The pigeon at the end
-
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.
-
tom_grainger88 — 9 years ago(May 29, 2016 10:30 PM)
Mr Banks is supposed to be q senior bank officer of one of the wealthiest banking institutions in the world, today would be a salary between the hundreds of thousands up to the millions, their neighbours are former admirals and the like. They are also fictional, the having more characters around making the story more interesting.
-
dhonuill — 13 years ago(June 05, 2012 01:08 PM)
I just watched this film for the first time all the way through and it has instantly become one of my favourites. For me, the pigeon scene reminded me of the book scene. If he just lets go, things will happen and it's interesting that he gives in to Miss Kenton in the book scene. The pigeon scene is bitter sweet - it's free but it's all too late. Stevens is in the twilight of his life and has lost opportunities for memories.
-
vajta99 — 13 years ago(June 11, 2012 08:01 AM)
I can't believe that there are still people who will find some deep meaning in a scene for which director said that has no meaning at all? Do we really NEED for the pigeon to mean something? I think the movie works perfectly without any explanation of the damn bird.
-
eddysl12 — 13 years ago(June 25, 2012 04:50 PM)
Tom, I read that information in a Butlering forum. You have to remember that the working class vastly outnumbered the middle class during that era. No matter how little a middle-class person may have made, the working-class at that time made even less. They had a lot less education that they do nowadays. Of course the middle-class would get the worse domestic workers and the upper-class would get the best.
The middle-class as a sizable group only came about during the 20th century. Sadly we are seeing the middle-class shrink again which to me is not a good thing.
Governments really needed a lot less people back than they do nowadays because there was generally less complexity. The upper-classes back then greatly desired to emulate each other and indeed had a need socially-wise to keep up with everyone else. The greater the number of servants, the greater the social prestige. This does not mean that that all the servants were quality material. -
greenbudgie — 12 years ago(June 30, 2013 02:10 AM)
I think that the pigeon scene closes out the film neatly. Looking at if from a more traditional sense I've checked all I could find about the symbolism associated with pigeons. But I couln't find anything of value. It's a nice scene and this is an interesting thread. Unfortunately I can't see that the pigeon has any real meaning in the film.
-
loisbcuz-1 — 11 years ago(April 16, 2014 07:58 PM)
I thought it was interesting that the Butler instructed his younger employer the best way to get the Pigeon to leave and then said to him "well done" as if Lewis had accomplished the task all by himself.
So typical of his role as a subservient who may be older and wiser than the one he serves, but giving all the credit to them and staying in his place. -
greenbudgie — 11 years ago(April 17, 2014 01:16 AM)
Re the butler's manner with the younger employer. The butler is my favorite of Anthony Hopkin's roles. He is a great character. Hopkins won me over in this one. I've seen him so many boorish roles and manic roles. His playing of the butler is how I want to see him. He is slowly winning me over as Alfred Hitchcock as well.
-
fugazzi49 — 10 years ago(November 22, 2015 09:03 PM)
When a unique event like that occurs in a film, and at the end at that, how can anyone not think it has some symbolic or metaphorical meaning? I cannot truly accept the director's story. The answers proposed by the people here have been most interesting (with the exception of the digression on the size of staff at Great Houses, which went on a bit too long for me). I tend to agree with those who see it in the broad terms of the whole film, with the bird being Miss Kenton, who appeared in his life then was let go.
It's very tenuous, of course, and you have to see that the chance was lost many times, long before. You can't put it all on him at their final meeting because he did not let her go then. She seems to have implied that she would have gladly come back as she was thinking about returning to service. It was the unexpected news of the upcoming grandchild that decided things. But yes, it was now gone forever. -
cadeaux — 9 years ago(June 09, 2016 01:31 AM)
I am also of the mindset that the pigeon was more symbolic than the director is stating. You don't use it in that way if it doesn't mean something to you, so I'm sure it was left in because it felt the right way to close the film
I, too, feel the bird was representative of someone who wants to leaveMiss Kenton only left the house because of the maid wanted to strike out on her own with the man who was being groomed as the under butler. Had it not been for her stating that being poor doesn't matter if you are happy I don't think Miss Kenton would have left the house.
There are other reasons such as the death of Mr. Stevens' fatherand her knowing that she will never come in first place with him. As she said at the end she is only staying with her husband as he "needs" her. She will never be needed in the way she wanted to be, so is going to settle for someone who needs her anyone who needs her is better than being felt you aren't needed. The arrival of her husband telling her the news of their daughter changed everythingjust as the death of Mr. Stevens' father didn't change a damn thing.
They are both unhappy but chose to stay where they felt are needed most.
C'monread my blog already:
http://www.mariannsimms.blogspot.com