James Wilby who’d previously played Maurice, now cast as the idyllic son of the wealthy and powerful Wilcox family. The Schlegel sisters are half-German and half-British, and younger sister Helen is sort of dominated by older sister Margaret (Emma Thompson, who received an Oscar for the role). There is another sibling, kid brother Tibby (Adrian Ross Magenty) though he is not as much a focus as the sisters. And to round out the clan is a busybody aunt (Prunella Scales) who is not too unlike Maggie Smith’s character in A ROOM WITH A VIEW.The Schlegels are interesting Forster creations in that they have intellect as well as heart. They also have some money. As a result, they move in circles that go both up and down. And that’s key to the expression ‘only connect’ since they connect the other families, the upper Wilcoxes and the lower Basts, through their various associations and occasional follies. Some of it plays like a classic soap opera. Mrs. Wilcox (Vanessa Redgrave) is ailing, and she wants to get her affairs in order. She is the owner of the beloved country home the Wilcoxes family uses when away from London— the titular Howards End, so named after previous occupants with the Howard surname. In London, Mrs. Wilcox has become friendly with the Schelegels, especially Margaret, who brings out her liberal suffragist feelings; and it is Margaret who is bequeathed Howards End after Ruth Wilcox dies.Of course this creates a dilemma for the surviving Wilcoxes. They are upset their great home will go to the outsider Schlegels. Mr. Wilcox (played wonderfully by Anthony Hopkins) considers what can be done. After he becomes more thoroughly acquainted with Margaret Schlegel, he is overcome by some of her charms, just as his late wife had been…he then proposes marriage. But will it be a marriage of love, a marriage of status, or a marriage just to regain control of Howards End? Meanwhile Helen has become involved with lower class Leonard Bast (Samuel West) who loses his job and whose survival is now hanging by a thread. Helen, like older Margaret, feels compassion and a duty to right the wrongs of a capitalist society. She aims to help Leonard back on his feet, and in the process has an affair with him. This despite the fact that Leonard has a wife, a woman of dubious moral standing (Nicola Duffett) who’d once had an illicit relationship with Mr. Wilcox. Yes, it does veer into soap opera territory.Despite some of the more contrived melodramatic aspects of the story, Forster is taking pains to examine the precarious interconnected dealings of the British social classes through these three particular families. The ownership of a house, and England itself, may change hands; but it is the people who inhabit it that we care about and how united they may be despite individual conflicts. ***Jlewis:
This is arguably Merchant-Ivory’s masterpiece, although A ROOM WITH A VIEW may be more lavish in its cinematography of similar set-pieces. Nothing against Clint Eastwood and his talents but I felt that this should have won over THE UNFORGIVEN in a very competitive Oscar Best Picture race. The Merchant-Ivory productions always did well in the writing, set design and costume categories but, like the Lucas and Spielberg blockbusters dominating in visual and special effects, they tended to get snubbed for the top prizes in favor for what was more trendy at the time. On the plus side, Emma Thompson won Best Actress here, as the film did for its expected writing and art direction. To be fair, many of these films are as similar to each other as Arthur Freed MGM musicals and Pixar animated features with a similar line-up of performers and story arcs, so it is not surprising that they were often overlooked for being always “great” but, perhaps, too consistent and predictable. Although filmed six years (1991) after A ROOM WITH A VIEW, this is based on an E.M. Forster novel published only two years later (1910) and, quite possibly, some of the same Edwardian props were utilized despite different shooting locales.Backtracking to A ROOM WITH A VIEW, the focus there was primarily on one social class with only a passing glance at the struggling Italian working class (as in the carriage ride where the driver is chastised for wooing his girlfriend). MAURICE involved the forbidden but not impossible romance between a fairly well-to-do, but certainly working hard for his income, Maurice and struggling immigrant Alec, while the higher class character of Clive is forced to conform to his strict social and family pressures regardless of what he feels or desires. For our third outing, the differing social classes are more specifically spelled out. At the top of the totem pole are the Wilcoxes. Anthony Hopkins plays Henry Wilcox as the ultimate capitalist with plenty of investments in real estate and an African rubber company. “The poor are poor, one is sorry for them but there it is.” His kids are all rather spoiled: Charles (James Wilby) who marries gossipy Dolly (Susie Lindeman) in an elaborate ceremony, middle sister Evie (Jemma Redgrave, not co-star Vanessa’s off-screen daughter but still related and part of that illustrious family) who marries equally snooty Percy Cahill (Mark Payton) and Paul (Joseph Bennett) who joins the military in Nigeria rather than marrying Helen Schlegel (Helena Bonham Carter). The matriarch is the frequently sick Ruth (Vanessa Redgrave) who develops a friendship with Helen’s older sister Margaret (Emma Thompson). The Schlegel family first meet the Wilcoxes while in Germany and Helen then dates Paul for one summer fling before the relationship ends rather abruptly and mysteriously. Was it really class snobbery on Paul’s part? Apparently not entirely, but the other two siblings aren’t supportive and also have plenty to say when their father decides to marry Margaret later after their mother’s untimely passing. Ruth