I just saw Kind Hearts and Coronets today and there was one small plot point that I couldn’t quite fathom. Whoever can fill this in for me has my undying gratitude for the next few days.
How does Louis kill the Admiral? There’s a brief shot of him studying the plans for a torpedo, then the sequence of the two ships colliding (“Port!”, “I think you mean starboard, sir.”), but I’ll be darned if I know how Louis managed to cause that.
Louis didn’t arrange it. As your quote indicates the Admiral is a clod. In voiceover Louis talks about the difficulty of the undertaking prior to the shot you mention.
Yeah, call it a lucky accident.
I’m not sure I buy that it was supposed to be an accident. They don’t explain how Louis could have done it, but everything about the tone implies that it was a murder. The movie makes a big production about how he kills his entire family. (If I watch it again, I’ll have to see if it ever gives a specific number of murders.) It’s also very clear at the end that the Banker dies of a heart attack, and in the voice over Louis explains how glad he was not to have to kill him.
I think the writer had the same problem Louis did, he wanted to kill the Admiral but couldn’t figure out how to do it. The movie suggests a murder without giving the details, but all the other deaths are so well explained that the Admiral’s really seems to be lacking.
I love this movie but I was never under the impression that Louis killed the Admiral. Like the unseen children who die of influenza (Louis crosses their names off the family tree fairly early on), the Admiral’s death is just a lucky break for Louis, bringing him one step closer to the title.
The fact that the (probably) inbred D’Ascoyne family was loaded with idiots like the Admiral and the Parson only makes the movie funnier. The Admiral’s death doesn’t strike me as a weakness in the film at all.
Anyhoo, a remake starring Will Smith and Robin Williams is in the works. I’m cringing in anticipation.
OMG NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Leave it alone you fuc*kers :mad:
I’ll second that with a hearty AAAAAAAAAAAAGH!
I’m still really pissed off about the Bedazzled remake :mad: :mad:
Funny, I didn’t know there was an original Bedazzled, and while I’ll admit the Brendan Fraser version was dumb, seeing Liz Hurney modeling various sexy outfits was worth a couple of brainless hours.
Good Lord – if you haven’t seen the Peter Cook/Dudley Moore original (which they also wrote), by all means do so. Intellectual and witty.
Peter Cook (the Devil): It’s a terrible collection of Sins I have working for me. Must be the wages.
If you liked Elizabeth Hurley modelling those outfits… Racquel Welch as Lillian Lust will prove very entertaining.
Just confirming that this is on Hollywood’s table. Will’s not officially signed, but if so, he’s gonna be the usurper; Robin’s involvement is much more solid, playing the collection of relatives. (Cue Mrs. Doubtfire redux.)
Director (at least at present; these things have a way of changing before cameras roll) is Mike Nichols. Lord only knows why he thinks this is a good idea.
Could be worse. Could have Adam Sandler/Tom Green/Jim Carrey doing the roles.
If it is going to be Smith and Williams, which are they going to do, make Smith white or Williams black?
So, the original question’s been answered then, has it?
I can understand the case for remaking Kind Hearts and Coronets. It’s a great story, with lots of opportunity for humor, but the original is completely permeated with the sense of when it was made. (The same could be said for Bedazzled; you can’t watch the original and not be reminded of the 60s. I don’t think that’s a bad thing, but I’m sure there are people who do. The chance to do a proven story with modern trappings is the essence of a remake.) And actors would jump at the chance to do a remake of KH&C, it’s a funny lead role and a tour de force for whoever plays the family.
Now, here’s how they’re going to screw it up. The original was brilliantly deadpan, and I just can’t see Will Smith (and whoever would cast him) deciding to play it that way. I thought Tommy Lee Jones was hysterical in Men in Black. Will Smith, not so much.
Plus, they’ll never set the movie in England (and would you really want that cast attempting English accents?), so without a Dukedom on the line you need some other family birthright that someone would be willing to kill for. I see the new version set in the South, with Robin Williams as the Col. Sanders-esque multimillionaire patriarch of a fast food empire, a revivalist preacher, a Ted Turner-ish businessman, etc. All of which can be done as over-the-top caricatures. (Just saw PS’s post on preview.) And marrying a black man would explain why Smith’s mother would have been ostracized from her family.
But how about this, cast two women in the remake. A woman as a mass-murderer can be played for deadpan laughs better than a man could be. And a woman could play the male members of the family in the same way Alec Guiness played a suffragette in the original. Off the top of my head, I’m thinking of Janeane Garofalo and Meryl Streep.
Why is it altogether crucial for one person to play all the family members, anyway? Alec Guinness pulled it off because he was really really good, but even then, only a few of his D’Ascoyne characters were developed. Lady Agatha and The Adrimral, for example, were only on screen for a few minutes and had no major dialogue.
Anyway, the movie works because it’s set in early- 20th-century England when a Ducal title still had major economic significance (as I understand it, aristocratic wealth has lost a great deal of its cachet in more recent decades). I don’t see how a modern version is going to improve on this, since even if Will Smith kills all of Robin Williams’ characters, that won’t guarantee he’ll inherit the family wealth.
In any event, I have no doubt whatsoever that the modern American version will have a sappy ending in which Will Smith finds redemption. Blech.