The Servant (1963) User Reviews (77)

Fighting for Power in the British Class Warfare

[claudio_carvalho · 8/10 · 17 May 2007]

The aristocratic Tony (James Fox) moves to London and hires the servant Hugo Barrett (Dirk Bogarde) for all services at home. Barrett seems to be a loyal and competent employee, but Tony's girlfriend Susan (Wendy Craig) does not like him and asks Tony to send him away. When Barrett brings his sister Vera (Sarah Miles) to work and live in the house, Tony has a brief hidden affair with her. After traveling with Susan for spending a couple of days in a friend's house outside London, the couple unexpectedly returns and finds Barrett and Vera, who are actually lovers, in Tony's room. They are fired and Susan breaks with Tony. Later, Tony meets Barrett alone in a pub and hires him back, and Barrett imposes his real dark intentions in the house, turning the table and switching position with his master.

While watching the quite unknown "The Servant", at least three points called my attention. The first one is the impressive cinematography and the camera work and movements, shooting in unusual angles inclusive with a great use of mirrors. The second one is the stunning performance of Dirk Bogarde, in the role of a sinister, amoral and cynical character that plots a Machiavellian dark plan to achieve power in the British class warfare. Last but not the least, the ambiguous screenplay, with eroticism and insinuations that Tony is actually bisexual, missing the "services" of his servant. I do not know if my mind is quite dirty with the sexual liberty of the present days, but I saw many elements indicating that Tony's connection with Barrett is actually sexual attraction. In 1963, I believe the censorship would be strong regarding sex and drugs and the screenplay is open to more than one interpretation. Sarah Miles is extremely beautiful in this highly recommended movie. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "O Criado" ("The Servant")

Superb, sinister movie

[ian_harris · 9/10 · 25 November 2002]

This is a superb, sinister movie of the very highest class. Unlike the character Tony (James Fox) who is upper class without being high class, if you get my drift. You cannot really sympathise with Tony, who toys with some high falutin' development projects but basically is a wastrel just waiting to be ponced off. Tony is a later-day Bertie Wooster. The sinister element comes from the servant (Dirk Bogarde), who is no Jeeves. Barrett, like Jeeves , is a gentleman's gentleman or valet (not a butler as suggested in some other comments on this film). Tony needs a valet because he is incapable of doing anything much without help. Barrett and his accomplice Vera (Sarah Miles) take Tony to the cleaners, sweeping aside the fiancee Susan (Wendy Craig) in their wake.

Harold Pinter has written the screenplay in similar vein to the superb movie The Accident, also a Losey piece, which I also commend. The cinematography in both movies is simply excellent. The subject matter of The Servant suits Pinter, although much of the screenplay is not really in Pinter's voice. However, there is one scene, set in a restaurant, which includes a tiny cameo by Pinter himself and which contains a short Pinteresque exchange between two women. There is also one tense exchange between Susan and Barrett "do you wear deodorant" etc. which is very reminiscent of a scene in The Caretaker "you stink from arsehole to Thursday" etc. Indeed the story of The Servant resembles The Caretaker in many respects, except that in The Servant the interloper, Barrett, is on top and stays there, whereas in The Caretaker the interloper, Davies, lacks the skill and circumstances to dislodge the incumbent.

There is a homoerotic undercurrent to the film and this works so well because it is an undercurrent (in 1963 there could have been no more than an undercurrent even if they had wanted more). The overt debauchery with Vera and the orgy party towards the end of the film is the only bit of the film that has aged without grace. But I quibble.

This is a truly great film and it deserves to be more widely known.

Dark psychological drama

[blanche-2 · 8/10 · 30 August 2009]

Dirk Bogarde is "The Servant" in this 1963 film written by Harold Pinter and also starring James Fox, Sarah Miles, and Wendy Craig, and directed by Joseph Losey.

Fox plays Tony, a wealthy young man who doesn't do much in the way of work. There is vague talk of a project or two, but basically he fools around with his girlfriend Susan (Craig) and that's about it. He hires Hugo Barrett (Bogarde) as a manservant. Barrett is quiet and efficient, but he makes Susan uncomfortable, and she encourages Tony to get rid of him. Barrett brings in his sister Vera (Miles) as a maid for the household, and it doesn't take her long to seduce Tony. He later finds Barrett and Vera in his bed and learns that they're not related - except in purpose.

This is a fascinating, murky psychological drama about seduction, the classes, and the strong versus the weak, with homoerotic undertones. The servant slowly becomes the master by preying on the vulnerabilities of a purposeless upper class playboy.

The John Dankworth score, with vocals by Cleo Laine, has been mentioned. Frankly, I found it intrusive sleazy '60s music that contributes to dating "The Servant." It's a shame, because the cinematography by Douglas Slocombe is exceptional, showing the house as it changes throughout Barrett's tenure and its gradual darkening, and his use of shadows and odd angles is exemplary.

The acting is tremendous, with James Fox pathetic as the weak-willed Tony, and Sarah Miles sexy and vulnerable as Vera, and Wendy Craig is appropriately cold as Tony's fiancé.