became friendly with her when she and Henry were temporarily occupying flats near the Schlegels in London.The Schlegels are not as wealthy as the Wilcoxes but are certainly not struggling with inherited family money and can easily afford a cook/housekeeper Annie (Jo Kendall). Aunt Juley (Prunella Scales) is a surrogate parent to Margaret, Helen and Oxford-bound Tilby (Adrian Ross Magenty) and providing her own country home for their visits when necessary. When Margaret tells Ruth that their building will be torn down in the not-so-distant future, Ruth decides to will her own personal estate at Howards End (whence our title) to her in a pencil written statement. Her husband and children initially judge the will as rubbish and discard it quickly (with Evie claiming mother would “never” give family property to “outsiders”). Yet despite trying to keep Margaret out of the loop, Henry develops quite the affection for her as he aids her in finding a different house and the two begin a relationship that takes the rest of the family by surprise.At the bottom of the totem poll are Leonard Bast (Samuel West) and Jackie (Nicola Duffett) who live by the railroad tracks in hardly plush surroundings. A struggling clerk who frequently loses his jobs (partly due to Helen and Margaret confusingly giving him advice they hear from Henry about the business dealings of his employers), Leonard first meets and befriends Helen at a “music and meaning” lecture (where Simon Callow appears as a zany professor in the fourth of his Merchant-Ivory titles we are profiling here). Leonard resembles Ruth Wilcox in several intriguing ways: he broods a lot, is often ill (with heart disease taking him in with our climax scene) and is seen in dreamlike fashion to wander through darkly-lit forests full of flowers. He and Ruth have stronger ties to the country estate of Howards End despite him only visiting on the very day he dies and, as fate would have it, his unborn son which he has with Helen in a moment of passion becomes destined to inherit it through Margaret’s connection with Henry and the fact that eldest son Charles is sent to prison for indirectly killing Leonard.This accidental attack occurs at the very same estate and ironically involves Helen and Margaret’s father’s old sword which father refused to use since every conflict he was involved in had him rooting for the “losing side.” (The soul of Mr. Schlegel influences our outcome with the loser being the man of financial influence and the winner being related to the victim if not the victim himself.) To be honest, I always felt this story to be rather convoluted with too many characters involved with each other in “golly gee” surprise ways. To add more “golly gee” surprise, we have Jackie having an additional connection as a poor 16 year old in Cypress who had sex with Henry “ten years ago” and returning as a ghost-of-sorts at a plush wedding ceremony. She shows up with Leonard and supportive Helen as “rag tags” and Henry reacts in the predictable way. Later he is upset at Margaret’s suggestion to allow her pregnant “out of wedlock” sister to stay at the family estate despite his own out-of-marriage infidelities.Emma Thompson won an Oscar as Margaret who is both quite the talker and a gullible one as well. She is oblivious that Howards End was willed to her until the final scenes and ultimately doesn’t care. To her a home is merely a family unit where one is accepted regardless of how the walls are constructed. She is less concerned about the house she was born in being torn down than Ruth in reaction when they discuss it because, to her, the primary concern is finding enough storage for all of their stuff. I should mention a fascinating outside character named Miss Avery (Barbara Hicks) who is the slightly nutty caretaker of Howards End who frequently socialized with the late Ruth and, as if we don’t have enough “golly gee” connections, once was engaged to Ruth’s brother “or was it the uncle?” according to daughter-in-law Dolly. She is super happy that the Schlegels’ belongings occupy the house later on and comments that the way Margaret wanders about the estate “mistook” her for the late Ruth. She is almost like the Earth Mother drawing a few central characters to their karmic destination, much like the pig’s teeth in the old oak tree attracted those with tooth aches. Her…is it her nephew?..juvenile assistant confirms the location to visiting Leonard who has, symbolically at least, returned to his own final resting place with the aid of frequent train whistles, the final place where he is doomed to die and leave as property for the son he never knows. Again, I should comment here that Ruth Prawer Jhabvala provided much of the screenwriting to all of the Merchant-Ivory features we are profiling here and is flawless in her execution from printed page to cinematic screen. Regardless of its episodic and all over the place storytelling, this is a captivating piece that one returns to for repeated viewings, thanks to many wonderful little details you rediscover. Many sequences occur twice, like Ruth and Leonard wandering through forests, letters being burned in fire places (Ruth’s will disgusts her children a.k.a. “she never wrote that” and Margaret’s letter to Helen about no longer supporting Leonard due to Henry’s shock over Jackie, a letter that disgusts Helen who considers it not of Margaret’s own doing) and trains shown multiple times as a symbolic metaphor for transport between two worlds of happy and unpleasant realities.I also like all of the sugary cake eating (which is why the pig’s teeth is needed), with Helen fussy about two kinds offered to Leonard in one scene and Jackie filling herself up while intoxicated in her second reunion with “dear Henry.” I have yet to see the 2017 mini-series that may involve even more literary details than a 140 minute feature can commit to.
