In my opinion, Remains of the Day should never have been made into a movie. Since it has been, the character of Stevens has been so distorted so as to not even resemble the intricate character created by Kazuo Ishiguro.
Remains of the Day is a powerful story of a truly British butler and the struggle he undergoes to realize his passion of being a “Great butler”, and to discern the positions his master took in pre-WW2 British politics, and whether or not he served a man worth the service. Stevens embarks on a car trip across Britain to visit a former housekeeper. While he does, he reflects on his years of service and his life. Much time is spent in the recounting of stories that have bearing on his life long ambitions. Everything related or discussed in the book is for a reason and enhances or furthers the story. The film adaptation seems to have misinterpreted many scenes, and used them to tell a different story. The movie also contains some inaccuracies, and bases its story and conclusions on these. One of which is Stevens’ current employer. The book records him serving a Mr. Farraday; the film, a Mr. Lewis, the same who attended meetings Lord Darlington (Stevens’ previous employer) held. The filmmakers use this to “color” the relationship between Stevens and his employer, and to enhance their view of Stevens. The film also makes a habit of presenting, or interpreting, things in different ways. These will be further discussed as they relate to the comparison and contrast of Stevens in each medium.
Stevens’ father was a butler for many years, and who instilled in his son the dream of being a “Great” butler. Paired with “Greatness” is pristine “Dignity”. “Dignity in keeping with his position” is related through three poignant stories related by Stevens. The first was of a butler in India, who, without fluster or perturbance, calmly dispatched a tiger that had entered the dining hall, all without inconveniences or disturbance to the guests of the house. The second two stories concerned Stevens’ father. In one Mr. Stevens Sr. chauffeured three drunken men who began to insult his master. He calmly halted the car, exited the vehicle, and without a word, opened the back door. For several minutes he simply looked at the men, without anger. His mere presence induced the men to be ashamed and to apologize. He acted completely within his bounds as a domestic servant, and did nothing to embarrass his employer. The last story entailed Mr. Stevens, Sr. waiting on a man who caused him great personal pain, though indirectly, and though the entirety of his service caused a certain measure of discomfort, said nothing and betrayed nothing in his manner or word, and earned a compliment from the man he loathed. The stories, collectively, demonstrate the “Greatness” and “Dignity” the Stevens sought to attain.
Stevens, in the book, is shown and described with utmost respect and from the best of views. None of his faults are overlooked, and everything he does is shown as it was. The movie misinterprets his search for “Greatness”, the “Dignity of his position”, and his dedication, as work-a-holicness. The film seeks to evoke sympathy for his overworking and wishes us to see what he “missed out on” in life (most prominently, a romantic relationship with Miss Kenton). None of this is necessary or even warranted. Mr. Stevens made his decision, and nothing in the books seems to indicate that he missed anything in life. As to his attachment to Miss Kenton, the only bit mentioned is that perhaps there might have been something, but the decisions were made and could not be undone.
Indeed, Mr. Stevens worked hard at his position, and achieved what he set out to accomplish. Along the way, he had his own encounter with “Dignity” and “Greatness”. During a conference Lord Darlington held, Stevens’ father (who was employed by his son), became very ill, and on a particular night, died. During the course of this night, Stevens performed his duties to perfection, and though profoundly distressed by his father’s death, did not compromise his demeanor or neglect his master’s guests. He did have a talk with his father, who asked if all was in order, and wished his son to return to his duties, and not stay with him. Stevens was able to keep his personal life from adversely affecting his service, and regards that night as a personal triumph. He certainly feels no regret for not having spent more time with his father at the moment of death. This scene is altered in the film to enhance the filmmaker’s wish to add to Stevens a “lost-love” feeling. In the film, his father confesses to an affair and a “falling out of love” with Stevens’ mother. This is used to show that Stevens made his father’s mistake by not marrying his housekeeper, Miss Kenton. Indeed, a tearful farewell ends the relationship in the movie. The book has none of this, and Stevens’ departure from Miss Kenton is amiable and free of regret over love.
The film also makes over-much of Stevens’ desire to not discuss his previous employer, Lord Darlington. This is especially used to the effect that Stevens doubted Lord Darlington, but hid his feelings because he was not permitted to show them. In two distinct scenes in the film, Stevens apologizes for Lord Darlington, only one of which is in the book. In the film, one takes place after he acquires gasoline for his automobile (that is absent in the book); the other is in the final scene with Miss Kenton, which is in both. The book states that Stevens completely supported Lord Darlington, and after looking back, realizes that the Lord may not have made the best decisions, but he certainly does not feel a need to apologize for those decisions. Overall, some scenes are invented to make a character conform to the filmmaker’s views, and some scenes that are added or altered do not make sense anyway. The film seems to have had little reason for the direction it took, or reason for altering the great theme of Ishiguro’s text. Beyond that, the film seemed to lack direction itself.
In particular, Mr. Stevens is portrayed wrongly. As a literary character, he is the epitome of what he seeks to attain. He is diligent, proper, and the perfect example. The film adaptation shows these same attributes, but as a hard-working man, who has no feelings, is grim and dark. A main reason for this may be the language of the book, but a misunderstanding is hard to reconcile. Stevens speaks always as a proper English manservant, and in today’s modern world this is stilted, and somewhat superfluous. The fact of the matter is that Stevens wishes to be exact, is hiding nothing and at no point is being facetious. The film shows much of his statements as being just that, and this is simply inaccurate. Stevens is also made out to be somewhat heartless and devoid of feeling, when in fact, as the book demonstrates in many passages, he has quite deep feelings, and a deep heart. In his position, a butler must be seen as completely in control, must completely accept and carry out his master’s wishes, and not to be influenced by outside matters. This means a certain level of self-denial, which the film shows as extreme and unnecessary, but which is perfectly balanced and within the marks of a normal, indeed, an extraordinary human being.
How many of our own heroes are such because they denied themselves in the pursuit of something greater? How different would our world be if more people dedicated themselves more fully, and denied themselves more in the pursuit of things greater than themselves? Would not the look of this world be different? Stevens did just this; became a “Great Butler” complete with the “Dignity of his position”. Kazuo Ishiguro wrote this story, I believe, to instill in us a drive for the same. What a truly powerful thing that would prove to be!
This essay refers to the film Remains of the Day by Columbia Pictures, directed by James Ivory, and starring Anthony Hopkins (with Emma Thompson, Christopher Reeve, Peter Vaughan, and Hugh Grant); and refers to the book Remains of the Day by Kazuo Ishiguro, the Vintage International Version, October 1993 printing.
a simple man 