But the star is Dirk Bogarde. As a predator of the weak and corruptible, Dirk Bogarde is fabulous - restrained, sinister, dignified, he gives no doubt who holds the power in the household. And when he drops the manservant act, shirttails hanging out, hair uncombed, and cigarette dangling from his mouth, he's downright scary. Bogarde began a new, non-matinée idol career for himself beginning with 1961's controversial film Victim, and his roles would grow more and more interesting as the years progressed. Bogarde is well-known in the U.S., perhaps becoming increasingly more well-known with his films being shown on TCM, but it's hard for us to measure his tremendous fame overseas. It's probably on a par with Gregory Peck's - they were both post-war stars who worked into the late '90s. My sister lived in England in the '70s, and I asked her if he was big over there, and she said, "Uh - YEAH." Definitely worth seeing for the direction, acting, camera-work, and those Pinter touches.

Disturbing but fascinating psychological drama

[Bobs-9 · 27 December 2001]

Back in the late 1960's or early 70's I discovered this creepy psychological drama on local late-night TV. Once seen, it's never quite forgotten, and it's fascinating to see it once again beautifully restored and uncut in its new DVD release. Aspects of it stick with you years later, most especially the dark, moody torch song with some bizarre lyrics which is played repeatedly throughout the story on Mr. Tony's record player, seeming more sinister with each successive playing. By the time of its final hearing near the end of the movie, its effect is so oppressive that it's a relief when the record player is violently shoved off the table. One telling detail is in the scene where Mr. Tony is left alone after Barrett and Vera are expelled from the house, and his fiancee Susan also disappointedly leaves him. He dejectedly goes to an upstairs bedroom, and on the wall above the bed we see pictures of male body-builders.

The cast is uniformly excellent. This was apparently James Fox's film debut, as his credit indicates `Introducing James Fox.' He was obviously an experienced actor, though. In contrast, four years later he was affecting an American accent, singing and dancing, and amazingly, looking even younger in `Thoroughly Modern Millie.'

This is the sort of role that I always associate Dirk Bogarde with. The way Barrett's malevolent character is gradually revealed, not just through the script, but through Bogarde's facial expressions and body language, is a credit to this great actor's skill. This is one dangerous guy.

`The Servant' is a real gem of early 60's British film.

Power Plays

[harry-76 · 9/10 · 9 January 2004]

About midpoint Tony's girlfriend Susan asks servant Hugo, "What do you want from this house?" It's a direct and pointed question that's ambiguously answered ("I'm just the servant, mum.")

That ambiguity carries the dramatic tension along its murky but intriguing path, as a strange play of power and manipulation unfolds. Yet after a series of quirkly developments transpire and the tables of manservant and master are reversed, what's the real gain?

What was there in the house in the first place that was worth all the fuss and bother to acquire? Satisfaction of taking over the master role?

Whatever the goal, it all seems a tawdry victory. After the shoe's on the other foot and a few points are scored in this cheesy power game, where's the spoil?

What does drive this drama is Pinter's genius for inventing small talk that gives the illusion of grandeur Losey's direction is right on the mark, and the production design, score, photography--and the acting--are all top drawer.

As in his subversive play, "The Homecoming," Pinter manages to hold the attention with his unique pregnant pauses and hypnotic ambiance, which are actually illusionary. It could be a play about something very important or about nothing.

One thing is for certain: once "The Servant" is seen, one never quite forgets it.

This remains Dirk Bogarde's defining cinematic role.

THE SERVANT (Joseph Losey, 1963) ***1/2

[Bunuel1976 · 8/10 · 24 August 2006]

I first watched Losey's most famous work - but not quite his best, in my opinion - on the big-screen at London's National Film Theatre in 1999, just a few months after star Dirk Bogarde's death; it's certainly one of the latter's most significant roles (along with the homosexual composer of DEATH IN VENICE [1971], perhaps his most representative), though I still feel that VICTIM (1961) is the finest film he's ever been associated with!

Even so, Bogarde's performance (recipient of the BAFTA award) is understated most of the time - which rather suits his enigmatic title character, a self-described "gentleman's gentleman" but actually harboring sinister ambitions. Interestingly, when Joseph Losey fell ill in mid-production, the directorial chores were thrust into the hands of the leading man until his recovery - who, amusingly, initially turned Losey down by saying that he "couldn't direct a bus" if his life depended on it!

While he was still some years away from the deliberate formalism that virtually characterized all his later output, Losey's style is here more controlled - for lack of a better word - than in, say, THE CRIMINAL (1960) or EVA (1962); this may have been due to the 'failure' of the latter (see my review elsewhere), or perhaps his collaboration with screenwriter (and influential playwright) Harold Pinter may have had more to do with this than anything else. Still, Douglas Slocombe's sleek black-and-white cinematography (also a BAFTA award winner) of the gloomy London settings - abetted by Johnny Dankworth's wistful score - is certainly among the film's most notable assets.

James Fox's fine performance as the usurped master of the house led him to short-lived stardom (and even copped the young actor the "Most Promising Newcomer" award at the BAFTAs); his career went on an extended hiatus some years later (which ended in the mid-Eighties) following his traumatic experience on the set of PERFORMANCE (1970), curiously enough a film dealing with a similar role-reversal situation! Though the women are subservient to the central relationship between Bogarde and Fox, both Sarah Miles and Wendy Craig serve their characters well; especially interesting is the battle of wits between the latter (as Fox's upper-class girlfriend) and Bogarde, whom she mistrusts from the get-go and is obviously proved right beyond her wildest imagination!