|
|
|
|
Post by jlewis on Mar 27, 2024 1:27:29 GMT
Interesting views in your "afterword" on MAURICE, TopBilled. In my opinion, it was the most flawed of the Merchant-Ivory films that we are profiling this month but, to be fair, it was also the one with the most challenges stacked against it. The others featured male/female relationships that were and still are so much apart of mass entertainment and, therefore, expected to do well at the box-office regardless.
I do agree that these actors were a bit timid in their performances. Not that that they weren't open to playing such parts and supportive of gay rights, relationships, etc. in general. Yet several prominent actors like Harry Hamlin who did MAKING LOVE earlier in the decade were struggling in their careers after taking the risk, so this may have added to Hugh Grant's questionable (over analyzing) performance in particular, if less so to James Wilby and Rupert Graves who were more like Heath Ledger as the courageous "method" actors immersed into any role regardless. I do find it interesting that Graves went public about his dating a girl right about the time the movie was released, while Wilby officially married a woman the following year. This was like the situation two decades later with Ledger dating co-star Michelle Williams post BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN becoming a major marketing news event and Jake Gyllenhaal, inbetween his relationships with Kirsten Dunst and Reese Witherspoon (and not having anything to prove to the public), getting the full PEOPLE magazine "hottest Bachelors" treatment to showcase his own hetero-ness.
This brings me to your observations on the hugging versus getting-it-on in the intimacy scenes which, yes, could be partly due to the cautiousness of the stars but could also be intentional too. Story-wise, the character of Maurice probably needed a lot of hugging/cuddling for emotional security. We never saw him and Clive naked together on screen and can assume hugging was pretty much all they did. With Alec, things obviously went to the next level but Maurice still needed plenty of the emotional comfort. Every person is an individual with his/her own needs so that instant "release" isn't always of primary importance even if it is a MAJOR one for a great many hot-blooded males both gay and straight.
Also another observation about the 1980s when this was made: sadly, the Reagan administration and mainstream society in general wasn't too supportive of finding a cure for the AIDS epidemic in the early years since it was considered a "gay" disease deserving of the "promiscuous". Never-mind how many heterosexuals were far more promiscuous, but being "straight" was considered more "normal" at the time. Only after Ryan White and others who did not contract it by sex became famous in the news did attitudes change.
With that historical context in mind, I think James Ivory wanted MAURICE to be a story about romance rather than carnal lust and patterned it accordingly to the rom-coms Hollywood had been churning out for decades involving heteros finding love in all the wrong places before their happily ever endings. Were the results a bit clumsy? Certainly.
I do appreciate mainstream successes like MAURICE (which still did reasonably well), BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN and PHILADELPHIA in-between them in regards to the impact they had in encouraging inclusiveness on mass culture. However, all three suffer from an uncomfortable awkwardness that hasn't aged well. Don't get me started on PHILADELPHIA with its noble heterosexual Denzel Washington defending the dying-anyway-so-it-is-OK Tom Hanks (another actor nobody questioned beyond his role taking) and no peekaboo nudie scene with Antonio Banderas. One plus in that one: Joanne Woodward as the understanding mommy. That makes me wonder if her version of MRS. BRIDGE would be accepting of any of her children coming "out". My guess is that middle daughter Carolyn would be the most likely one after her unhappy marriage and she certainly appeared repulsed by guys in the dance scene earlier.
