The Servant (1963)

The Servant (1963):

Yeah, the 60s! Now we're talking.

So, is this Harold Pinter’s film or Joseph Losey’s? Going into it, you would guess Pinter will dominate, but Losey has such a good time with perfectly crafted shots and long takes that it ends up being a nice partnership (I am assuming the shots are not dictated in the screenplay). It plays out, on one level, like a film noir, a psychological thriller about con artists laying a trap for their victim, with beautiful double-layer dialogue where one character incorrectly interprets another character’s remark as innocent when we know it’s sinister, or where both know that the remark was vaguely seductive, a trick I don’t think I’ve seen anyone pull off in recent films. But the mood seeps obscurely from psychological thriller to psychological horror. Dirk Bogarde’s character Hugo Bennet is so nasty – in effect, the Devil - that you’d think this was a right-wing warning about the perils of the lower classes forgetting their place, and all the way through you never forget this film’s inalienable Englishness, however many longing, flirtatious glances it casts at European art films. American audiences would probably find the idea of a main character who just doesn’t do anything, that lets the disaster happen to him and then surrenders when it does, a lot more frustrating than it ever would be for an English one, but the film’s climax does its best to make us feel some outrage at the depths of his degradation, and helps us along with a look of contempt from his spurred girlfriend, followed by her horrified sobs.

This spectacle of a man not fighting back, who can never stand up for himself even when his debasement and abasement should be intolerable, tickles our anxious little frustrations at not seeing the hero we’re accustomed to seeing, even if we never consciously expected to see one in a Pinter-written Losey film.  His defencelessness borders on a kind of blasphemous irony where the meek disinherit the earth. It’s hard to watch, and yet on a forthright political level, with furrowed brow and set mouth, we’re obliged to say that this effete feckless sybarite is getting what he deserves. From the start it’s obvious, not only from Tony’s laziness but his caricature “callous capitalist” jungle project that he plainly has no handle on, that Tony is not going to be someone to root for, so we never get too upset with his downfall, but there’s still a residual discomfort in watching him get bullied by an increasingly macho tosser, and by the end we’re inclined to tell the whole lot of them to fuck off. Safe to say, then, Pinter wasn’t interested in any kind of straightforwardly political film at this point (that would come much later), and everyone gets it in the neck regardless of class. Speaking to Barrett with hideous arrogance seems to present the posh girlfriend as a hate-figure, yet we know Barrett is up to no good and wonder if this kind of authoritarian treatment will save the poor aristocrat from doom. It doesn’t, because Barrett calls in Vera to break up the dangerous alliance and seduce the mark.

You could certainly read it as a call to revolution if you wanted, the implication being clear that the upper class parasites are so decrepit with their own decadent ennui that a mild breeze would sweep the fuckers into history. That interpretation’s easy enough, it’s just not quite how the film feels. All four characters get tarnished with some hateful characteristic like a medieval allegory of sinners, so Tony choosing his man-servant over marriage doesn’t feel like a worker’s victory or even a gay wink (sorry, liberals). It’s more like the ending of a Gothic haunted-house film where the evil of the house absorbs its occupant into a ghastly eternal limbo. Maybe it’s his own nightmare of the lower orders and their moral degeneracy reflected back on him out of his own guilt. To paraphrase Grady in The Shining, “I’m sorry to differ with you, sir... but - you are the servant. You’ve... always been the servant...” Ooooh.


Yes, two films in a row that remind me of The Shining. This one is not part of the catalogue as I watched it on the Talking Pictures channel. Have a look out for it, they tend to come round more than once. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Arrival (2016)

Does the will to live not dim a little whenever “The Nature of Daylight” starts playing? If I can just offer one helpful note to the producers of Hollywood and television: we hate this piece of music, it’s always been shit, stop using it. Apparently, Denis Villeneuve had wanted to make a science-fiction film since he began his career as a director - a career of, let's say, unpredictable choices - and settled on this: aliens land on Earth and the US Army press-gangs the world’s top linguistics experts into figuring out how to talk to them, so "we" don’t have to start a war. The experts, led by Louise (played by Amy Adams) don’t really have to be asked twice, what with it being the biggest event in history, although from the dour mood of the Army you would think it was latrine duty. SF fans might remember elements of this from Ian Watson’s novel The Embedding. So they put on their astronaut suits for protection and pop round to meet the new neighbours. The film then follows
Read more

The Specialist (1994)

You may have often wanted to see Sylvester Stallone as a heroic terrorist bomber and Sharon Stone, aged 36, as Hot Blonde In Her Early 20s With An Air Of Mystery And Trouble. In the same film. Well, Warner Bros agreed wholeheartedly and that's what 1994 was like. This very mid-90s thriller makes the very mid-90s decision to be a hybrid of action movie and neo-noir, both of which were still runaway popular then (and, looking back, they saved the whole decade). The Getaway did the same thing, same year. Guns were briefly out of fashion in Hollywood so Stallone’s character just blows people up with explosives instead of mowing them down, a really unimprovable example of Hollywood being socially responsible. It was based on a series of 80s pulp novels I used to read and has nothing much in common with them except that he’s an ex-military guy for hire who, in every book, gets hired by a sultry babe to do a revenge hit on a Mafia boss (usually in New York, but the film goes for Miami), a
Read more

Valmont (1989)

Sometimes I write rather loosely, do I not, so on this occasion I am toying with a more essayistic approach which I suspect will be a passing fad to the mutual relief (or common relief, as Fowler would say) of the author and his readers. The object of this fine writing will be Valmont , an adaptation of Dangerous Liaisons from an interesting and - to begin the flourishes - heady collaboration between the director of One Flew Over A Cuckoo’s Nest and the screenwriter for Belle de Jour and The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie,  subversively doing Dangerous Liaisons against itself.   They clearly don’t like the book and redo the whole thing in the polar opposite genre – get ready for Dangerous Liaisons as a dry comedy with some occasional slapstick. You may wonder what that’s like. Well, here’s how I’d put it: Milos Forman’s film of Dangerous Liaisons can be slightly jolting if you know any other version of the story – it’s quite an imperious display of the auteur’s prerogative to tu
Read more