For a two-hour dialogue-driven film, the plot is pretty sparse - typically of Pinter, dealing in symbolism rather than presenting a straightforward narrative (despite being based on a novel by Robin Maugham) - but the tension between the various characters holds the viewer's attention all the way...though the final descent into depravity and degradation comes off as rather too abrupt and now seems more farcical than shocking (as it must have seemed at the time)! The cast also includes bit parts by two alumni of Losey's THE CRIMINAL - co-star Patrick Magee and screenwriter Alun Owen, sparring amusingly as a couple of clergymen in a bar! - as well as Pinter himself (a former actor in his own right, appearing as a 'society man' in the same scene, actually one of the very few set outside Fox's mansion).

There's a hilarious scene in which James Fox goes with Wendy Craig to visit her "mummified" high society parents. This enables Bogarde and Miles to live it up at the house during their absence. However, they cut short their visit and catch them romping about in their master's bedroom, whereupon he sacks them on the spot. This leads to the film's best scene, in my opinion: the chance meeting in a bar between Bogarde and Fox (who has, in the interim, fallen on hard times) where the Mephistophelean Bogarde paints a pitiful picture of himself which, inevitably, leads the lonesome Fox to engage his services once more. The way Losey shoots this marvelous sequence is masterly - with a minimum of camera movement and the actors strategically placed within the frame.

Trivia note: I own a British periodical from the early 80s called "The Movie" - a collection of essays strung together more or less by theme and running for an impressive 158 volumes - in which THE SERVANT was among the films chosen for a two-page critical evaluation, accompanied by a detailed synopsis and illustrated by numerous stills; I've leafed through it and read the review (written by Derek Prouse) so many times that these images from the film have become fixed in my mind and, as I lay watching, I was actively looking out for each one of them!

The Fatales – Homme & Femme.

[hitchcockthelegend · 9/10 · 18 May 2013]

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

Divine Decadence

[MOscarbradley · 10/10 · 3 August 2007]

Joseph Losey's (and Harold Pinter's, for that matter) masterpiece never ceases to give me a thrill but only recently has it stopped making my skin crawl; (it is an insidiously decadent film). You know it's probably bad for you, (you want its 'villian' to make mince-meat of its wan, effete 'hero'), but you're addicted. From its opening frame it draws you in and it never, never lets you go. It's almost too easy, too blasé to say it's about corruption or even that it's about evil. (Is Barrett evil because he destroys Tony and latterly Susan?). Rather, I think, it's a movie about need, the need too be desired or wanted or simply loved, (though if it's a love story you might say it's a very peculiar one; it's the one emotion that appears to be peculiarly absent). It's based on a novel by Robin Maugham but it's a vast improvement on the book. A good novel can create space where our imagination can roam free. Even a densely plotted novel will leave room for us to fill in the blanks. Films tend not to do this. What appears on the screen is often literally what is intended. (Some movies deliberately leave things out; some movies make us work hard for our enjoyment). The film of "The Servant" is both literal and elusive. Losey's mise-en-scene is very deliberate. The pleasures a movie affords like decor, crisp (and 'intelligent') imagery, the use of music to heighten a mood or an emotion are all there. The acting is flawless, (but more of that later). The elusiveness comes from Harold Pinter's script. Here his famous 'pregnant pauses' become 'gaps' in what drives the characters. We think we know them but really we don't. People are not what they seem. (As if to stress the point he gives us a scene in a restaurant where we eavesdrop on the conversations of diners where one character says something that is misunderstood by another or simply by us, the audience). In particular, he makes ambiguous the sexuality of the principals. This may have been dictated by censorship though, to be honest, the ambiguity is slight; the mutual attraction and the master/slave relationship which develops seems to me to be clearly homosexual. This is heightened by the extraordinarily fine performances of Dirk Bogarde (Barrett) and James Fox (Tony). Barrett is a prissy old queen and Tony is the ever so slightly effeminate younger man in thrall of him. But Barrett can be 'butch' as well as 'nancy' when he has to be. (It's a part Bogarde probably played only too well in real life). He doesn't quite let you get a handle on him. Fox was new to movies but you would never know it. This is a remarkably mature reading of an immature young man. You can see that Fox can see the shadings in the character that Pinter provides in the script and he gets under Tony's skin completely. There are two other two other superb performances in the film. As Vera, the sluttish maid brought into the house to seduce Tony, Sarah Miles exudes sexuality and vulnerability in equal measure, (she, too, was new to movies and wasn't encumbered with the mannerisms of more seasoned performers), while Wendy Craig is icy-cold, aloof and oddly sympathetic as Susan, the rich girl engaged to Tony. I have seen this film many times and each time it comes up fresh but now I have warmed to its insidious charms or maybe I've just become more jaded through my exposure to it. Handle with care.

Decent build-up but conclusion is a bit flat

[grantss · 6/10 · 15 June 2016]

Professional servant Barrett (played by Dirk Bogarde) is hired by a wealthy young man, Tony (Edward Fox), as his man-servant. Initially Barrett is the ideal man-servant - quiet, loyal, submissive, unquestioning and very helpful. However, over time the shine wears off and he reveals more of his true self, and it's far from submissive. Moreover, with time the master-servant dynamic starts to shift.

Good build up to what I was hoping was going to be a very powerful and/or profound ending. Characters are given depth and are dynamic in their personalities. There is a decent degree of engagement and the plot develops well, albeit slowly.

I was happy to take the slow-burning nature of the movie, figuring there would be a big pay-off at the end. Unfortunately, the end doesn't quite reward you for your patience. It does demonstrate how the dynamic between the master and servant has shifted, and how significantly, but that's it, and it's not really a surprise. I really was hoping for something more explosive at the end.

