MovieChat Forums > Gosford Park (2002) Discussion > One thing that dawned on me about Robert...

One thing that dawned on me about Robert Parks

posted 13 years ago by chester-copperpot-1
21 replies | jump to latest

"The name is Parks. Robert Parks".

Arriving at Gosford Park, shouldn't he be at least a little afraid that someone would recognize his name? Thirty years is a long time, but he comes to the household as the bastard child to the master of the house. Somebody knows, somebody always knows. What was he thinking? Didn't he care? Was it in his plan? Did he want to stir a *beep*storm? Or did he just naively think his name wouldn't mean anything to them?

[–] aGuiltySoul 13 years ago

Why would he assume anyone would recognize his name? Why would he not assume for one, that it was completely fabricated by whomever's job it was to name babies at the orphanage...which was not uncommon in the day. And he thinks his mother is dead or that she's as good as dead, but certainly NOT working in a fine manor house.

I think he thought his name wouldn't mean anything to anyone. And I don't think he was necessarily naive to believe so.

"I'd never ask you to trust me. It's the cry of a guilty soul."

[–] chester-copperpot-1 13 years ago

why would he assume anything? Going under your own name when you're about to murder your father in your fathers house is a risk under any circumstances...

[–] aGuiltySoul 13 years ago

Well, but you see, when he was hired for his first job as a servant, he naturally used his real name and then he was stuck with it. He quite deliberately campaigned to be hired as a personal servant into a household connected to his father's, but that wasn't his first job as a servant.

Perhaps he announced his name to see if it would raise any fuss. No fuss, he's still anonymous. He for sure knew that his father would never learn his name. Besides being referred to as his master's name, his father would have hardly taken any interest in his vistors' servants.

"I'd never ask you to trust me. It's the cry of a guilty soul."

[–] chester-copperpot-1 13 years ago

But that's the thing, he's totally oblivious to their reactions. He doesn't pick up anything...

[–] aGuiltySoul 13 years ago

Seemingly.

"I'd never ask you to trust me. It's the cry of a guilty soul."

[–] andlaw99 13 years ago

I agree. He wouldn't have been able to get his position without a reference, and he would have been stuck with Parks. Plus, Parks is a pretty common name. I wouldn't expect anyone to suspect that I might be connected to a woman that worked in his factory 30 years earlier who is long dead. Also, I just don't think he gave a d*** if he got caught or not.

[–] aGuiltySoul 13 years ago

You bring up a good point. I do believe he half expected to be caught and didn't give a damn.

"I'd never ask you to trust me. It's the cry of a guilty soul."

[–] dathaler 12 years ago

While you can see that Mrs. Wilson and Mrs. Croft both seem to recognize Parks when he arrives, most of the other servants are too young to remember his birth. Also, if you listen carefully to the exchange between Mrs. Wilson and Parks when she comes to his room for her "routine inspection", there 's more than a glimmer of recognition between them.

[–] aGuiltySoul 12 years ago

By the time Mrs. Wilson uses the obvious ruse of going to a servant's room to see if he is comfortable, she for sure knows who he is. Like almost any woman in that situation, meeting her grown son for the first time, she cannot stay away. But he doesn't have any inkling.

“It’s not what a movie is about, it’s how it is about it.” RIP Roger Ebert

[–] dathaler 12 years ago

I don't think you're giving him enough credit. The remark he made about her "not forgetting much" seemed to suggest he knew who she was. And he's got a photo of her as a young woman--surely he'd be able to tell.

[–] aGuiltySoul 12 years ago

Your argument about the photo has been made before, and by people citing the fact that Helen Mirren herself hasn't changed that drastically over time. I'm glad you didn't follow suit because the difference between a woman who lived a hard life of a drudge and sexual victim of her philandering employer and the life of a well paid actress is significant and would show on one's face.

I think, however, the answer is that we oftentimes see what we want to see. He thinks his mother is dead, and doesn't search the aging faces of women to find a resemblance. And, as I inferred above, her looks would most certainly have changed quite significantly over the years.

