elvircorhodzic THE SERVANT is a psychological drama, which examines relations and customs of high society in London. This is a film about social degradation, in which, we can feel, through fictional fog, a bitter truth.A rich young man hires a cockney as his manservant. No sooner has he donned his working clothes a servant begins exercising a subtle but insidious control over his master. However, the two men form a quiet bond, until a master's fiancée does no doubt the behavior of a tricky servant. A servant brings his own lady friend, whom he presents as his sister, into his master household as a maidservant. At his insistence, she seduces a young master...Most protagonists exhibit strange charm and treachery at the same time, which gives a special tone to this film. The emotions are divided between frustration and jealousy. A kind of trap for a master by his servant is poisoned by a small amount of a tense eroticism and hedonistic madness. The anxiety of a wealthy eccentric, comes to the fore in those moments.That dirty game, which leads to destruction, does not corresponds with a warmth of interiors. It is also an ironic reference to the class history and tradition.Characterization is very good. The photography fully corresponded to a melancholic soundtrack.Dirk Bogarde as Hugo Barrett is a charming and cunning servant. His sadistic and vengeful instincts contribute to that destructive moment. He is a victim of his own madness, in which he shows all his weaknesses. James Fox as Tony, a young master, is a personification of a failed ambition, arrogance, immaturity, indecision and helplessness at the end. Wendy Craig as Susan Stewart is a strong and stubborn young woman, who is lost in her pride and dignity. However, she shows a single dose of helpless pathos while flees to salvation. Sarah Miles as Vera is a "prisoner" of a dirty game.When common sense flees through the door, it is enough to turn off the light.

lasttimeisaw Losey and Pinter's first collaboration (they would continue their rapport in ACCIDENT 1967 and THE GO-BETWEEN 1970), THE SERVANT imposes an alluring tale of a subversive master-and- servant relationship, with heavy homo erotic undertones (the author of the source novel Robin Maugham is "defiantly homosexual") way ahead of its era, so it is time to revive this hidden gem to make it circulate to a more open-minded demography for its sheer marvelousness.A young aristocrat Tony (Fox) hired Barrett (Bogarde) as his servant to administer his house, but Barrett has his own plan to manipulate Tony to be completely reliant on him, so assisted by his complicit Vera (Miles), and hampered by Tony's supercilious fiancée Susan (Craig), it is a binge of seduction, betrayal, debauchery, drug abuse and mind games. Douglas Slocombe, the prestigious British cinematographer, brings the film to life with his ingenious camera-work, the setting is largely confined interior to Tony's residence (dominantly in the shots is a bookshelf-shape door to the living room, camouflage beyond the veneer is a running theme here), Slocombe is ravishing the eroticism and tautness by his superlative deployments with mirrors (it is in the poster!), shadows, shades (Tony's silhouette hiding behind the shower curtain during a hide-and-seek) and sublime focus-alteration, refracted by the B&W prism, the potency is mind-blowing and soul-cleansing, up to the very end, the transcendent oddity of the situation could only pique one's curiosity for more, for the imbroglio is so fascinating, so nihilistic, anticipates A CLOCKWORK ORANGE (1971, 8/10)'s benumbing ridicule.John Dankworth's alternately light-mood, lyric, jazz-infused and riveting score is a handsome companion to Pinter's satirical and pun-slinging screenplay (under the weather? poncho and gaucho?), when Tony addresses to Susan that "he (Barrett) looks like a fish", it hits the bull's eye. Bogarde continues his bold glass-ceiling-breaking endeavor after VICTIM (1961, 8/10), bags another self-revealing role and unleashes his nefarious audacious in the duality of Barrett's servant-and-master changeover; while his on-screen prey James Fox, who, indeed, is equally brilliant in this breakthrough picture, out of four main characters, none of them are good- natured, but he is the only one can collect viewers' sympathy, and one may not root for him, but witness his downfall nevertheless needs more than the fondness of his willowy figure and innocent eyes. Miles and Craig, the two female companions, can not receive the same laud, Miles has a strident voice and being excruciatingly annoying whenever she talks and her performance is in excess of theatricality, which luckily would tune down in her later effort in RYAN'S DAUGHTER (1970, 7/10) and THE HIRELING (1973, 6/10); Craig, whose snobbish and frigid poise is off-putting, albeit she has the most recondite sensibilities to present in the frenzied coda, the efficacy is beyond her ken.THE SERVANT may be Losey's finest work and should be appreciated more, it is a divine psychological drama with a latent homosexual struggle which perpetually beleaguers human nature and finally we reach the opportune time when we can look directly into each other's eyes without feeling ashamed or offensive anymore.