So hard to get good help these days.

[rmax304823 · 9/10 · 10 August 2009]

When I first saw this I believed it was a drama about the conflict between two guys -- one rich master of the household(James Fox) and one working class servant (Dirk Bogarde) -- to see who was going to be boss of the place, with Fox getting a nudge in the accepted direction once in a while from his fiancée, Wendy Craig of the ski-slope nose.

Now, with a bit more experience -- okay, a lot more experience -- I can see that writer Harold Pinter and director Joseph Losey were after a good deal more than that. The subject isn't just masculine striving, it's the social structure of England.

Essentially, Fox is a proper, spoiled upper-middle-class lawyer's son with an Eton hair cut and spacious town house in London. Craig's family is better off. We're talking one of those vast country estates run by two completely out-of-touch parents who can't tell a "poncho" from a "gaucho." Fox and Craig are in love and everything looks rosy.

Then Fox, tired of keeping his own house, hires Dirk Bogarde as a live-in manservant. Boy, is that a mistake. Bogarde is properly dressed and appropriately obsequious and suitably quiet as he slowly goes about keeping house and cooking. But he wangles his sister, teen-aged Sarah Miles, into the house as a maid.

Miles, as you may or may not know, has this plump lower lip that runs from one side of her mouth to the other, a rack that, if set loose, would devastate the countryside, and a trembling girlish voice that bespeaks a sexual history that is at once debauched and virginal.

One night, when Bogarde is presumably asleep upstairs, she stumbles upon Fox in the kitchen. Drops spatter slowly from the kitchen faucet into the tin basin as Fox gawks at her. (This is symbolic.) "Ewww, isn't it hot in here?", she asks in tones that carry the contours of adolescence. "I'm so hot. Are you hot?" (The drops quicken their tempo.) Miles hitches her tiny skirt up an inch or so, sluices her haunch up onto the kitchen table, slips her girlish hand under her sweater and pats her little belly because of the torrid atmosphere. They should never eat from that table again.

I don't have space to describe all the felicities of this production and artistic discretion prevents me from revealing too much of the plot.

But I must say that Joseph Losey's direction is nearly impeccable. He has a painter's masterly eye. The compositions of each shot are exquisite without calling too much attention to themselves. Well, one example, so you'll know what I'm talking about. Miles has been thrown out and Bogarde is more or less in charge of the house, when the doorbell rings. It's a dripping wet Miles, apologizing fulsomely and begging to borrow a few quid. Josey has placed the camera almost at floor level in the vestibule. We see Bogarde open the door and an argument begins. Then Fox's dark trousers swish before the camera as he enters the scene and tells Bogarde to let her in. Bogarde is furious. He pulls Miles inside and throws her to the floor. She lands, sliding slightly, until her face is almost against the lens. All of this telling incident is captured in one longish take. It's like watching an illusionist perform an impossible trick on stage.

I'd like to mention too the insane game of hide-and-seek the two men play, with a terrified Fox behind the bathroom curtain, and Bogarde with a demonic grin slowly searching, purring tauntingly like a child, "Where arre you, puss, puss, puss? . . . Somebody has a guilty seee-cret . . ." And meanwhile Fox's back lighted profile is cast on the shower curtain's slightly billowing folds so that his nose seems to grow and shrink by degrees. I'd like to mention that but I won't. I'll mention the oddball dissonance of the score, featuring a bassoon, instead.

I don't know what Robin Maugham's book was like but Pinter's screenplay is rife with homosexual symbolism, Bogarde's own orientation being completely irrelevant one way or the other. You couldn't be too direct in 1963. And maybe after all it's better to say "bisexual" because neither Fox nor Bogarde seem disinclined to dalliance with the nubile Miles. Come to think of it, maybe "pansexual" would be still better. Who knows what went on in those late-night parties hosted by the now-dominant Servant?

What a gripping exercise in style this is. Many critics didn't seem to care much for Pinter and Losey but I don't know why. The use of words like "mannerisms" doesn't help much. (What is "mannerism" anyway?) Don't we all have tics and tocs? Aren't some better -- more suited to their context -- than others?

This didn't hold up the second time I saw it..

[planktonrules · 6/10 · 15 November 2010]

Dirk Bogarde becomes the gentleman's gentleman for a rich guy who sits around doing nothing with his life other than dating a nice lady. Eventually, the rich guy is seduced by a maid--and Bogarde is instrumental in orchestrating it. When this all comes out in front of the rich guy's fiancé, the rich guy's life becomes turned upside down...and the viewer is left wondering why.

I'd seen this movie years ago and remembered liking it a lot. However, with this second viewing, I was very surprised how much I didn't like it. Perhaps it's because I've seen movies since then about evil servants (such as "Kind Lady"). Perhaps it's because I've seen better evil performances by Dirk Bogarde ("Cast a Giant Shadow" comes to mind). Or, perhaps it's because I felt that the plot didn't quite hit the mark. Yes, I think it's mostly the latter. The transition from a seemingly loyal servant to a weird dominant pal seemed odd--and very, very difficult to believe. I really think this COULD have worked had they been very daring and made the relationship between the rich guy and the servant a homosexual one--it would have much better explained WHY the bizarre juxtaposition occurred. As it is, there is no competent explanation for this change in positions from servant to eventual master. Had the gay subtext been able to been explored openly, I think the film would have made a lot of sense and been more realistic. Overall, an interesting failure...but that's all.

