Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

Film Glance Forum

  1. Home
  2. The Cinema
  3. What was Lord Darlington trying to ask Mr. Stevens to tell his Godson?

What was Lord Darlington trying to ask Mr. Stevens to tell his Godson?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Cinema
15 Posts 1 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • F Offline
    F Offline
    fgadmin
    wrote last edited by
    #1

    Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The Remains of the Day


    yxus — 16 years ago(October 01, 2009 07:35 AM)

    I like this film, but there is one thing I didn't get it: around 35 minutes into the movie, Lord Darlington asked Mr. Stevens to tell his Godson (the role Hugh Grant played) soemthing, which he felt that was somewhat awkward for him to say. Lord Darlington was kind of beating around the bush first, and Mr. Stevens didn't quite follow him. Darlington was saying something like "facts of life", then he said "I'm so busy with this conferencebut someone has to tell him. In a way, it would be easier for you. Less awkward. I'd find the task rather daunting" All of a sudden, Stevens got it, but I still didn't get it. Later on Stevens found Darlington's Godson in the garden and talked to him about "facts of life" too, but got interrupted and had to leave without finishing the conversation. Could anyone explain what on earth Lord Darlington was trying to say? Thanks a lot!

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • F Offline
      F Offline
      fgadmin
      wrote last edited by
      #2

      agera — 16 years ago(October 02, 2009 10:44 PM)

      "The facts of life" is an old euphemism for s-e-x. That's why Lord Darlington wants his godson to have this information before he marries (i.e., before his wedding night).
      So poor Stevens tells young Mr. Cardinal that come spring, he will see a most remarkable transformation in Nature and that all living creatures will be relevant to their discussion. Unfortunately, Mr. Cardinal seems to take this very literally and thereafter keeps mentioning either his own interest, fish, or how the grounds of Darlington Hall look in the springtime when everything is "burgeoning". I've sometimes wondered, though, if that "burgeoning" didn't mean that maybe young Mr. Cardinal knew about more than fish.

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • F Offline
        F Offline
        fgadmin
        wrote last edited by
        #3

        yxus — 16 years ago(October 03, 2009 08:41 AM)

        Thanks for the explanation, now I start to understand. So the British is really implicit!

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • F Offline
          F Offline
          fgadmin
          wrote last edited by
          #4

          The_White_Hotel — 16 years ago(October 08, 2009 03:54 PM)

          "I've sometimes wondered, though, if that "burgeoning" didn't mean that maybe young Mr. Cardinal knew about more than fish."
          Yeah definitely, man. I've always thought the Cardinal is playing with Stevens at that point, he knows what Stevens is trying to say to him and it amuses him that Stevens can't quite get to the point so he has a little fun with it. He definitely knows that Stevens is trying to talk to him about sex, and he clearly already knows about it.
          "Reality is the new fiction they say, truth is truer these days, truth is man-made"

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • F Offline
            F Offline
            fgadmin
            wrote last edited by
            #5

            maxman-5 — 12 years ago(November 15, 2013 08:11 AM)

            There's a deleted scene in the extras that originally came between the 2 scenes we saw.

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • F Offline
              F Offline
              fgadmin
              wrote last edited by
              #6

              IMDb User

              This message has been deleted.

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • F Offline
                F Offline
                fgadmin
                wrote last edited by
                #7

                chrisbedford — 16 years ago(November 08, 2009 07:16 AM)

                Interesting that Lord Darlington thought that his son didn't have a clue about sex
                Godson.
                Remember this was the thirties - the most frightfully repressive society, not far different from the Georgian times it inherited most of its characteristics from. Young people were
                expected
                to be ignorant of sex until their wedding night or at least, until pre-marriage "counselling" sessions would reveal the awful truth to them, but they were very definitely supposed to be virgins until married. Hence Lord D asking Stevens if he knew the facts of life - since Stevens was unmarried, it might not unreasonably be supposed that he would be uninformed about procreation.
                And I'm sure there were probably a great number of people in his situation who really were ignorant, although the thought makes me shudder!

