64. I'm Not In Love &...

Lyrics

I'm not in love, so don't forget it
It's just a silly phase I'm going through
And just because I call you up
Don't get me wrong, don't think you've got it made
I'm not in love, no-no
(It's because...)

I like to see you, but then again
That doesn't mean you mean that much to me
So if I call you, don't make a fuss
Don't tell your friends about the two of us
I'm not in love, no-no
(It's because...)

(Be quiet, big boys don't cry)
(Big boys don't cry)
(Big boys don't cry)
(Big boys don't cry)
(Big boys don't cry)
(Big boys don't cry)
(Big boys don't cry)

I keep your picture upon the wall
It hides a nasty stain that's lyin' there
So don't you ask me to give it back
I know you know it doesn't mean that much to me
I'm not in love, no-no
(It's because...)

Ooh, you'll wait a long time for me
Ooh, you'll wait a long time

Ooh, you'll wait a long time for me
Ooh, you'll wait a long time

I'm not in love, so don't forget it
It's just a silly phase I'm going through
And just because I call you up
Don't get me wrong, don't think you've got it made, ooh

I'm not in love, I'm not in love...


After Dreadlock Holiday this is another proof of the sense of humor 10CC have. I like this song, though I never realized until now how long and odd this whole song really is. It's full of seemingly random sounds that don't seem to make much sense. It may not always work, and I would have probably preferred it if it were more conventional, but it sure is interesting. I did not choose a comic movie this time, as was the case with Dreadlock Holiday and Club Paradise. In fact I chose a very dramatic one about a man not willing to give in to his feelings and denying them. There actually is a scene in the movie which could be a lyric of the song. Our main character basically says "I'm not in love. I just read romantic books to imporve my vernacular".

The Movie: The Remains of the Day (James Ivory, 1993)

The Remains of the Day is not a movie that has a very 'sexy' reputation. I once read that when Tarantino was presenting Pulp Fiction to audiences for the first time he asked them if they had seen, and enjoyed this movie. If that were the case he told them to leave the theather. Now, this is obviously a marketing stunt and an example that despite being a great filmmaker Tarantino can sometimes be quite an ass. Still, it cannot be denied that the style of this movie is as far from Pulp Fiction as it can get. But because of that style, this becomes more than just a simple romantic drama about missed opportunies, self-delusion and self-sacrifice.

The Remains of the Day is obviously a 'quality' British drama, made in accordance with all the stylistic conventions we associate with 'quality' British drama's. They are filmed soberly, putting the emphasis on content over form. The indivual scenes take their time to unfold and are gently edited together. Of course there is an impeccable production design, with rooms full of things that imply the inhabitant has great taste. Great actors such as Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thompson are cast who are, above all, seen as great artists who care about their craft and therefore have success. In other words, they aren't like those Hollywood-manufactured stars like Bruce Willis. These are seen as eloquent artists doing high art and the dialogue they say befits them. They talk in fully formed sentences that show the writer's mastery of the English language, as opposed to Hollywood dialogue mostly existing of 'Fuck Off's.

All these stylistic conventions together connote things like dignity, decency and sophistication, and associate this characteristics wth 'Britishness' and the British culture, thereby implicating that it is a great, 'high' culture to be appreciated by sophisticated adults. These connotations are used to market this 'quality' British drama's to audiences, sometimes by contrasting them to Hollywood movies as if they are exculisvely vulgar, juvenile onjects. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. Using different connotations, all kinds of movies are sold this way, from indies, to Tarantino-style movies to superhero movies. And there can indeed be great movies made in this style. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't look critically at it and simply take them for granted. I think The Remains of the Day does take such an interesting critica look. The characters in the movie posses and revere these qualities both in themselves and in Brittain. Yet because of this qualities the butler played by Anthony Hopkins loses the love of his life, while his lord sends Great Brittain into war with the Nazi's. Thus this is a self-reflexive movie that also dares to take a critical look at what it means to be a Briton and what it then means to be 'sophisticated' or to have 'dignity'. It shows that putting too much importance on these qualities can make them meaningless, as these qualities can be used to excuse, (wilffuly) ignore and hide other, more problematic, characteristics.

