The Caretaker is a truly great play and lends itself only to minimal tinkering for the screen. Thank goodness, that's what the makers of this film decided to do, so the film is barely an adaptation. One or two short scenes are moved out of Aston's claustrophobic attic room, but for the most part we're stuck in there, just like the play. I'm too young to have seen the original cast on stage, so it is good to see how Alan Bates and Donald Pleasence must have plied their craft on the stage. Robert Shaw does an excellent job of Aston, a part that is often under-rated as it is best performed under-stated. I have seen two fine productions of this play on the stage, back in the 70's I saw Max Wall play the lead and more recently the mighty Michael Gambon supported brilliantly by Rupert Graves as Mick and Douglas Hodge as Aston. If you can get to see a great production of this play, I recommend it for the stage rather than film. In the absence of a fine cast just down the road, this film is a super second best.
Add a Review
-
ian_harris4 November 2002
-
christopher-underwood19 April 2019Very impressive adaptation of the Harold Pinter play for the screen. Only opened up a couple of times but both turn out to be short but crucial scenes that say all the more for being set outside. The main 'set', however, is the amazingly crushed and crowded room with all its junk, or what could be considered items that might be useful in the future. A cast of three play two crazed brothers and a rather simple but aggressive 'gentleman of the road'. Pleasence plays the tramp and it is a stunning performance, at once cringing and self effacing, yet also wildly defensive and nasty. I had always wondered where the actor had managed to draw his character in Cul de Sac from, this Pinter portrayal would seem to be the answer. Robert Shaw plays the quieter of the two brothers and Alan Bates the more clearly schizoid with wild swings between what might be caring or killing. The succinct and portentous dialogue has echoes of Beckett yet even the darkest and pessimistic of the Irishman's writings resonate with a sense of kindliness towards the desperate characters, not here. However enjoyable it is to watch these three struggle for supremacy in such a forsaken situation, it is without doubt a very jaundiced view of the human psyche on display.
-
RodrigAndrisan3 November 2019A film that would have been very, very boring if it had other actors in the cast. For me, Robert Shaw was the main reason to see it. Then Donald Pleasence and Alan Bates. All three did an excellent job in a confined space, just a room, no action, just dialogue, 1 hour 45 minutes, just talk. Their charm, of all three actors, make this movie easy to watch.
-
rufasff9 June 2004This hard to find movie is now availible on an import DVD (with that "opened up" car scene) and it's worth seeking out. It's almost as good as the excellent
"Homecoming" film, and while Bates and Shaw shine, it is Donald Pleasance
who steals the show. How this great actor ended up in grade Z films at the end of his career must be a sort of tragic drama in itself. It's wild to remember this "kitchen sink" classic came out of England the year the Beatles took the world by storm. Those were the days..... -
Bunuel19762 June 2006This three-hander piece has no plot to speak of and, given author Harold Pinter's (typically) obscure intentions, attention must be paid constantly (not an easy task, having to contend with both the heavy British accents on display and the rather low volume of the audio itself); after having gone through the various supplements on the exemplary BFI DVD, the meaning of it all is still very much open to interpretation!
The performances, however, are extremely impressive and the fact that all three actors had already appeared in the various stage versions certainly helped: Donald Pleasance and Alan Bates have showy roles that are often broadly comic, but a brooding Robert Shaw is unusually subdued for the most part - though the character's speech about his traumatic spell in hospital, where he suffered at the hands of a sadistic doctor, is as riveting as the actor's celebrated (and similarly quietly-spoken) one about the transportation of the Atom Bomb in JAWS (1975). Though making only minute concessions to cinematic conventions, Donner's handling (abetted by the stark cinematography of Nicolas Roeg and some weird ambient sounds by Ron Grainer in place of a score) ensures that the whole doesn't come across as merely a piece of filmed theatre; it still feels at odds even with the contemporaneous "Kitchen Sink" films of the British New Wave, with which style THE CARETAKER has forever been identified!