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • F Offline
                  F Offline
                  fgadmin
                  wrote last edited by
                  #8

                  ca111026 — 16 years ago(January 04, 2010 10:07 PM)

                  I just don't think it was possible - in any society. Surely he went to school of some sort even if it was boys-only school. Surely boys talked about girls and sex, not mentioning M word.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • F Offline
                    F Offline
                    fgadmin
                    wrote last edited by
                    #9

                    Sandor_Szavost — 16 years ago(January 11, 2010 07:50 AM)

                    By the 1930's, for the most part, women were still expected to keep their virginity until marriage, but not men. Unmarried men would often visit prostitutes or have love affairs, and society would not disapprove of such things. And sexual attitudes towards women were changing too by the thirties. Single women could go out on dates unchaperoned, they could go to bars, and sexual relations before or outside marriage, if found out, no longer meant the female would be considered a "fallen woman" and thus shunned from society. Also, among the nobility, rules about sex were not as strict as for middle class people.
                    ~Don't you want to go where the rainbow ends?~

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • F Offline
                      F Offline
                      fgadmin
                      wrote last edited by
                      #10

                      cyninbend-149-610489 — 10 years ago(January 23, 2016 03:23 AM)

                      Many women were sexually active thenif we can trust movies like Design For Living, and how famous actresses lived. Not just in Hollywood but throughout EuropeParis, Berlinwhereve sophisticated people lived. It seems artists and performers led libertine lives while small towns everywhere enforced much stricter rules.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • F Offline
                        F Offline
                        fgadmin
                        wrote last edited by
                        #11

                        fentress — 15 years ago(April 16, 2010 03:33 PM)

                        I think you're probably right in the technical sense. Cardinal probably did already know something about sex. Perhaps he already had sex. But I think in that society it was the proper thing for someone like Lord D to engage in the custom of
                        acting as if
                        a young unmarried man wouldn't know about sex. It was the picture of life people wanted to believe. Plus, in Darlington's mind it might have been a virtuous act for him to presume that Cardinal had led a sexually pure life.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • F Offline
                          F Offline
                          fgadmin
                          wrote last edited by
                          #12

                          Trax-3 — 11 years ago(January 10, 2015 07:58 PM)

                          Godson.
                          Remember this was the thirties - the most frightfully repressive society, not far different from the Georgian times it inherited most of its characteristics from. Young people were expected to be ignorant of sex until their wedding night or at least, until pre-marriage "counselling" sessions would reveal the awful truth to them, but they were very definitely supposed to be virgins until married. Hence Lord D asking Stevens if he knew the facts of life - since Stevens was unmarried, it might not unreasonably be supposed that he would be uninformed about procreation.
                          This is nonsense, this is 30s. Roaring 20s are a recent memory. Lord Darlington is just hopelessly out of touch with times and reality.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • F Offline
                            F Offline
                            fgadmin
                            wrote last edited by
                            #13

                            cyninbend-149-610489 — 10 years ago(January 23, 2016 03:18 AM)

                            Actually, as a woman, thinking about Stevens' knowledge of sex makes me queasey! What would a cold isolated man like that possibly know?

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • F Offline
                              F Offline
                              fgadmin
                              wrote last edited by
                              #14

                              maxman-5 — 12 years ago(November 15, 2013 08:17 AM)

                              Considering that Hugh Grant was in his 30's at the time of filming makes it a bit comedic, and I'm sure he wasn't meant to be portraying a teenager.

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • F Offline
                                F Offline
                                fgadmin
                                wrote last edited by
                                #15

                                movie-viking — 11 years ago(April 18, 2014 11:40 PM)

                                Lord Darlington (poor dear confused man!) actually must have thought his grown godson did not know about sexand asks the butler Stevens to talk to him.
                                (You would have thought the godson was a 10 year old boy
                                not a mature man!)
                                Shows how cluelessand out of touch with reality both Lord Darlingtonand his butler Stevens were! Both were honorable but politically and personally adrift!

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0

                                • Login

                                • Don't have an account? Register

                                Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                                • First post
                                  Last post
                                0
                                • Categories
                                • Recent
                                • Tags
                                • Popular
                                • Users
                                • Groups