I know it's all supposed to be social commentary...but it just left me a bit flat and bored the second time around.

Perfect portrait of class warfare

[aemmering · 8/10 · 6 July 2006]

While this little known British classic has been badly neglected for the last thirty years or so, it shouldn't be; it is one of the most expertly realized portraits of British class warfare ever. Aside from Bogarde's (obviously) letter perfect portrayal of a sinister lower class valet with some ugly designs on his upper crust victim (well played also, by James Fox, who came to specialize in similar roles), one scene in particular stands out, and underlines beautifully the whole film's entire message. When Fox's aristocratic girlfriend (played by Wendy Craig) comes to visit, she has an amazing encounter with Bogarde. She suspects he's moving in on her boyfriend, ready to replace her in his affections. She imperiously orders him into the front room, abruptly quizzing him for his opinions on just about everything. She isn't concerned with his answers-she just enjoys ordering him around, Queen Victoria style. The effect is stunning-Bogarde clearly wants to strangle the bitch, but must restrain himself, he's only the servant after all. But he's still a man, and will get his revenge soon enough. The whole upper class system will be turned on its head. The resolution (if it can be called that) is not totally satisfying. In fact, it seems just as confused just and messy as life itself is.

Some reviewers have stated that Ms. Craig was miscast as the classy girlfriend. Not so-as she imperiously and hatefully orders the helpless servant around, her face and voice become a hateful mask of the arrogance and cruelty of British snobbery. A minor classic of its kind, somewhat dated, but still relevant and brilliantly filmed in moody black and white, and Bogarde's best moments on film.

Class structure's order descends into anarchy

[barryrd · 6/10 · 27 January 2009]

James Fox and Dirk Bogarde combine their talents as the gentleman and servant (valet)in this unusual movie from the 1960s. James Fox, brother of Edward Fox (Day of the Jackal), can still be found playing older, distinguished gentlemen in more current films. In this movie, the gentleman acts like a frat-house boy whose life is measured by the amount of alcohol he imbibes. When Dirk Bogarde becomes his valet, his new London townhouse takes on an orderliness, despite the antics of the young aristocrat. We soon find out, however, that the eerie efficiency of the servant is invasive and uncomfortable for both Fox and his girlfriend, Wendy Craig, who comes to dislike the servant.

Gradually, the standards of the servant decline and he becomes noticeably less docile, much to the disgust of Susan (Wendy Craig). The servant brings in his girlfriend (Sarah Miles) and acts fast and loose with her just as the master feels free to. Susan thinks she knows how to handle a servant and the servant would not last long with her in charge. However, the standards in this household continue to descend into darkness as seen in a final orgy-like party. The movie exposes the basic nature of both servants and the masters when the class system breaks down. Of course,as long as the structure is in place, the masters can take advantage of it. In many households, the servants were the rigid defenders of knowing one's place. But by the 60's (when this movie takes place) the rules were being tested.

The black and white film cuts away to a series of images that are like still photography. These images are enhanced by the snow-cover of the winter landscape.

The end of the film is a disappointment and ruins the overall effect of the excellent acting and strong visual presentation for much of the film.

I'm disappointed. Starts off promisingly but then turns too weird.

[el_monty_BCN · 4/10 · 26 January 2003]

SPOILERS HERE

Reading the comments on this page, and the reviews I've come across over the years, I get the impression that the film I've finally seen is a different one from everyone else.

Yes, the cast is magnificent (but we already knew what great actors these were), and yes the photography is top notch. And the story starts off great. The quiet menace of Bogarde's servile but scheming servant builds up slowly but strongly. You know he's gonna ruin this useless rich kid's life, you just want to find out how. And when Vera shows up, you go "Right... now they're gonna blackmail the prick about the affair, and take over". (Fantastic tap scene, by the way. The best bit).

But that's not exactly the way it goes, is it. From that point on, the movie starts turning weirder and weirder until it makes no sense at all, at least to me. Tony simply relinquishes his authority, and apparently his sanity, as if he had no other option, which I just can't understand. I'm not saying I like my films predictable, but some consistency would be nice, thank you. If at least it could be explained from the point of view of a sexual relationship between the two, which would eliminate barriers and justify Tony's submission to Barrett's domineering personality... But that angle is played too subtly to hold the radical turn of events.

I don't know, in the end I haven't got a clue of what the film is trying to say. I suppose some will say I'm too dumb to get it or whatever, but I don't think coherence is too much to ask for.

Perverted Jeeves

[meitschi · 22 August 2002]

"The Servant" was a film I had to think a lot about. Though I would not consider it as being flawless, it is a very interesting and indeed memorable piece of British cinema.

The characters itself could have been taken from P. G. Wodehouse's hilarious series of comic novels about the perfect butler Jeeves and his 'master' 'Bertie' Wooster, a young, superficial, and careless dandy who could not make one step without Jeeves constantly caring for him.

In "The Servant", a similar relationship is twisted in a much darker way: Hugo Barrett is not at all the faithful servant devoted to his master - though he appears to be at the beginning -, but a scheming, quite evil person who knows very well what he wants. (Though the real motives of his deeds do not become completely clear in the story - but this makes him probably even scarier.)

