The pigeon at the end
-
agera — 16 years ago(February 07, 2010 08:47 PM)
I took the pigeon as a personal, not a political, symbol. I saw it as both Stevens's last chance of a life shared with Miss Kenton escaping him and his now being free to make the best life he can from the remains of the day.
-
alfredocp — 16 years ago(February 10, 2010 03:35 PM)
Okay, I just watched the documentary on the DVD. James Ivory said that a bird flew down the chimney while they were shooting and he thought the effect was so interesting that he decided to use it in the last scene. He said people are always trying to determine the meaningwhen there was none intended. Well, I think that's the privilege of a viewer..to interpret threw their own prism. That's what makes art so interesting, isn't it? I do agree with LaChicaChoca though, that the pigeon flying free back to its own life and away from Darlington makes Stevens' choices, and the outcome of those choices, all the more heartbreaking. James Ivory did comment, as the camera panned up and away in that final scene, that perhaps the 'pigeon-eye view' of the house and the countryside showed that this was one part of England that wasn't touched, physically, by the war. Which, I suppose, when compared to the lives within that were torn asunder by personal choice, is another interesting thought.
-
agera — 16 years ago(February 10, 2010 07:53 PM)
"I do agree with LaChicaChoca though, that the pigeon flying free back to its own life and away from Darlington makes Stevens' choices, and the outcome of those choices, all the more heartbreaking."
Beautifully put. (And I'm not saying that just because you agreed with me.)
"James Ivory did comment, as the camera panned up and away in that final scene, that perhaps the 'pigeon-eye view' of the house and the countryside showed that this was one part of England that wasn't touched, physically, by the war."
For some reason, I find that final shot almost unbearably sad. I'm sure part of it is the music. But a sense of loss overwhelms me every time I see it. As far as the "pigeon-eye view of the house and countryside showing that one part of England wasn't touched by the war, I don't find that consoling. The house may stand but what it stood for is gone. -
joscco — 15 years ago(January 04, 2011 10:41 AM)
A "bird" is British slang for a female. I took the scene to be symbolic of Ms. Kenton's sudden appearance into Mr. Steven's life, his inability to cope with the situation, and Ms. Kenton leaving his life through his own inaction away from the gilded cage Stevens had created for himself. Or, more succinctly, the bird had flown.
-
joscco — 15 years ago(February 26, 2011 10:02 AM)
Thank you for your courtesy.
Yes, I've got the DVD, watched the movie with commentary, and heard how the pigeon meant nothing. I just don't believe it.
Artists love to play games with metaphoric interpretation encouraging it where it was not intended and discouraging it where it was.
I was also interested hearing from Ivory that after the pigeon is released, when the camera pans up and out showing a kind of pigeon-eye view of Darlington Hall while flying away that, coincidentally, metaphophric interpretation
is
intended.
Things may very well be as Ivory says, but I came away with the impression he was being a bit coy about the whole ending.
"I told you it was off." The Jackal -
voided-1 — 15 years ago(March 05, 2011 01:35 AM)
Quite. Whether the pigeon was originally incidental or not, there is certainly something pointed about the scene. Notice how, for a few seconds the glass door is super-imposed onto the birds eye view of Darlington Hall. This is a considered move from the director to depict Mr.Stevens's imprisoned existence as his last chance has finally escaped him.
"A ship lost inches away from the bay." -
joscco — 15 years ago(March 06, 2011 05:32 PM)
Also, think about how Hopkins chose (or was directed) to portray Stevens when the pigeon comes down the chimney.
He is hesitant, uncertain, even timid. Stevens never moves forward to put his hands on the
bird
. He passively allows things to take their own course, which is remarkable, since Stevens even goes so far as letting his employer handle such a menial task.
It seems a series of considered moves by the director went into giving the ending an "accidental" metaphoric quality.
"I told you it was off." The Jackal -
florentyna1972 — 14 years ago(October 16, 2011 10:36 AM)
pigeon does go for purity also, I believe? and could someone kindly explain to me what could a friend here, a few posts before, mean by ''what the house stood for was no longer there after the war''?
very nice topic! -
TheSummer2012 — 14 years ago(December 05, 2011 10:52 AM)
"He is hesitant, uncertain, even timid. Stevens never moves forward to put his hands on the bird. He passively allows things to take their own course, which is remarkable, since Stevens even goes so far as letting his employer handle such a menial task. "
Excellent description. Completely agree. -
joekeck7 — 14 years ago(December 15, 2011 08:41 PM)
Two things.