Pinter's dialogue - alternately scathing and compassionate - is remarkably adult for its time, and the project only came through with the intervention of some celebrated admirers of the play: Richard Burton, Leslie Caron, Noel Coward, Peter Hall, Peter Sellers and Elizabeth Taylor, among others! I've watched the following Pinter-scripted films: THE SERVANT (1963), THE PUMPKIN EATER (1964), THE QUILLER MEMORANDUM (1966), ACCIDENT (1967), THE BIRTHDAY PARTY (1968), THE GO-BETWEEN (1970), THE LAST TYCOON (1976) and THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN (1981); however, only THE BIRTHDAY PARTY was adapted from his own work (also featuring Shaw and largely revolving around three eccentric characters) and it's similarly intractable - if still required - viewing. -
chaswe-2840219 January 2018What is the point of anything ? Weary, stale, flat, unprofitable.Three aspects of one persona. That is the point and message of this play and movie. If we could get down to Sidcup, get our papers, discover our identity, it would help. We could then finish the shed, and get all the rooms in the house decorated, and then rent them out. But it doesn't seem likely. We go round in circles in our dingy little car. Our current situation is just not our bag. End of story. Gripping masterpiece, not equalled by anything else from Pinter, nor by the actors. In fact, an acting masterclass, provided by the script. Once seen, never forgotten. No sex, no drugs, and any violence is merely virtual. Wonderful. But dated. Like Hamlet.
-
writers_reign13 June 2016A reasonably faithful adaptation of the stage play by the dramatist himself, Harold Pinter. As I write this the play has been revived yet again in London with Timothy Spall leading the cast. This proves that the play has legs even in the one-room claustrophobic setting which Pinter opened out marginally for the screen. There are still only three actors as Pinter wisely resisted showing those only mentioned on stage - the cafe proprietor who fired Davis, plus possible patrons of the cafe; the monk who brushed Davis off, etc. All three actors, Alan Bates, Robert Shaw, and Donald Pleasance are at the top of their game and play off each other brilliantly, none more so than Robert Shaw, best known for semi-violent roles to come, such as The Sting and Jaws, here playing a passive quasi zombie in the wake of a lobotomy. More Art House than Multiplex but none the worse for that.
-
nicoli28200014 October 2005Like the other commenter I too am wondering why this isn't available on DVD. Luckily I video-taped a PBS broadcast years ago but Pinter deserves to be immortalized in a DVD collection with all the supplementary material available. (Perhaps now that he's won the Nobel) This movie was my introduction to Pinter and while I have to acknowledge the acting it was the script that hypnotized me when I happened upon it channel surfing one evening. So brilliantly absurd that you may join it as I first did from any point in the play and be instantly compelled by Pinter's bizarre reality. Bates, Shaw and Pleasance are perfectly cast but Donald Pleasance reveals a brilliance pitifully missing in his many supporting Hollywood roles. One wonders if the actors felt the magic their collaboration conveys and if so they must have been ecstatic.
-
overseer-39 March 2018Sorry I have to disagree with most folks here. This is a disagreeable movie from the get go. Donald Pleasance's character never shuts up and he's not likeable at all, if I were Robert Shaw's character I would have given him a fiver for a drink and sent him on his way, under no circumstances would I allow him in my house. Alan Bates' character is completely repugnant and completely wacko. All the talk talk talk might have worked well for a stage play but for a film version it was painful. If they were going to film an original stage play why not do a musical at least, it would have been wonderful if they had recorded the original casts of My Fair Lady, Fiddler On The Roof, The Sound Of Music, etc. and not this annoying dusty old thing with cantankerous characters you yourself wouldn't take a shine to if you met them in person. Pass.
-
ragmop1234512 November 2003If you like films that focus on characters and superb acting skill, here is one not to be missed. It's hard to imagine any other actors (Robert, Alan, and Donald) playing these parts. Each seems completely suited for the role. Finding the film can be difficult however. I have an old copy on tape but I suspect there may be longer versions out there as I recall once seeing a scene (Alan Bates offers to drive Donald Pleasance to Luten to pick up his papers. The car drives in a circle and immediately returns to the starting point) which is missing from my copy. I've watched this movie many times, but only when I'm home alone. It's important not to be interrupted.
-
philiposlatinakis8 September 2020Does this film have any substance? That's the question I kept asking myself all the way through, giving it chance after chance. The acting is good, the lighting is good, the story holds the interest. But what purpose does it serve? Is there some deep meaning that I missed? Is it just a very peculiar piece of entertainment? Pinter has a reputation, and I've enjoyed other plays of his before, particularly The Birthday Party, The Dumb Waiter, and One for the Road. The fist two of those are a bit abstract as well. He even won the Nobel prize. To be completely honest, I don't think this movie is about anything. It was more or less enjoyable, but pointless. It takes it's self seriously, and consequently had a sense of self-importance about it. But it's worth a watch to know what all the fuss is about.