Mentioned it before in past reviews, I do like the pioneering indy A VERY NATURAL THING which was directed by Christopher Larkin on a rock bottom budget and looks it, but covered some similar themes as MAURICE with a lot less cautiousness. Of course, the setting was contemporary 1973 and not pre-WW1 so there was no concern of jail time and society status meltdown. Yet the main character David wrestles with his desires and even tries to become a monk for a year before finding peace with his religious upbringing. We know nothing of his "first experience" since that isn't such a Big Deal as it is in these other movies, but it is obvious that he is very selective of his partners, wishing to have an emotional connection more than just a physical one. He makes the mistake of dating a guy who has a hungrier mojo than him ("Are you going to the baths again?" David asks... paraphrasing here) but eventually finds his own Alec of sorts with a gay pride demonstrator, photographer and previously married-to-a-woman-with-a-child, Jason. Some critics felt the pride marches as too propaganda-ish but I always felt that they were important to the story because the main character was still closeted for job reasons and such scenes demonstrate that back then... and now... society on the whole is still not completely accepting and much progress is needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Mar 30, 2024 16:21:12 GMT
Interesting views in your "afterword" on MAURICE, TopBilled. In my opinion, it was the most flawed of the Merchant-Ivory films that we are profiling this month but, to be fair, it was also the one with the most challenges stacked against it. The others featured male/female relationships that were and still are so much apart of mass entertainment and, therefore, expected to do well at the box-office regardless. I do agree that these actors were a bit timid in their performances. Not that that they weren't open to playing such parts and supportive of gay rights, relationships, etc. in general. Yet several prominent actors like Harry Hamlin who did MAKING LOVE earlier in the decade were struggling in their careers after taking the risk, so this may have added to Hugh Grant's questionable (over analyzing) performance in particular, if less so to James Wilby and Rupert Graves who were more like Heath Ledger as the courageous "method" actors immersed into any role regardless. I do find it interesting that Graves went public about his dating a girl right about the time the movie was released, while Wilby officially married a woman the following year. This was like the situation two decades later with Ledger dating co-star Michelle Williams post BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN becoming a major marketing news event and Jake Gyllenhaal, inbetween his relationships with Kirsten Dunst and Reese Witherspoon (and not having anything to prove to the public), getting the full PEOPLE magazine "hottest Bachelors" treatment to showcase his own hetero-ness. This brings me to your observations on the hugging versus getting-it-on in the intimacy scenes which, yes, could be partly due to the cautiousness of the stars but could also be intentional too. Story-wise, the character of Maurice probably needed a lot of hugging/cuddling for emotional security. We never saw him and Clive naked together on screen and can assume hugging was pretty much all they did. With Alec, things obviously went to the next level but Maurice still needed plenty of the emotional comfort. Every person is an individual with his/her own needs so that instant "release" isn't always of primary importance even if it is a MAJOR one for a great many hot-blooded males both gay and straight. Also another observation about the 1980s when this was made: sadly, the Reagan administration and mainstream society in general wasn't too supportive of finding a cure for the AIDS epidemic in the early years since it was considered a "gay" disease deserving of the "promiscuous". Never-mind how many heterosexuals were far more promiscuous, but being "straight" was considered more "normal" at the time. Only after Ryan White and others who did not contract it by sex became famous in the news did attitudes change. With that historical context in mind, I think James Ivory wanted MAURICE to be a story about romance rather than carnal lust and patterned it accordingly to the rom-coms Hollywood had been churning out for decades involving heteros finding love in all the wrong places before their happily ever endings. Were the results a bit clumsy? Certainly. I do appreciate mainstream successes like MAURICE (which still did reasonably well), BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN and PHILADELPHIA in-between them in regards to the impact they had in encouraging inclusiveness on mass culture. However, all three suffer from an uncomfortable awkwardness that hasn't aged well. Don't get me started on PHILADELPHIA with its noble heterosexual Denzel Washington defending the dying-anyway-so-it-is-OK Tom Hanks (another actor nobody questioned beyond his role taking) and no peekaboo nudie scene with Antonio Banderas. One plus in that one: Joanne Woodward as the understanding mommy. That makes me wonder if her version of MRS. BRIDGE would be accepting of any of her children coming "out". My guess is that middle daughter Carolyn would be the most likely one after her unhappy marriage and she certainly appeared repulsed by guys in the dance scene earlier. Mentioned it before in past reviews, I do like the pioneering indy A VERY NATURAL THING which was directed by Christopher Larkin on a rock bottom budget and looks it, but covered some similar themes as MAURICE with a lot less cautiousness. Of course, the setting was contemporary 1973 and not pre-WW1 so there was no concern of jail time and society status meltdown. Yet the main character David wrestles with his desires and even tries to become a monk for a year before finding peace with his religious upbringing. We know nothing of his "first experience" since that isn't such a Big Deal as it is in these other movies, but it is obvious that he is very selective of his partners, wishing to have an emotional connection more than just a physical one. He makes the mistake of dating a guy who has a hungrier mojo than him ("Are you going to the baths again?" David asks... paraphrasing here) but eventually finds his own Alec of sorts with a gay pride demonstrator, photographer and previously married-to-a-woman-with-a-child, Jason. Some critics felt the pride marches as too propaganda-ish but I always felt that they were important to the story because the main character was still closeted for job reasons and such scenes demonstrate that back then... and now... society on the whole is still not completely accepting and much progress is needed.
