Talk:The Remains of the Day (film)

References to use

 * Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.



Material
I am the author of the material I have just added, which was adapted from a post to my website http://cddaran.wordpress.com/2006/12/28/film-review-the-remains-of-the-day/ -- Daran —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.162.124.40 (talk • contribs).

Cast listing
Why is the cast list split into two parts? IIRC, the end credits lists the actors in order of appearance and doesn't make the "servants"/"notables" distinction. It's a bit ironic being that the film is partly a critique of England's class system. --D. Monack | talk 18:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I've now merged to two lists. --D. Monack | talk 07:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Remains of the day.jpg
Image:Remains of the day.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Closing scene with dove
Just saw this outstanding film again and wonder, if anybody has an interpretation for the scene at the film’s end with Reeve releasing the dove, accidentally captured in the hall. Thanks in advance. 84.133.28.246 (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The dove could get out of Darlington Hall and was free again. Stevens could not - he would always be stuck there, both physically and emotionally. At least that's my interpretation... --62.178.136.200 (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Some critics have stated they thought it symbolized Miss Kenton's "escape" from the Hall, and Stevens' looking longingly at the bird in flight thinking what it would have been like to have followed her and had had a life with her. Subjective to everyone, of course. 98.67.185.159 (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Differences between film and book
Is it worth introducing a section on differences between the two versions? Example: In the book the new owner of Darlington Hall is not Congressman Trent. Likewise, in the book it might be suggested that Stevens realised he could relax more with his new boss and perhaps becomes less repressed (following a conversation with a man on the pier). (79.190.69.142 (talk) 11:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Absolutely. The book takes a serious and realistic look at the complexities of the anti-War period. The film (originally drafted by the far left wing Harold Pinter) is just yet another rehash of the left-wing myth that everyone who supported appeasement was an aristocrat with Nazi sympathies - actually it was supported by most people all the way through the political spectrum from the Communist Party of Great Britain, through the Labour Party, the Liberal Party, and the Conservative Party. The irony of course is that the leader of the opposition to appeasement was an aristocrat. 86.16.249.132 (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In the meantime someone deleted it without first discussiong the removal. --Maxl (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It doesn't look like I'm the one who removed it, but that's something I frequently do. If the section was basically what was in the book contrasted with what was in the film without independent sources making the comparison, I usually cite WP:SYN. If you disagree, feel free to explain why this would not be SYN or why there should be an exception to policy for this specific article. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 21:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Found it. removed it, citing WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR. I have nothing to disagree with there; WP:SYN is a section of WP:NOR. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 21:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Many film articles include a Differences between film and book section and I came to this article expecting to see one, but instead found only this after-the-fact discussion of the removal, on 3 January 2017, of the previously existing section (titled Departures from novel). Surely, mere statements of facts about plainly observable differences do not automatically amount to a point of view or original research. I also fail to see how they would amount to synthesis from multiple sources about a given subject, since there are two subjects here – the novel itself and the film – and only one source for each. 137.175.150.95 (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It is synthesis because it is not about a subject, rather it is taking material from two sources -- the film and the book -- and comparing them. If, in this particular case, the differences are noteworthy, reliable sources will discuss it. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Housekeeper
Why "Miss Kenton" and not, what we learned in Downton Abbey as the correct form, "Mrs Kenton"?--93.135.120.169 (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Article Too dry & uninteresting?
This article reads like a list of dry facts, thus does not properly convey the tone, quality, or mood of the movie. Like Cliff's Notes. Wikipedia guidelines want articles to be interesting. "consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article" Manual of Style (lead section)

For example, germane, accurate, but interesting (enthusiastic) reviews might be quoted. For example, from the Internet Movie Database; The best story of unrequited love in cinema history. .... Stevens absurdly repressed personality gently takes the audience from laughter to tears in the most emotionally devastating finale I have ever seen. This is a lovely, melancholic film, which effortlessly embraces complex themes such as misguided loyalty, dignity, pride, wasted lives, and unrequited love. ... – an unforgettable tragedy of a man who pays the terrible price of denying his own feelings. ...As if serious writing = dry scientific lack of sparkle or enthusiasm. I would make these changes, but I feel my style/values might cause conflict here. Hopefully I'm imagining things. --68.127.84.6 (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford


 * Hi, Doug. As a long-time editor, I think that the lead section is pretty standard among film articles, especially as one that has not been truly worked on. I think the guidelines mean to say that the lead section should have interesting information because Wikipedia has to follow a neutral point of view, with one of the approaches being to have an impartial tone. I think a quote like "the best story of unrequited love in cinema history" on its own is not impartial. However, if we could attribute critics identifying the film as one of the greatest films about love, that would be an item of interest for the lead section. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 02:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Certainly all valid points, Eric, thanks. Of course this is not a pretty standard film. I hope somebody here can find such an attributable critic, as you suggest, —despite their well known financial responsibilities and constraints/restraints. (I don't know of any who still use such strong superlatives.) I sense that you see how a blase, neutral review of something rare and outstanding, could be horribly biased. Yet I'm pretty sure Wikipedia still allows editors to be perceptive.


 * I'm also reminded of {analogy) a big journalistic debate: —absolutely fair and objective journalists who feel the need to give 50% of an article about the moon or Mars —to the Flat Earth Society. Etc. No bias allowed. Only reality suffers.


 * This long, ongoing Wiki debate?...One of the best things about the Wikipedia Manual of Style is its repeated emphasis that they are suggestions and generalizations, not hard and fast bot rules.     Good luck with this complex issue... --68.127.84.6 (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Errors in plot summary:

1. As far as I recall, it is not Geoffrey Wren who asks Stevens complicated questions about currency and the Gold Standard. It is some supercilious old chum of Darlington's

2. Miss Kenton/Mrs Benn does not reject Steven's suggestion that she return to Darlington Hall. The suggestion is never made because she has made the situation clear re her husband and pregnant daughter.

3. Stevens does not say he can't remember "the old times". He tells Lewis that he can't remember what the congressman said at the conference at Darlington House in 1935 because he "was too busy serving". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.143.34 (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Christopher Reeves, wrong cast listing
Mr. Reeves did not play Jack Lewis. Rather, he played Mr Farraday, Mr Stevens, Jr.'s second employer. 2600:1700:32F0:B70:ED95:7543:BE00:5C09 (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)