Dirk Bogarde was just wonderful. Most impressive. His body language, shifting from servile to casual, menacing or frivolous is meticulously developed and executed. The supporting actors were also good, notably James Fox. Sarah Miles tried everything to bring life to her rather cartoonish character, though she never could make me understand how Tony could be so sexually attracted to a woman like her in the first place.

I loved the homoerotic undertones of the Barrett-Tony relationship, especially in the second half of the film, after Barrett's return. They two men often act like a (gay) couple, especially in their disputes. There is also a great piece of dialogue between the two, written in tongue-in-cheek manner by Pinter, when they talk about feeling being "pals" and mention that they have felt like that "in the army before". The loveliest scene was the one where Barrett tells Tony that his "old flame" (Susan) has arrived and then says in a flirtatious manner "one yesterday - and one tonight" while holding Tony's face in his hand. We don't know yet at this point that he has invited some prostitutes, so this remark seems quite ambigous for a moment...

The symbolism is great, the many mirrors in the film forming a substitute for Barrett's gaze, never leaving Tony and Susan. There is also some phallic symbolism (most openly in the long shot of the garden just after the scene when Vera arrives at Tony's house). And Douglas Slocombe's black-and-white photography is just about incredible.

What I liked less about the film was that it was a weird mixture of what is basically a 19th century morality tale, but set in the 1960s and shot in the manner of the 1930s (the latter being no problem at all, but rather increasing the value of the film). The scenes with the women, especially the "erotic" scenes, were also rather awkward and very Sixties in style, so many of them seemed quite out of date, viewed today. The morality of the story was also quite flat in my opinion, and I must admit that I didn't care too much for Tony, this lazy and not very intelligent rich young dandy. In fact, I rather enjoyed Barrett catching the fly in his web...

Perfectly Served...

[Xstal · 8/10 · 12 July 2020]

A silver-spoon is hoodwinked and deceived by a lower class precision movement performed by the outstanding Dirk Bogarde and Sarah Miles that sets in motion some classy table turning.

Who is the servant and who is the master?

[mark.waltz · 9/10 · 2 December 2022]

The superb foursome of Dirk Bogarde, James fox, Wendy Craig and Sarah Miles turns this Harold Pinter script directed by Joseph Losey into a masterpiece of psychological horror where the mind becomes the victim, not the body, and some truly nasty games are played that impact everybody involved, from the good to the bad, and the bad has elements of good while the good has elements of that through their own weaknesses. Fox is the later, the upperclass but hopeless fop whose usefulness to society is rather debatable. He hires Bogarde as his valet simply because he's a combination of laziness and idiocy, unable to accomplish anything, even the simplest of tasks on his own.

When he becomes engaged to the beautiful but possessive Wendy Craig, Fox finds himself torn between his valet and his fiance, and Craig, seeing the psychological battle growing between her and Bogarde, does her best to assail him in order to get him to quit. But by this time, the games have begun, and that involves the presence of the beautiful Miles who for some reason is believed to be Bogarde's sister, not his fiance. The revelation of the truth leads to some definite destruction for both of the male characters, and insinuations show a rather evil love affair growing between the two men, not at all erotic in nature, but based upon one man having power over the other, and both definitely at one point or another do indeed have that control.

This could almost be a prequel to lhe later British play and movie "Staircase" because while there is seemingly no love lost between the two men, it is obvious that they couldn't bear to be without the other. Craig's scene of trying to humiliate Bogarde is obviously an attempt at self-defense and hiding her own insecurities, and it gets even more psychologically demanding when the relationship of Bogarde and Miles is revealed. Fortunately this isn't the disaster of that Richard Burton and Rex Harrison film, and while the film becomes over dramatic and often shocking in spots, it's gripping in a way that the later films was just ugly and ridiculous.

There are ugly characteristics to all of the characters, but it's presented in a way that is mesmerizing. There are some terrific minor roles played by veteran English actors, and the photography is one of the greatest black and white works of camera that I've ever seen. Definitely a film for drama students and classic film fans even though it's a film that is hard to begin. It reminded me in certain ways of the 1988 psychological thriller "Apartment Zero" even though the two sets of male leads are quite different. In spite of the two characters reminding me of male versions of George and Martha from "Virginia Woolf". While a difficult movie to choose for an evening's entertainment, once you start watching, it will be difficult to stop.

A stunning achievement.

[Rockwell_Cronenberg · 8/10 · 9 March 2012]

An intimately crafted psychological drama, The Servant is a remarkable film that deserves to be seen by all. Written by Harold Pinter, based on a novel by Robin Maugham, it is a stunningly intelligent dissection of two men, the upper crust Tony (James Fox) and his new servant, Hugo Barrett (Dirk Bogarde). Through these two characters, Pinter's script unravels sharp ups and downs of class warfare and sexual games, as the two men constantly play a tug of war for power in all forms. When they first meet the two seem to hit it off quite well, falling comfortably into their positions of servant and master.

However, once Tony's fiancée Susan (Wendy Craig) comes into the mix and disapproves of Barrett, things start to become more conflicted. Then, Barrett's "sister" Vera (Sarah Miles) comes to move in and her true nature, as Barrett's lover, throws an even stronger rift between the two and their class positioning. The intrusion of these women sets off a descent from their idyllic lifestyle and the two men spend the rest of the time clashing with one another, the walls slowly closing in on this gripping and powerful study.