Incidentally there is a follow-up book called 'Alec' by another author, which attempts to tell that character's story more fully.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_(novel) |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Mar 30, 2024 17:14:21 GMT
Essential: THE REMAINS OF THE DAY (1933)
TopBilled:
A life of service and sacrifice Emma Thompson did her best work in two Merchant-Ivory films during the 1990s. For these stellar efforts, she earned two back to back Oscar nominations (there was an Oscar victory for the first one, HOWARDS END, which also costarred Anthony Hopkins). In THE REMAINS OF THE DAY, her role is somewhat underwritten (because Hopkins’ butler gets center stage at all times). But it’s still a magnificent performance and ever so poignant and touching, because she endows the character with a strong likability and work ethic. After watching Thompson as Miss Kenton the housekeeper, you can’t help but appreciate women you’ve known in your life who have toiled long hours, who have been loyal and dedicated servants, often with low pay and very little recognition. She’s a real human being. We see the years go by in this film, from the mid-1930s to after the war. We’re told twenty years passed since Miss Kenton and Mr. Stevens (Hopkins) had last seen each other, and that they spent a lengthy period working together. With the passage of time, there is a sense that it was time well spent but time in which certain things were not said and can now never be said. Ultimately, it’s a look back over a lifetime of achievement and regrets. There is history. We learn about the persecution of those who were casualties of warmongering. In this story, there are other European nations who send representatives to Darlington manor, and many of them become victims of the Nazis. There are scenes about the Jews, and at one point gullible Lord Darlington (James Fox) dismisses two refugee maids who are Jewish due to his temporary anti-semitism for which he is later most apologetic. Watching the film, one experiences the emotions, naturally…but one can also approach it in an unsentimental and analytical way. For instance, it’s not difficult to observe how screenwriter Ruth Prawer Jhabvala is constructing what might be two different films, weaving them together.  The first film, if you will, is about the owners of the manor— first Lord Darlington (Fox) then his American successor Lewis (Christopher Reeve)— and the guests that arrive and stay there. I wouldn’t say it’s an upstairs world, as much as it’s an outside world concerning itself directly with historical and societal developments.The second film is about employees: a head butler (Hopkins) and his men; and a head housekeeper (Thompson) and her women. They function as a unique dynamic, and I wouldn’t just call them the downstairs world. Instead, they are the inner world, opposed to the owners and guests from the outside world. There is various intercutting between the two worlds. So we get an important political meeting playing out while Stevens’ father (Peter Vaughan)— who is also a servant— dies. As viewers, we decide which characters and situations matter most to us, and we tend to make that our film more than the other film that is occurring simultaneously. This is a richly dimensional story that stands the proverbial test of time, because it is about tests and about time. The greatest test is the one for Miss Kenton, whether she can be truly happy as a woman who no longer serves and spends her life with Mr. Stevens. Interestingly, she marries and has a daughter; later there is a grandchild on the way. She has successfully joined the outside world.  But Stevens, he isn’t at all capable of that. The only thing he knows about the outside is what Miss Kenton writes to him in her letters. At the end, when a bird is set free, there is great irony in realizing he is still not free of his own duties and responsibilities. His is a life of service and supreme sacrifice.***Jlewis:
 Although Kazuo Ishiguro’s original novel was published back in 1989 and the movie adaptation (with Harold Pinter contributing with the usual James Ivory’s second-in-command Ruth Prawer Jhabvala) was filmed during the latter half of 1992 with settings that move back and forth from the pre-war 1930s and post-war 1950s (1956 being roughly the year our central character makes a motoring trip in the original novel, although the movie suggests two years later based on some dialogue details), a lot of material covered in THE REMAINS OF THE DAY can easily be relatable to today’s viewers. The United States is a country currently dominated by iPhones and other hand-held communication devices with social interaction becoming less personal with declining face to face interaction.Since the 1990s, a plethora of media outlets have expanded news coverage that is often slanted accordingly to what those in charge desire to manipulate with their business and political interests. Thus, politics have become so polarized in an “us versus them” rhetoric that an increasing number of everyday citizens are reluctant to even change the world with their vote. Many would prefer to just go about their daily lives and not care too much who is in power and what kinds of laws are passed as long as they are not personally impacted. Anthony Hopkins plays James Stevens, a dedicated butler who does not question those of whom he is in service to. Back in the thirties, he was content to iron out (literally!) the daily newspapers for Lord Darlington (James Fox) to read without reading any of the news himself and is even mocked by a visiting arrogant high-brow visiting Darlington Hall for lacking any knowledge on the gold standard and other topics.
