I'm sorry to say, but I hated it.
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The Remains of the Day
boggy1 — 17 years ago(June 20, 2008 08:03 AM)
I read the novel Remains of the Day for our English coursework a couple of weeks ago. From the first page I was drawn in totally into the story. By the end of the book, I sat and sobbed for a number of minutes. The book quickly jumped into my top 10 of best books ever.
Our teacher recommended that we also watch the film, so that we could have an added depth to the storyline. Unfortunately, I found the film to be not at all what I was expecting, which is a huge shame.
Emma Thompson was perfect to play Mrs Kenton/Benn, but I found Anthony Hopkins' portrayal of Stevens to be unrealistic and unfaithful to the book. To me, Stevens has no idea that he is so lacking in emotion. He tries to rationalize everything, and to apply logic to human emotions and actions. He is very very naive; which makes the novel all the more tragic.
The setting too I found wrong. Darlington Hall I felt was too small and secluded, I had imagined it to be a far grander typical English country manorhouse (English Palladianism architecture) such as the manorhouse called Wrotham Park in Hertfordshire. Also the general feeling of the film was too dark and depressing; grey clouds and a grey sky. To me, Ishigaru's descriptions were full of warmth and sunlight (especially the descriptions of the English countryside), with the notable exceptions being the back-corridors where Stevens walks (and indeed most places where Stevens spends a lot of his time). It would have been a fantastic artistic style to portray Stevens always in shadows, never stepping into the sunlight.
I was also quite disappointing that most of the story took the form of the letter Stevens was writing to Mrs Benn. I found the first person writing of the novel; where Stevens is basically recounting his life to us the reader as he drivers through the countryside to be a large factor in my enjoyment of the book. The jumping back and forth in flashbacks was very good.
So in all, I was disappointed with the film, and did not enjoy it. I just kept thinking how much better it could have been done. To me it does not hark back to the great manorhouses with their lords and gentry that were typical of high-English society at the time, as the book did. A shame, because the book is certainly one of the best novels out there. -
choatelodge — 17 years ago(June 22, 2008 12:44 PM)
I am sorry you did not enjoy the movie as you claim to have, the book. Your view however, is evidently in the great minority judging by the responses reflected on this discussion forum.
I took both the book and the adaptation for screen for masterpieces in their own realm and as others have expressed before me, I was particularly impressed by the film's fidelity to the source material. Little was altered and what was seemed only that necessary for suiting the story to the requirements of the screen.
It was masterfully done.
Surely it must be acknowledged that a film can never reproduce the image one has already formed in one's mind from the printed word, and this seems to be exactly what you expect, from the criticisms you have listed. Never the less I will readily accept that you did not like the film as much as you did the book.
That said, your title phrase betrays your intent. You say that you 'hated' the movie.
If this is true, of THIS movie among all in the library of film, then I suggest you never again watch a movie based on a book you have already consumed. Failing that, I must conclude that your title was written strictly in order to garner a response, as you have gotten from me.
In other words, you have acted as an admittedly articulate but no less mundane, troll. -
ollie501 — 17 years ago(July 23, 2008 12:50 PM)
"Never the less I will readily accept that you did not like the film as much as you did the book."
And yet, in the final sentence of your post, you ascribe the label of "troll" for someone, simply for having the audacity of not sharing your opinion. There are plenty of high scoring films, which some people, for various reasons, dislike. Personally, I think the IMDB number one film of all time, The Godfather, is complete drivel. It doesn't make it so, neither does it make me a troll. It simply means my opinion of the film is different to that of the status quo, because I'm not particularly keen on gangster/mob films. It doesn't detract from the technical achievements of the film or its casting, direction and strong following.
The original poster could have quite easily been labelled a troll had they written something with a headline of "WORST FILM EVER MADE", as so many have done on other films, along the lines of "it sucks, nuff said" in the subject, but they put their point across, politely and succinctly. The fact that you disagree with them does not make the a troll. It makes them an erudite individual who's opinion is every bit as valid as yours. -
BlueGreen — 17 years ago(August 31, 2008 10:03 AM)
Well said, Ollie.
And Boggy, I found your objections very interesting to read.
I haven't read the book, I am sorry to say, but I do like the film.
May I ask you - it's just a matter of curiosity, and you sound introspective enough - do you think you would have liked it if you haven't read the book?
Do you think you could like the film
per se
, as a stand-alone work, so to speak? -
smacaulay-4 — 17 years ago(September 10, 2008 11:17 AM)
I find if I read a book and then watch the movie adaptation too soon afterwards, the film version always suffers in comparison. If a book works, then it hooks your imagination and that is always more intense than any movie experience.
I say, give it about five years and then revisit the film. It's a pretty masterly example of controlled tone and quiet personal tragedy. -
choatelodge — 17 years ago(September 22, 2008 11:21 AM)
"And yet, in the final sentence of your post, you ascribe the label of "troll" for someone, simply for having the audacity of not sharing your opinion."
Actually that's not what I did. I thought I'd expressed the reason for my use of the label 'troll' well enough, but apparently I did not.
The O/P may express his opinion as I did mine, with impugnity. He courts definition as a troll when the title of his thread is worded with the intent to provoke a response from the readership of the forum.
'I hated it', is a far cry from the actual description of his issues with the movie, those of disliking Hopkins' portrayal of Stevens and of thinking the house was 'too small'. (!)
Trolls seek to provoke. The O/P is well read and well educated alright, but his thread was written to provoke a response.
But if you wish to play the devil's advocate, you could say that my use of the strong pejorative might itself have been intended to provoke a response, which it did!
Peace.