Director Joseph Losey makes great work of his tools here, using a lot of unique camera techniques like splitting the focus and viewing the characters through reflective surfaces rather than directly, which all serve to heighten the already high tension. The structure is bizarre and the final act gets surprisingly dark and borderline surreal, as the two engage in a series of fascinating interactions to further dissect the state of their dynamic. The Servant would be absolutely nothing without the performances of it's two men, and they both deliver in equal measures. The women are both superb as well, Craig being sharp and vicious, Miles being naive and sensual, but it's the boys show all the way through.

Bogarde is breathtaking, convincingly portraying the "gentleman's gentleman" of a butler at first but slowly turning more sinister and terrifying as time passes on. He plays all sides of this character with total life, always remaining a mystery to the audience as we are never sure whether he is fooling Tony and us or if he's being sincere at any given moment. There's a scene between him and Susan where she digs into him and the pain on his face, the emasculation, actually allows the viewer to feel deeply for what could have been a very unlikeable character.

Fox is no dull edge either, meeting Bogarde with a heartbreaking descent, falling from the mannered and composed young man we first meet into the shriveled and destroyed wreck by the end. The shifting dynamics between the two are always engaging, and Pinter embeds the film with just the right amount of emotion, comedy, terror and homoerotic subtext. It's a shattering work, marvelously performed by everyone involved.

Sinister Butler

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 26 January 2019]

The smoldering sexuality of Dirk Bogarde is the underpinning of this powerful film The Servant. He holds all in his thrall including Sarah Miles, Wendy Craig, and his employer Edward Fox who gets an 'introducing' credit in this film.

The film is based on a screenplay by British playwright Harold Pinter who adopted Robin Maugham's novel and it's impeccably directed by Joseph Losey. What a talent the American cinema lost when Losey exiled himself to the United Kingdom after blacklisting in Hollywood.

The true characters of the protagonists slowly unravel in this film. Edward Fox to put it bluntly is an upper class twit who talks occasionally about doing great things, but reverts to a congenital laziness inevitably. He's in need of a man servant, a live in one to take care of the apartment. Into his life walks Bogarde, who is too good to be true.

Bogarde really gets the place ship shape but gradually he insinuates himself in every aspect of Fox's life including seducing his fiance Wendy Craig who initially finds him repugnant and not knowing his place. He also passes off his tramp girlfriend Sarah Miles as his sister and puts her to work also at Fox's place.

Fox embodies what Maugham is saying about the decline of the British upper classes. Hard to believe folks like Fox once created an empire on which the sun never set. His futile attempts at trying to assert himself contain some of the best acting in Edward Fox's career.

Bogarde however is fascinating and there is a gay undercurrent in the relationship that's hard to miss.

The Servant is like a dark version of what P.G. Wodehouse was writing when he wrote those Bertie Wooster and Jeeves stories. Jeeves sure never treated Wooster like Bogarde treats Fox.

Imagine if somewhere there's a dark version Wodehouse wrote that remains undiscovered.

The Servant is a product of some outstanding talents, novelist, screenwriter, director and a quartet of some fine players.

Yes...indeed...you...could...say...that....

[simonrosenbaum · 6/10 · 1 February 2003]

I really enjoyed the first half of the film mostly because once the characters had been set up I was relishing what was to come. Sadly I was a little disappointed with what actually followed. Bogarde gave a brilliant performance but I was expecting much more of Pinter's sharp and witty dialogue between him and Fox, instead we got scenes with miscast Wendy Craig and a restaurant scene that goes on far too long and is completely unnecessary to the story. By the end it gets too melodramatic and your longing for it to end. On the plus side it does show very well how the times were changing dramatically. At the beginning of the film there's a huge gulf between servant and master but by the end thats all but disappeared. (6/10)

Weird and stunning, a surreal work of art

[audiemurph · 9/10 · 10 May 2012]

"The Servant" opens with an astonishing sequence, during which Bogarde, as a man-servant, is interviewed by his new employer Tony, played by James Fox. Watch how Bogarde sits absolutely, perfectly still on the chair in the attic, except for this: subtly, yet unmistakably, he is working his jaw muscles, and they pulse with waves of seething anger, and you can read how unhappy he is, having to behave so subserviently to his new snob of a master. This is a magnificent bit of film-making.

This movie, along with "Victim", demonstrates what an extraordinary actor Dirk Bogarde was. Bogarde seems to have more control over every muscle in his body than any actor you will ever see. Not a finger twitches, not an eyebrow rises, not a single superfluous body part moves, that is not under the absolute control of Dirk Bogarde. In fact, every actor in this film is under the masterful control of the director. The camera-work too is mesmerizing, panning left and right here, and zooming in or out there. And look for the clever use of distorted mirrors and shadows (a naked Dirk Bogarde, for example) to indicate the action. This is real art, my friends.

The plot is a strange one, though on paper it seems straight forward enough. Bogarde, as the newly hired servant, slowly but surely, through extreme manipulation, takes over the home of his new master. But this does not begin to describe how bizarre and extreme Bogarde's plots are. I don't think we ever really understand exactly what Bogarde's goal is here. He lets his girlfriend, Vera, seduce and carry on an affair with Tony, but why? Tony, enamored with Vera, loses his own fiancé, and slowly gives up on life, ultimately changing from an idealistic and active member of the nobility to a complete drunken wreck. Bogarde befriends him, rising above the servant-master relationship, but it is such a weird co-dependent relationship – an extended sequence shows them trying to hit each other with a ball, and arguing about the score. We never really figure out what is going on in Bogarde's mind. The servant is indeed an enigma of a character.