When Darlington’s godson Reginald Cardinal (Hugh Grant, whom we saw earlier in MAURICE and would appear in FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL next as a major star) tells him that Darlington is a Nazi sympathizer (upstairs trying to persuade a bogus Neville Chamberlain to side more with another historical figure recreated for fiction, Joachim von Ribbentrop), James reacts with little interest. (Cardinal later serves and dies for his country as a soldier in a battle against those whom Darlington was sympathetic to.) Upon Darlington’s death, the estate (with the actual Dyrham Park serving for exterior shots) is sold to a U.S. congressman no less, a Mr. Jack Lewis (a wonderful post SUPERMAN and pre horse accident Christopher Reeve in a subtle but most significant supporting role), and he gains it at a much lower cost than its original value due to the scandals and revelations of the original owner’s life. By the way, Lewis has a past with Darlington Hall himself when he attended a major dinner event back in 1935 (or was it ’36? since two characters list different years on screen) and dubbed his host and many others there as political “amateurs.” Because James is such a hard worker, much as his own father William Stevens (Peter Vaughan) was (and William too is briefly hired at Darlington Hall at too advanced of an age and dying while employed), he has often failed to see-the-forest-for-the-trees so to speak. A much needed holiday is suggested by the compassionate Lewis with the promise that he will still be kept employed. James decides to make it a business trip for additional hired help at Darlington Hall but, in reality, he wants to reconnect with his favorite co-worker of two decades past, a Mrs. Benn a.k.a. former Sarah Kenton (Emma Thompson). She had married another ex-servant Tom Benn (Tim Pigott-Smith) but was debating on a divorce in letters written to James.As our story progresses and he finally revisits her, he realizes that their lives have all moved on and there really isn’t any turning back to what is best left in the past. Our title refers to the remains of the day. Evening and nighttime are often considered the best times for reflection and rest: we must enjoy our lives as they are and not spend too much time dwelling on past mistakes. I have not read the novel and don’t know all of the backstory details of each character aside from what is presented on screen.Darlington is mentioned to have “heirs” but the dialogue doesn’t specify how they are related to him since there is no wife or children shown. His dedication for Germany began when a very close friend of his named Bremann (a boyfriend?) died in poverty as a result of the harsh penalties imposed after the Versailles Treaty. He does seem somewhat entranced by the lady good will ambassador at the great banquet who sings a bit of opera and dagger-eyes Lewis when he roasts rather than toasts them all and looks even angrier when he attempts to apologize to Darlington later.Of course, neither Darlington or James are skilled at explaining the “birds and the bees” to fish loving Reginald Cardinal before he gets married. One wishes either Simon Callow’s Mr. Ducie in MAURICE or Joanne Woodward’s Mrs. Bridge of MR. AND MRS. BRIDGE was there to offer much needed help (even if it just means slipping in That Book). Nonetheless Reginald shows great interest in learning more about that subject specifically from James on the very night of the banquet, only this coincides with the sudden death of Mr. Stevens Senior of a stroke… … and before he dies, William tells his son James that “I fell out of love with your mother” and pretty much apologizes for not being the most demonstrative parent emotionally. In a way, he is very proud of his son’s achievements but is also very sad to see him in such a guarded and inexpressive state. The overall lack of touching is most apparent when it is Miss Kenton who must close his father’s eyes instead of James and, later, her curiosity for a book James refuses to show her leads to one of their two key hand touching scenes. The second major moment of hand touching involves their final goodbye after their reunion years later. As head mistress, Sarah herself has entered the business to avoid relationships herself which only lead to heartbreak. (Is this based on her past experiences?) She tells each woman hired (well, not the Jewish sisters who were canned by Darlington due to his infatuation with the Third Reich) that marriages often end badly and it is hard to find a job as a single gal. No doubt she initially saw James as safe haven since he is 100% dedicated to duty with no whoopee involved, but their attraction towards each other does start to grow ever so slightly. After a few feeble attempts, she finally gives up with frustration to marry Tom Benn who hopes to open a seaside hotel for them to run.She is clearly unhappy after many years of marriage but Tom wants to reconcile and their solo daughter is expecting a baby. Thus, she ultimately decides that her present life is fine as it is. I think many of us subconsciously will ourselves into our own traps: Sarah preconditioned herself to view relationships as unhappy overall and she got her wish, but then realizes that her actual husband still loves her regardless of their differences and regardless of not being financially well off in the end. As for James, he still has Jack Lewis to replace Darlington as his “spouse” of sorts and keep him company in his remaining years, helping to flee captive pigeons from windows which he himself closes afterwards since he enjoys his life with the windows shut.Columbia Pictures and major Hollywood writer-director Mike Nichols invested quite a bit in this Merchant-Ivory production and it did very well at the box-office on both sides of the Atlantic, despite fewer Oscar nods than HOWARDS END. However it kinda was the last of the really great ones from this team. Some later films like JEFFERSON IN PARIS and SURVIVING PICASSO are interesting in parts and Ivory contributed to the popular CALL ME BY YOUR NAME after Ismail Merchant’s death, but I personally feel that the eighties and early nineties were their golden period.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Mar 30, 2024 19:05:23 GMT
Those ⇧ are two outstanding reviews that make me hesitant to post mine below. Read those first if you are only going to read one or two reviews of this movie.
)
Remains of the Day from 1992 with Anthony Hopkins, Emma Thompson, James Fox and Christopher Reeve
It is hard to turn an outstanding book into an outstanding movie, but Ruth Prawer Jhabvala's screenplay of Kazuo Ishiguro's novel Remains of the Day, with James Ivory's deliberate directing, realized on screen a movie worthy of Ishiguro's subtle and moving novel.