The movie is set in 1936 at Darlington Hall where James Stevens (Anthony Hopkins) works as the butler of Lord Darlington (James Fox). As the butler he is basically the leader of the household. He is the one who interviews and hires housekeepers, cooks, cleaners, etc. He is proud of his profession and intensely loyal to his butler. He forbides anyone in the household to have love affairs and he himself has seemingly shut off all his feelings (especially those he probably has for his closest colleague Miss Kenton (Emma Thompson), in order to be the best servant as possible. When there is an important meeting of political leaders, James' father, the underbutler, is dying upstairs. Doesn't matter James continues dutifully doing his job, without showing any emotion. Stevens himself explains it best in a quote: "In my philosophy, Mr. Benn, a man cannot call himself well-contented until he has done all he can to be of service to his employer. Of course, this assumes that one's employer is a superior person, not only in rank, or wealth, but in moral stature." For Stevens 'moral stature' is the same kind of category though as rank or wealth. It is a given, unquestionable fact that his Lord has a higher moral stature, just like it's a given that he has a higher rank or wealth. For Stevens all these three categories are basically intertwined. So he doesn't ever question his Lord's decisions. 

And many of Lord Darlington's decisions are quite questionable to say the least. It is interesting that, just like Stevens, he too isn't free in his decisions. He acts according to the unwritten societal rules proclaiming how a Lord should act. Above all that means being a 'gentleman.' and the movie questions what it then means to be a 'gentleman.' Him being a gentleman is the reason for siding with the Nazi's and letting two Jewish servants go. During a conference in which Darlington persuades many European leaders to give in to the Nazi's, he is berated by an American congressman (played by Christopher Reeve!) calling him and his colleagues amateurs when the world needs professionals. Darlington is less mad for being an amateur then that he is elated and grateful that the congressman called him a dignified gentleman for having the conference in Darlington Hall. At the end of the movie we see how both Lord Darlington and Stevens's unquestioned (and unquestioning) behavior ruined their personal life and their nation. Obviously in reality Great Brittain would probably go to war whether it was for Lord Darlington (who is a fictional figure) or not, but the movie isn't interested in providing us a realistic account of how Brittain got involved in the Second World War. The movie wants us to consider how certain characteristics by which the Brits define their greatness aren't unquestionably good and can often be (consciously or not) used to hide dark truths and to excuse/validate bad behavior. As I wrote earlier James Ivory's style is an expression (or is at least marketed as an expression) of these characteristics. I am not greatly familiar with the Merchant/Ivory movies, but I think they are quite aware of that and I think that they are also aware that this movie (in)directly asks some questions about itself. What does it mean to watch a James Ivory movie? Why do we consider them good movies? What are the connotations of this movies? And Tarantino may have hated this movie, but in the way The Remains of the Day asks this critical questions about its style and itself it has some things in common with Inglourious Basterds. 

In some ways this movie also criticizes other movies. There was a bit in the IMDB trivia I found amusing claiming that this is a movie that features a Hannibal Lecter (Hopkins) a Superman (Reeve) and a Bond villain (French actor Michael Lonsdale). These are all characters from movies in genres which aren''t considered high culture. What does it mean for them to cast these actors that bring with them connotations of British sophistication and greatness? This phenomenon of casting these 'thespians' in such 'low-culture' movies has become even more obvious in regard to the many superhero movies of now. We see Anthony Hopkins acting in Thor, Ben Kingsley in Iron Man, Gary Oldman/Michael Caine in Nolan's Batman movies. Media scholars have looked critically at this phenomenon. Is this done to make the movies more 'worthy' or more 'high culture'? And does the use of Hopkins, Kingsley and co. in these movies create an illusion of sophistication, thereby overlooking the fact that the content of these movies is still fairly juvenile? Do these movies gain credibility by doing this? In other words do these celebrated British characteristics create an illusion of sophistication to validate their existence and to cloak the fact that these are pretty silly movies that shouldn't be taken all that seriously. To a certain extent I think this is all true (although probably still the main reason why these actors are cast is because they are awesome actors that do genuinely make the movie more entertaining), and my main problem with this isn't actually the fact that they want to sell juvenile content as sophisticated, but that they are ashamed that their content is juvenile and that they feel the need to elevate it. There is nothing wrong with silly, juvenile blockbusters, and certianly not if they fully embrace their silliness. Due to this too many blockbusters are now way too serious and heavyhanded for their own. It seems like every other blockbuster wants to be some epic drama. And that's why I like the Fast & Furious franchise so much, as well as Jason Statham movies.

Well, this is one of the pieces I enjoyed most writing, although I am not sure whether all of it holds water. But it certainly was interesting and unexpected to end up writing about Fast & Furious in a piece on The Remains of the Day.