Sarah Miles, by the way, is achingly gorgeous and sexy as Bogarde's girlfriend. Nothing dirty happens directly on screen, yet some of the sex scenes are so cleverly suggestive that they will leave you panting. Look out particularly for the scene later in the movie where Fox takes Miles on an over-sized lounge chair –but we only see her legs and the back of the chair.

"The Servant" is a truly bizarre and astonishing film, with tremendous acting and amazing directing. Highly recommended.

savory

[killercharm · 7/10 · 18 June 2020]

This movie is supposed to be unsavory, but James Fox never looked so good as when his eyes were rolling up. That scene where Dirk Bogarde's nude shadow looms large over the aristocrat and his fiancé is one of the great tricks this movie does with the walls, the shadow, the mirrors. The use of mirrors is absolute dynamite. A shady butler takes his time, but he takes a toll out on his new employer.

Disturbing tale of manipulation and control.

[gwilym49 · 9/10 · 20 April 2001]

A disturbing tale of manipulation and control. Fox's character is seen as no match for Bogarde's Barrett. Tony's whole world collapses when his manservant subtly undermines him on every level. Barrett is steps ahead of Tony every time. This movie gets under my skin every time I see it. I dread meeting someone like Barrett in real life. Every value in Tony's life is smashed; his personal life is ruined. Tony is left humiliated; his life without point. Barrett's ruthless cunning left me cold. He is so good at it.

I suggest this is Losey's best work.

Fifty years later, The Servant comes off as rather dull and dreary

[jungophile · 6/10 · 31 March 2015]

Based on a Robert Maugham novella from 1948, and adapted by Harold Pinter with the American ex-pat Joseph Losey directing, "The Servant" is on BFI's Top 100 British Film list. It is also on Cahiers du Cinema's Top Ten list for 1964 (although it premiered here in the US one week or so before the JFK assassination). So with such a rather distinguished pedigree I was curious and decided to check it out.

Since we're talking about a film over a half century old, let's get some context out of the way. I myself am 56 years old, and I get the whole "crumbling class distinctions" that was so revolutionary and trenchant for the time. Ditto on the sexual tides churning and turning right before the whole "Mod Carnaby St." trend hit two years later. So even before the movie started, I was ready to give this independent film some props for being prescient and taking on adult issues of social import. I soon discovered that the cinematography is great, and Losey's direction is very dynamic even given the mostly claustrophobic surroundings.

The only problem is there is not one likable character in this movie. They are all grotesque in one way or another, like Sherwood Anderson's "Winesburg, Ohio". Tony (James Fox) is an effete upper class twit, Hugo Barrett, the titular servant played by Dirk Bogarde, is a smoldering cauldron of class resentment and spiteful subterranean shenanigans, Susan (Wendy Craig), is Tony's bitchy and frigid girlfriend, Vera (Susan Miles), is a two-faced slut, etc. You get the idea.

Granted the plot line was ripe with possibilities (you surely know what it is by now if you've read this far down the thread), but the execution here is wanting. The characters, being so grotesque, aren't very believable. Nicholas Roeg would take the same basic idea and do it much better with "Performance" a few years later, and that film has aged a lot better in my humble opinion.

So what if this film was all the rage in 1963; here in 2015, it's just a dreary pretentious bore. It looks great, the performances are substantive, but the themes have been done to death and "The Servant" no longer surprises and just doesn't carry that much dramatic weight anymore. There are literally dozens of films that are much older than this that I find exciting to watch again, but I'll never bother torturing myself with this dated dinosaur.

But if you're a British art house stuff completest, by all means, check it out; it is an historically important film in that regard.

Good idea, good cinematics, but didn't quite pull together...

[Enchorde · 5/10 · 13 November 2011]

The Servant is about an aristocrat, Tony, that returns to London and decides to hire himself a man servant to help him. He hires Hugo Barrett, who is not only good at his job, but very correct in his manners and confident in his abilities. Tony, however, doesn't have much personal strength, and often needs advice and leaves decisions about the house to Barrett. This gives Barrett power, so much that he supplants Tony as the true master of the house, leaving Tony in demise.

The plot description opens up for very interesting possibilities. I envisioned a psychological power struggle between Tony and Barrett, a struggle that slowly shifted from Tony to Barrett. Unfortunately, the character Tony is far too weak compared to Barrett, and thus the shift is very quickly. And when it comes it goes very quickly. Instead focus is put on the introduction and the part leading up to the shift. That is very important if the power struggle is going to have any meaning, but in my opinion, is given too much time. The result was too much time waiting, and a feeling of everything being rushed when the struggle should take place. I'm not at all that impressed of the writing as many others seem to be, even though Harold Pinter is the man behind the pen. I had hoped for a much equal battle where the outcome is more unclear. Now Tony doesn't seem to realize he is in a battle at all.

The acting is good, especially from Dirk Bogarde that plays Barrett, but this is not enough to carry the entire movie. Being somewhat of a classic with good ratings I had hoped for more, especially with Bogarde, Pinter and Lousey behind it. Good acting, some nice cinematic details but in all nothing to live up to the expectations.

Unfortunately, the end did not much to salvage the movie either. I don't need a Hollywood ending, nor a happy one at all. But this just left too much hanging. Tony had clearly lost the battle, lost everything indeed, but it just didn't feel like it followed the story to the end. It felt like it ended mid sentence… 5/10