A butler, the head of staff for a prominent English estate, sees being "in service" as a calling. Like his father before him, he has devoted his life to his work and has reached the pinnacle of his career, only to then, in the quietest way possible, have his values challenged.
Anthony Hopkins plays the perfect butler, Mr Stevenson, who, just prior to WWII, runs Lord Darlington's estate with firm and thoughtful leadership. Hopkins takes great pride in his position, in Darlington Hall and in the respect that Lord Darlington, himself, commands.
As a butler should, Hopkins has submerged his personal feelings beneath a surface equanimity. He runs the estate with complete efficiency so that Lord Darlington, played by James Fox, can, without disturbance, deal with the "important affairs of state."
Presented early on, Hopkins is a content man until very slowly his beliefs and decisions are called into question. The arrival of an attractive and strong-willed new housekeeper, played by Emma Thompson, is the first ripple.
Thompson is, like Hopkins, professional in her work, but she has a fire for something more out of life than just being "in service." When, tactfully, she alights upon Hopkins as the object of her affections, he brushes her romantic hints off with feigned professional obtuseness.
Amidst this low-burn attempted romance in his head staff, Fox, as Lord Darlington, is advancing those earlier noted "affairs of state." He fancies himself a diplomatic éminence grise trying to help England, in the late 1930s, negotiate a peace with Hitler's Germany.
Fox believes England and the Allies set such oppressive conditions for peace with Germany at the end of WWI that they did not act with honor and, thus, share the responsibility for the problems in Germany today.
All of this is seen through flashbacks as Remains of the Day opens in the 1950s with Hopkins meeting the new owner of Darlington Hall, a retired United States senator, played by Christopher Reeve.
Reeve had been the American representative at one of Fox's pre-war "conferences," where Reeve called Fox out on his naive view toward Germany and on his amateurism. Things have come full circle for Hopkins.
Nineteen-fifties Hopkins is a man who has somewhat lost his moorings. The now-deceased Fox, if remembered at all, is universally derided as a "Nazi sympathizer" or even traitor. It's hard to see your career in service to that man as being a success.
Perhaps a presently more "flexible" Hopkins will, at least, have a second chance at romance. Thompson has written to him that her marriage, she left Darlington Hall in the late 1930s to wed, has failed. On the pretext of wanting to rehire her, he takes a trip to see her.
The climax, no spoilers coming, is Hopkins reunion with Thompson. For Hopkins it is a last chance at romance. It is also a chance for him to come to terms with the man he was when Thompson first knew him and the man he has become.
Hopkins embodies the character of Mr. Stephens. Being "in service" was a calling for many back then. To have the tenets of that world smashed up, as quietly happened to Hopkins' character, is a shattering experience that the actor captures with incredible nuance.
Thompson is equally well cast as the "change agent" in Hopkins' life. At Darlington Hall, she tries to push him out of his celibate comfort zone. Thompkins, like Hopkins, has to show a lot of emotions - love, fear and heartbreak - with little outward display.
Fox, a man born to play an English Lord, is wonderful as an Englishman who acted with honor within his cultural framework. It was, though, a framework horribly out of step with the times.
You'll also want to catch Hugh Grant popping up in a small but fun role as Fox's upstart godson who sees how out of touch his sincere but obtuse godfather is.
Author Ishiguro layered in so many "small" stories - look for the brutal vignette about the Jewish maids or the sad end to Hopkins' father's life - that the two-plus hour movie requires several viewing to take everything in.
All of this subtly, and subtly is Remains' genius, is beautifully portrayed by director James Ivory's lush sets and locations, plus, his meticulous directing. Every scene and moment is there for a reason, even if it takes a few times to consciously see all the connections.
Remains of the Day is also an early example of a period movie working very hard to get the era's details right. Experts will, no doubt, find flaws, but the overall feel for the viewer is one of being transported to another time and place.
Through the life of one seemingly nondescript man, author Ishiguro manages to combine the disparate elements of a heartbreaking tale of a suppressed love with the story of a well-intentioned, but ultimately ignoble international appeasement of a genocidal regime.
Remains of the Day is a thoughtful, moving and poignant novel. Driven by a talented director, screenwriter and cast, the movie's greatest achievement is that it did not let this wonderful book down.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Mar 30, 2024 19:56:46 GMT
Afterword
First, thanks to Fading Fast for adding his outstanding review. One thing Fading Fast's review reminds me about is how Lord Darlington is later associated with treason. We have two brief scenes about this later in the picture when Stevens is off motoring to visit Miss Kenton (now known as Mrs. Benn). The guy who helps put petrol in his tank is curious about Darlington's last days, and so are the people in the countryside pub. But twice Stevens denies having known Darlington before finally admitting he did know and work for him.