Spikeopath The Servant is directed by Joseph Losey and adapted to screenplay by Harold Pinter from the novelette of the same name written by Robin Maugham. It stars Dirk Bogarde, Sarah Mles, Wendy Craig and James Fox. Music is by John Dankworth and cinematography by Douglas Slocombe.When well-to-do Londoner Tony (Fox) hires Hugo Barrett (Bogarde) as his manservant, he gets more than he bargained for. Especially when Hugo's sister Vera (Miles) also arrives on the scene…The Servant remains as enigmatic today as it was back on its release in the early part of the 1960s. It's a film that defies classification, that rare old cinematic treat that continues to cause debate about not only its worth as art, but also its very meaning(s). A head bothering delight that revels in toying with your perceptions as much as Hugo Barrett enjoys toying with his supposed master. Lets play master and servant - indeed.Set predominantly in the confines of Tony's swanky Chelsea abode, there's a disturbing claustrophobia that pervades the narrative, and this before we even begin to ponder the power of man, his ability to dominate and manipulate, or the reverse side that sees another's lack of ability to not succumb to the downward spiral instigated by a supposed lesser man.Sprinkled over power issues are sexual desires, obtained, unfulfilled or simmering away unspoken. As the literate screenplay comes out in sharp dialogue snatches, breaking free of Pinter's other wise cement ensconced writing, there's evidence that this is a psychological study as opposed to the class system allegory that many thought it was way back then. This really isn't about role reversal, the finale tells us that.Visually it's a box of atmospheric tricks as well. Losey and Slocombe use deep angular black and white photography to enforce the chilly dynamics at work in the story, the longer the film goes on, as it gets to the nitty gritty, the more jarring the camera work becomes – delightfully so – the house no longer an affluent person's residence, but a skew-whiff place of debauchery and mind transference. And mirrors - reflections, important and used to great effect.Some scenes are striking and rich. Hugo at the top of the stairs standing in the bedroom doorway, in silhouette, an overhead shot of Hugo and Tony playing a childlike ball game on the stairs, a sex scene on a leather chair that we don't see but understand totally. And many more as Losey finds the material that allows him to show his skills.Cast performances are across the board terrific, particularly Bogarde who gives a visual acting master class, and Fox who beautifully shifts a gear from toff twit into dependant dead beat. While Dankworth's musical accompaniments add flavour to the unfolding machinations. 9/10

HelenMary As films from the early 60s go, this is one of the darkest and most disturbing I've seen and dealt with very explicit and frightening issues. Long after I'd seen it, it stayed in my mind and worried me. I felt sorry for Tony, the rich aristocrat (James Fox) and frustrated for how he was treated, but also cross at his girlfriend for not doing anything to help him. His downfall was vividly portrayed by the great Fox and the miscreant Barrett played with superb calm and maliciousness by Dirk Bogarde was simply insidious but spectacular.Other than a psychological portrait of the moral and societal decline of Tony, it also highlights the blindness and callousness with which people act and don't really see or help anyone but themselves and are just selfish at heart. Even the "posh" people. I don't condone what the manservant did but I can see the frustration with which people in service must have felt and how easily they could be manipulated but trusting dolts who don't have a clue about anything as someone has always "done" for them.Everything about this production is dark and foreboding; the script relies on silences, and short dialogue, it uses darkness and grimness in the lighting and in the sets, despite it being a lovely rich home, and the decline is slow and painful to watch. You see ways he could have protected himself, how his girlfriend could have helped him but he is left alone to sink to the depths. Definitely not a "Hollywood" movie and it leaves you feeling emotionally shredded. As well as all this, the sexual tension of the film is quite intense, there is seduction between Tony and Vera, Barrett's "sister" girlfriend (a manipulative Sarah Mills) but also a weird homoerotic atmosphere between Tony and Barrett which doesn't really seem real or going anywhere or whether there's a point to it but it adds to the tension and dare I say it a sort sexual overtone to the film. I was surprised how explicit it was, and dealing with such taboo subjects for the time. It's a brilliant psychological drama but tragic and really really grim.