The remark about "not forgetting much" is a scripted bow to the real head of this household. One of the upstairs/downstairs dual realities. But it is also certainly one of the many lines in this film that has more than one meaning...once you know the ending.

“It’s not what a movie is about, it’s how it is about it.” RIP Roger Ebert

[–] chester-copperpot-1 12 years ago

Lets just say it's open for interpretation. I have my view on the subject, but I can certainly see how others may see it differently. It's very ambigous...

But to me, she certainly knows who he is, that he's her long lost son. And he seems to be painfully oblivious to the fact that she's his mother. And that dissonance makes the scene very awkward to see. Because you don't really know what's going on...

[–] aGuiltySoul 12 years ago

Well, yes. SHE certainly knows who HE is and her eyes definitely linger on the picture of his mother (her) that is sitting next to his bed.

The entire film is full of such moments, open to interpretation, that let the story breathe. It's one of the reasons this is one of my all time favorite films.

“It’s not what a movie is about, it’s how it is about it.” RIP Roger Ebert

[–] chester-copperpot-1 12 years ago

That ties with your notion that "we oftentimes see what we want to see". I often wonder how much of my interpretations are rationalizations after the fact. What really is up on the screen, and what is our own imaginations?

[–] aGuiltySoul 12 years ago

Experiencing a film, seeing, hearing, feeling, interpreting, is certainly very personal. I prefer films that are made with that clear partnership...although I don't take amiss at occasionally enjoying a ridiculous film or two.

Roger Ebert, the film critic who died recently, once famously quoted Robert Warshow: "A man goes to the movies and the critic must be honest enough to admit he is that man."

“It’s not what a movie is about, it’s how it is about it.” RIP Roger Ebert

[–] JohnnyJohnson (400) 3 months ago

Well, since she gave up her son named on the birth certificate Robert Parks 32 years ago, and a new 32 y/o Robert Parks shows up as a man servant, I'd think Mrs. Wilson would have had at least SOME curiosity or idea. Then she sees her picture and it's confirmed.

[–] EJverh 12 years ago

I didn't like the way that Owen and Mirren played that scene, now that you bring it up and it's always bothered me. Yes, there is a sort of unspoken recognition between them but the tension with which they played it seemed sexual (especially Clive`s, as he's flirting with her!), and it always makes me uncomfortable watching it. Anyone else picked up on this?

[–] chester-copperpot-1 12 years ago

No, never thought he was flirting with her. Though, he is very confident and self assured arriving at Gosford Park. Almost too much for being a person in service. With a chip on his shoulder the size of a Buick, as they say.

The sexiness is just Clive Owen being, well... Clive Owen. I always thought he would be the next James Bond after Brosnan.

Had to check him up, he's born in 1964. That makes him 37 years old when this film was made. I always thought he was about his characters age, around 32 or thereabout.

[–] EJverh 12 years ago

I was only referring to the scene of Mirren`s inspection, when he's reading his book. Yes, Clive does have that confidence going but that one scene was filled with sexual tension, probably because he was being Clive. He looks his age there, I must say. Ok perhaps 35. This was one of Helens best performances.

[–] PotassiumMan 12 years ago

The original questions assumes that Robert Parks had the psychology of a stable, law-abiding citizen. He wasn't quite that at all. He was a product of the streets, of an orphanage. That kind of upbringing can really harden a man, make him impervious to or even fascinated by danger.

[–] GeorgeBailey 11 years ago

Of course Robert Parks is going to give his real name of Robert Parks. That's his name after all and he's in the employ of Lord Stockbridge. He can hardly arrive at Gosford Park and announce his name as John Smith.

And why should he assume that someone would know? Remember, the act occurred at the industrial factory not when Lord William was master of Gosford Park. And it is clear that this occurred dozens of times with dozens of women. Who would remember the name given to each child 30 years after the fact anyway.

What could not be forseen was that .... well, you know who ... was employed at the house to whom the name Robert Parks would have a very special meaning.