In our three collective reviews, none of us focused too much on the motoring scenes. I did sort of like the extended sequence at the pub where Stevens takes a room upstairs overnight. This section could easily have been trimmed which would have shortened the film overall by about seven or eight minutes...but I think Jhabvala and Ivory considered it important, as a rumination on how Stevens defines himself AFTER Darlington's death in relation to past events and the interpretation of those events by modern people. It is also a bit amusing that the pub locals don't realize Stevens is really a butler, assuming he is some sort of diplomat. So yes, while this section could have been cut or abbreviated significantly, it's still a nice bit of characterization to add.
Because the film is so much about Stevens, as opposed to Kenton/Benn, it's very patriarchal. I think a feminist director could have expanded the housekeeper role more. Actually, the story could certainly be inverted where it is about the housekeeper who stays on while the butler quits and goes off to marry someone else.
One thing I did not mention in my review, which elevates my appreciation of Emma Thompson even more, is that scene where Miss Kenton first sees Mr. Benn at the Darlington estate. We get a sense of the backstory, that they'd worked together before, but both went on to other positions. While it may have been a stage direction in the script, I think Thompson really does wonders with a minor piece of theatrical business, showing us in that brief reconnecting scene on the stairwell, that Tom Benn is someone she fancies. Her eyes light up. I think this is a decision Thompson made because she had to foreshadow efficiently why this woman ultimately does not stay with Stevens and does marry this second man. Not only do they have history, but she does find Tom Benn attractive and it is logical she could/would marry him.
So even though it feels like Merchant & Ivory want us to root for Stevens & Kenton, I think Thompson and screenwriter Jhabvala, both infusing their female perspective that it is always a woman's prerogative to choose whom she fancies, are encouraging us to root for Kenton & Benn. As a result, I can buy her decision to remain married at the end, because ultimately Stevens is just a blip on the radar and not the real deal for her.
I have not read the novel, so I am not sure if the story is exactly structured the same way in the movie as it may be in the book...but I have to say I feel the first hour is better than the second hour. It's a shame they could not delay the death of Stevens' father. As soon as Stevens Sr. dies, I feel the story become overall less interesting. Yes, we still look forward to Stevens meeting up with Miss Kenton/Benn again...but the minute the father dies, I think Stevens loses dimension. There are no further references to Stevens Sr. after the death scene, so it gives the Stevens Sr. subplot more of an episodic quality...but I really felt Stevens (Jr.) would have continued to be affected by the loss of his father and that would have been a catalyst for him to start reconsidering his own choices in life and his excessive focus on work and what it's cost him.
Another reason I feel the second hour is a bit flatter is because after Stevens Sr. dies, the replacement characters and subplots are much less interesting and defined. The relationship between the new maid Lizzie (Lena Headey) and one of the under butlers named Charlie (Ben Chaplin) is rather formulaic and very predictable. They basically function as a footnote in the Stevens-Kenton "love story." And as characters, neither Lizzie nor Charlie are dynamically crafted or superbly performed. If we did need to have that secondary romantic strand, I would much preferred it if Hugh Grant's godson character Reginald had been the one who fell for Lizzie and married her...so that when he died in the war, Lizzie had suffered a loss that would mirror some of the loss and emotional hardship that Miss Kenton/Benn endured.
I did want to see more of the German woman singer, because I had a feeling she was a despicable Nazi underneath and I felt there was some untapped dramatic potential between her and Lord Darlington (James Fox). Unlike Jlewis' comments above, I did not think Darlington was a closeted homosexual. But I do agree that he can be read that way perhaps, due to his not ever marrying. However, it is a big assumption to make since not all men who never marry are in fact gay.
Finally I want to add a quick comment about the occasional comic relief. I really loved the French character Dupont d'Ivry (portrayed impeccably by Michael Lonsdale). While I thought the business about the foot problems was a tad protracted and received almost too much screen time, I did like how the comedy of that scenario intersected with the death of Stevens Sr. where we had this major tragedy happening behind the scenes, yet the Frenchman's sore feet became an unrealistic primary concern for Stevens and company.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Mar 31, 2024 22:12:53 GMT
PSA: "Remains of the Day" is on TCM Tuesday (4/2) at 10:30pm ET.
|
|
|
|
Post by jlewis on Apr 13, 2024 18:16:53 GMT
In regards to my suggested hints of Lord Darlington, I don't think he was necessarily... or specifically... "closeted" either in hindsight. Yet it was worth questioning some of the possibilities simply because he had a strong attraction to Germany that started with a guy there who impacted him death-wise and much of the "heirs" discussion regarding the mansion was so nebulous. This is one movie that I should have read the original book for. Too many specific details about each character got lost in the screen transition. I suspect the book also goes more into the "why" both Darlington and James were so inept about discussing "nature" with Reginald. Not that we aren't clued into the "why" regarding James since his father apologized about setting a bad example in his marriage to his mother.
|
|
