h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I can't believe how awful Gosford Park was; in the US, the film was advertized as a mystery/comedy, which it was most certainly not! It should be classified as a costume drama, or as we call it, a "chic-flic." It made my mother happy, but my father said, "It sucked."
Even a long-standing fan of british comedy such as myself could not stand the dragging plot and forced jokes. Those few humerous actors in the film, Fry and others, only made the experience more painful. The bumbling dective is a horrid cliche!
The cast could also be considered to be too large, as most of the upstairs characters are given little time to develop, or even speak more than one line each scene. Dame Maggie Smith was greatly underused. On the whole, the acting seemed heavy and unnatural.
Altman's use of constand camera motion to show turmoil only made me dizzy.
And here's a continuity error: in 1932, it would take too long and be too expensive to make a connection between Hollywood, California, and a remote manor house in England just so the movie director could relay a plot.

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. I never said that Gosford Park was completely historically accurate - or perfect in every minor detail. But I have to say that I (male, to let you knoe) really enjoyed it - as did my family (including my father and brother) - so there you go. I think the problem lied in the way it was advertised in the US. I'm from the UK, so I can't really comment on that - but here it was portrayed as a murder mystery, yes, but more a comedy of manners, as I mentioned. I was expecting a little comedy, but not for that to be the crux of the movie, as it seems that you were. In response to your comments about the quality of acting; well, I believed that the actors were well-chosen, and they each developed their character skilfully as the film progressed. As for the remark about the camera motion, I have to say that I don't remember any such thing - although I'm certain it existed, it obviously didn't have either a positive or a negative effect on me. And, as I said before, the continuity error is obviously a little annoying, but it really doesn't detract in any way from what is a delightful film - and if you continually focus on the minor errors in interior decorating, for example, you'll miss the interactions between the characters, which is what a comedy of manners is all about!

Thanks very much for your comments - it's interesting to see how someone else interpreted the film, but obviously, these things are massively subjective, as I'm sure you understand.

I (British male) enjoyed the film as well, with one exception... Stephen Fry. Normally I love him, but he seemed to be overacting horribly. The rest of the cast were much more subtle than he was.

David

I'm male, I live in the US, and I loved the film. Anyone who dismisses Gosford park as a chick-flick is probably someone who was bored by the lack of car chases and cool exploding stuff. Perhaps the subtle, complex interplay between the well acted characters required too much concentration from the above detractor and his papa. Maybe it distracted them from scratching their bellies.

And what's this about a continuity error? Continuity errors are those such as where a character is suddenly wearing different clothing halfway through a scene because the scene was shot in several takes and someone goofed when setting up a take. What does that have to do with the likelihood of undertaking a long trip to pitch a plot idea?

And is such a trip all that unlikey anyway? Maybe it is to your 21st century sensibilities, when everyone takes high speed transportation and wireless communication for granted, but 70 years ago people who undertook any sort of a journey simply expected it to be a long undertaking. If they wanted or needed to do it, they did it, and they took their time about it because that's just the way it was back then.

Shipwrecked

I'm not saying that the trip was improbable, the phone call was.

Minutae: Did anyone else notice that the dog was being used as a food taster?

Also, those little faulty details and historical inacuracies break the realism of the piece. It is difficult to get inveloped in a movie about ancient Rome when the emperor complains about France, when he should say "Gaul" because the area wasn't called France until the end of the empire and the conquest by the Francs. In James Cameroon's Titanic, as the ship goes down, a cupboard of dishes dramatically looses all its plates. However, all shipboard cabenetry has doors, rails, or grills to hold back the contents in case of rough seas. In Gone With The Wind, an electric lamp is used by a servant. These little things destroy the illusion and ruin the experience. I would have enjoyed Gosford Park if it was treated more like an Edward Gorey book.
In terms of "complex interplay between the...characters," I found their vignettes to be muddled. If the total cast of upstairs characters had been reduced, say by removing the annoying Americans, then there would have been more time to explore the interactions between the downstairs characters, whom were more interesting by far. Often we see only one side of the mannor house equation, but when both are displayed like this, it becomes distasteful.
Continuity errors can, by the way, involve more than just the continuity of the plot; the term expands to cover the action, dialogue, costumery, setting, backstory, and period of the piece.


P.S. Did anyone here see the PBS miniseries Manor House? Though Edwardian in style, it did a much better job of displaying upstairs/downstairs life.

I can see why you think the characters' stories are muddled. As noted elsewhere, Gosford Park is hard to follow on first viewing. The film is unforgiving of any lapses in attention and it's easy to miss clues to the underpinnings of the many relationships in the story. But it's this subtle complexity that makes Gosford Park so rewarding to view again. Don't dismiss the movie just because it didn't give instant gratification.

BTW, I don't agree that the term "continuity" covers everything you mention. I think you are confusing anachronisms and plot holes with continuity errors. But I do agree that these types of mistakes take away from a film. Worse than the accidental mistakes due to poor research are the deliberate "dumbing down" errors such as a computer user logging out by turning off his monitor. I quickly lose interest in movies that play to the lowest common denominator this way.

Shipwrecked

Alright.

On the continuity thing again, I was using a dictionary definition to describe it.