Existentialism via Film

The 1993 film, The Remains of the Day, which is based upon Japanese-British writer Kazuo Ishiguro’s acclaimed third novel of the same name, exhibits several of the philosophical ideas that stem from the early 20th century Continental philosophers, Heidegger and Sartre. The most prominent one, forming the core of the film, is the dynamic between facticity and transcendence, and the self-deception that lies therein, especially as embodied by Mr. Stevens.And while there are many different dimensions of a film that could be analyzed philosophically, I believe that this film in particular emphasizes character and narrative to convey it’s meaning. Although certain technical and compositional elements of this film are important, they are usually important to the degree to which they highlight certain truths about the characters. In other words, the medium by which this film conveys its philosophical content is not as much a visual or purely aesthetic one, as it is a psychological one, yet the former bolster the latter.

The main character and the one with the most philosophical depth is that of the butler, Mr. Stevens, played by Anthony Hopkins. He is, in a very powerful way, an almost pure embodiment of facticity. Hopkins’ formal acting, his role as a butler, and his first person narration reflect this situation quite masterfully. His life is one of strict order and routine, where nearly all of his actions follow a rigid, premade structure. The meticulousness and orderliness of the Darlington house in which he works and runs things reflects his way of being in the world. In this, he has created a level of self-deception that limits him in two important ways, which develop throughout the film. Firstly, it simply rids him of the burden of any responsibility beyond his mundane duties. This echoes with the Sartrean line of thinking which sees this denial of responsibility as ultimately a denial of one’s pure freedom. Mr. Stevens exhibits this denial in everything that he does. This relieves him of ever having to take a stand on the issue of Lord Darlington’s association with the Nazi regime and his obvious anti-Semitism. By reducing his social role and his identity to the lowest common denominator of butler and only butler, he rids himself of having to make any such moral judgment.

The second way in which he is limited, is in his inability to engage Miss Kenton on the emotional or romantic level that he so desires. Unlike the issue with Lord Darlington, which ultimately Mr. Stevens can separate himself from without too much personal repercussion, this dilemma cannot be so easily disregarded. For it is a strong, internal desire and love that he must continually suppress. His self-deception is so great that it keeps him from pursuing this fundamental longing. This naturally creates a focal point of great tension that drives the narrative along. One can see these two issues as forming the core of the film, both of them emanating from Mr. Stevens’ self-deception and utter facticity.

These dual issues in the life of Mr. Stevens have their counterparts in two characters, the American Mr. Lewis, and Miss Kenton. In each realm described above, these two characters represent the possibility of transcendence. In the first case, Mr. Lewis is the only vocal opponent of the policies that seem to be agreed on by most everyone at the conferences that Lord Darlington puts on. The scene where he makes his speech calling the others amateurs in politics is a very telling one. The camera shows Mr. Stevens and it is obvious that there is a feeling of tension in the room, yet he folds back up into his mere duties as butler, and he does not further engage in the issue. The viewer continually knows that Mr. Stevens is becoming aware of the issue with Lord Darlington, yet in various instances he claims that such a thing is outside the bounds of what he should be concerned about. His lack of responsibility to take a moral stand verges on the un-human, as several others in his inner circle press him on the issue and he refuses to engage. This is exploited by one of Lord Darlington’s associates in the scene where he asks Mr. Stevens several questions about politics and international affairs that he is already sure Mr. Stevens will be unable to answer. Mr. Stevens has to go through the embarrassing task of saying that he is unable to be of any assistance on each one of the questions, while the other associate laughs at this. The point of the questioner is to show that democracy is unfounded, considering the ignorance of the masses. But Mr. Stevens is an easy target for he is an extreme example of such a lack of transcendence.

Of course, Mr. Stevens eventually becomes the butler for Mr. Lewis in an age where Lord Darlington’s old reputation is tarnished for good. Yet in an ironic way, Mr. Stevens is sort of formally carried along with the transcendence that Mr. Lewis embodies. It is only by virtue of Mr. Lewis’ success in being politically successful and becoming the owner of the house that Mr. Stevens is ridded of his association with Lord Darlington and the latter’s wrongdoing. By no will of Mr. Stevens himself does this happen, so in truth, he is only lucky to end up on the good end while never having to take any responsibility himself, and he continues to insist on Lord Darlington’s good intentions many years later.

Miss Kenton represents transcendence in that other, more intimate issue, which is more the source of Mr. Stevens’ inner turmoil than the Lord Darlington problem. Several shots in the film convey this relationship quite well. At times, Mr. Stevens looks at Miss Kenton through the keyholes in the doors, framing the screen in this shape. It is something of the ultimate voyeurism, where Mr. Stevens’ feelings and attraction for her must remain hidden and the only way that he can truly look upon her with admiration is in a one way relationship, privately looking through these holes. Another shot is where he looks through the round window in the door into the hallway, long after Miss Kenton has left, as he imagines her walking down the hall, and her images slowly disappears. These shots are really the only times that Mr. Stevens exhibits some transcendence, albeit privately, for his love for Miss Kenton is the only thing powerful enough to propel him to do so. And for all the occasions upon which Miss Kenton herself expresses the need for Mr. Stevens to transcend his facticity, he can never allow himself to do this publicly or in front of any other human being at all.

In fact, some of the most intense moments and shots in the film illustrate the degree to which Mr. Stevens is able to resist any move to transcendence. For example, when his father, Mr. Stevens Senior, trips while serving a tray, the shot goes into slow motion, signifying a crucial break with the facticity of the situation. Mr. Stevens calmly helps his father, apologizes and is done with it, refusing to change any of his father’s duties until Lord Darlington himself calls for it. When Mr. Stevens discovers that his father has died, his stoic response is almost disturbing at a moment when anyone else would show strong emotion. Or when Miss Kenton finds him reading a romance novel, obviously a case of him privately indulging in his feelings, he cannot come to admit this to her even when they become very physically close, proclaiming he reads such a thing to improve his English skills. In these moments he is often shot in darkness or low lighting, reflecting his self-deception under pressing circumstances.

In the end, not even a love for Miss Kenton is enough to pull Mr. Stevens out of his self-deception. For although he goes out of his norm and travels to visit in the West Country, he cannot bear to bring himself to be honest, engage her, and truly express his feelings for her. And one knows that she must feel for him, as we see her crying as the bus pulls away. This shot, signifying Mr. Stevens’ ultimate failure to engage in transcendence and embrace or pronounce his love for Miss Kenton, is truly the tragic statement of the film as a whole.

In conclusion, we see that Mr. Stevens is deeply identified with his facticity and is unable to engage transcendence and recognize his freedom despite a multitude of conflicting issues and desires that could possibly bring him to do so. His self-deception keeps him from having to take any responsibility or recognize this, yet it limits his life in a tragic way. The dynamic between the characters and the various scenes repeatedly reinforce this point, reflecting this classic existentialist idea and forming the core philosophical essence of the film.