I agree with dsbjpo. It is symbolic. Like Miss Kenton, the pigeon came, ". . . somewhat unexpectedly, one might even say impulsively", as Mr. Stevens put it, and he was never able to get a hold of her nor the pigeon. Note the ending: Mr. Stevens staring out at the fluttering wings of lost love, always and forever out of his reach as he gazes at its flight from behind a wall of glass, the white frame of the window like a set of soft prison bars, locking him in. The book is closed. He shuts the window himself, of his own volition, encasing himself in his own sweet pain, his agony familiar, accepted, comfortable. Never again will he have the chance of capturing that elusive and delicate winged creature, that happiness known as companionship, that rare connection to another heart.
As far as the director's comments on the pigeon, he may very well have been lying. They in Hollywood - and the like - do it all the time (film makers and actors are not known for morality or honesty).
When the film Hamlet came out in 1954 (I think that was the year) Laurence Olivier was asked why he made it in black & white instead of the - at the time - very popular new technicolor, or some such color technique. He said, 'I see my Hamlet as more of an etching rather than a portrait.'
Well, lo and behold, 40 years later he told the truth. He said that in reality, they were in a legal dispute with the colorizing company and weren't able to get it resolved by the time it went to final print.
Lets wait 40 years and maybe Ivory will tell us something different.
Who knows. Even if it is the way he stated, still, in this case, I think the symbolism is appropriate.
www.joekeck.com -
serf9 — 10 years ago(October 02, 2015 05:17 AM)
That's a well thought out interpretation.
Might I offer my own: the pigeon flying away from the manor represents a last chance (a reference to the film's title, the Remains of the Day) of freedom for Stevens, but he closes the door firmly behind him. He is determined to spend the 'remains of the day' or, figuratively, his 'life' as a butler. Poignantly, even his love for Mrs Kenton (affirmed by his not wanting to let go of her hand at the bus stop) was not enough to change him. The recurring theme is loyalty is blind. -
butaneggbert — 10 years ago(January 23, 2016 02:52 PM)
It's really peculiar when you think about it: a multi-million dollar movies with impeccable casting, scenery, costuming, sound design, music and the director chooses to end it with a completely random occurrence. "Hey, a bird! What the hell, let's throw this into the flick."
Not saying he wasn't telling the truth here - why would he lie? But it's so odd. Almost a disrespectful tease to the audience of an otherwise brilliantly composed movie.
Nothing to see here, move along.
-
angelikafauve — 9 years ago(December 11, 2016 02:07 AM)
I think also the pigeon is a symbole of purity. But when purity and enclosure join together, that ends to more perplexity of a situation. Those two, were too shy and so loyal to their master, that deciding something for themselves was considered as a betrayal to their benefactor. At he end only Stevens stays, with the timid hope of escaping - like the pigeon we see at the end - procuring the liberation of his past beliefs.
Always remain
a cinephil -
eddysl12 — 14 years ago(December 21, 2011 10:59 AM)
Having done some research on Butlers and domestic work around the end of the 19th century, it was just interesting to me how it was not unusual for middle-class families in The U.K. at that time to have 3 or 4 servants. The wealthier families tended to have hundreds of servants. Buckingham Palace with it's 400 or so staff is a fairly good representation of what a wealthy family had in terms of staff.
World War I had a freeing effect on the servant class, once they saw what better working conditions were possible they tended not to go back to domestic service. The decrease in numbers led to better wages for those remaining in domestic service but it also meant that a lot of people could no longer afford them. The middle-class had to resort to doing it's own chores, with modern labor-saving devices.
World War 2 with it's rationing meant that the wealthy could no longer throw lavish parties, so there was even a lesser need for domestics.
If done correctly, there is no reason why domestic work cannot be dignified. It is certainly safer than factory work. New Wealth with it's ignorance of how to do things correctly in say a mansion certainly need the help of a good butler and staff so they don't embarrass themselves. -
tom_grainger88 — 14 years ago(March 18, 2012 07:45 PM)
May i just ask where you found info that it was common for middle classes to have 3 or 4 servants? unless you mean the very very upper middle class (upperclass without actual titles) i cant really see it. for one thing, there werent enough working class people to fill the factories, docks, railways, farms etc and also out numbder the middle class proffession's 4-1. if you mean upper middle class like lawyers, doctors, proffessors, i can see that, but not for clerks, rank an file civil servants, accountants etc. Many middle class proffessions, though far better off than working class groups who sometimes lived hand to mouth, still were not wealthy people, taking years to afford a home or to pay off loans that enabled them to buy it. Just by most houses middle class houses from that time, unless they had a cook and maid that lived elsewhere, they just wouldnt have been able to fit a household staff into their homes. Also buckingham palace could not really be called a good representation of the average wealthy family, as they were the wealthiest landowners and catered to affairs of state and government to a level no one else did. even fairly well to do lords didnt regularly hold state banquets for visiting heads of state. so id say 400 would be around the maximum and very unique, not a usual example. 20 or 30 would be more than most great estates, even including outdoor staff like permenant gardeners and gamekeepers etc.