-
kijii15 November 2016This film was made from Harold Pinter's first successful stage play of the same name. The play has only three characters and no clear-cut plot. (It is part of "Theater of the Absurd," movement of the time.) Yet, it was so powerful on stage that Clive Donner, Michael Birkett, and Donald Pleasence wondered about making into a film. Once Harold Pinter approved of the project, the financing—even for such a small film--was difficult since it was assumed that mass audience appeal would be limited. In the end, its financing and co-production was dependent on other actors and playwrights of the time, such as Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, and Noel Coward.
As the movie opens, we see two men walking down the street on a bitter cold day. One man, Bernard Jenkins (Donald Pleasence) seems to be a vagrant. He is doing all the talking as the taller more reserved man, Aston (Robert Shaw), is taking him to his house after protecting him a downtown brawl. After the two climb the long spiral stairs to the upper story of a large rundown house, Aston invites Jenkins to come into his room and warm up. He asks what he can do for him. When Jenkins says he needs some new shoes, Aston tries to give him a pair of his shoes. But, they are too small for Jenkins.
All of Jenkins' comments are met with short polite answers or affirmations from Aston. Aston's personality seems flat (almost mechanical) as he continually refers to restoring the shed in the backyard. That seems to be his goal in life since as he says, "I'm good with my hands, you see." When Aston says he has to go out, Jenkins gets up to leave, But, Aston says that he can stay in spite of him not being with him in the house. So, Aston leaves and Jenkins stays.
Next, the third character enters the play-on-film: Mick (Alan Bates).When he comes into the room, Jenkins is taken back since Mike says that he is the proprietor of the building. Jenkins, who is there because of Aston, doesn't know how to respond. Mick is more acerbic than his brother, Aston. He never asks Jenkins to leave, but he is still cruel to him as he brags about his plans to restore the place. He implies that his brother is a slow worker and hasn't got much done. Jenkins then identifies with Mick in order to stay there.
When Mick asks Jenkins to be the caretaker of the place and help fix it up—which Jenkins had already agreed to do with Aston--Jenkins agrees. When Aston returns, there is a very short scene with all three characters in the one room. Not much is said or implied about the relationship among these three characters.
When Mick leaves, Aston tell Jenkins his personal story in simple terms. As a minor and without his consent, he was subjected to electric shock treatments in a mental hospital. The reason, he says, was based on 'lies' that were told at a local café. After hearing the story, Jenkins senses that his way into the staying in the rundown room lies with Mick- -and not Aston. But, later when Jenkins starts to put down Aston to Mick, Mick refuses to say that there is anything wrong with his brother. In fact, he attacks Jenkins for implying such a thing.
The puzzle for Jenkins is to figure out which 'horse to back' between these two brothers: how best can he assure his 'caretaker' role in this rundown house. Jenkins is always the outsider trying to get in. But, he is unable to pry his way between these two brothers that need each other in some unspoken way. Each of the three characters has pipe dreams. And their pipe dreams are—in some way--dependent on one of the other two. But, since their dreams remain unspoken, the riddle is who will win and who will lose and why. -
tatkhj30 January 2002This is an extraordinary film and I have been looking for a tape or DVD for some time. Bates is perfectly cast, Pleasance is ideal and utterly memorable, and Shaw is simply brilliant. It is one of the finest films I've ever seen of it's type. Does anyone know if it's maybe hung up in some sort of litigation or has a property rights thing going? It's a real shame that people who weren't around in the 60's can't see it. I think that in some ways this finds each of the actors and even Pinter at their very best. I recommend this to anyone exploring Schopenhauer, Sartre, Beckett, or Genet. It's in my top 100 films ever made. --tatkhj
-
Hitchcoc3 February 2020The great Harold Pinter was a pioneer in modern drama. Along with Ionesco, Samuel Beckett, and others of the theater of the absurd, he mastered the art of the pause. He looked into the sadness of people's interactions and their hopeless prospects in life. Here a man invites an old tramp into his home and what transpires is a masterful use of human language.
-
hte-trasme2 May 2013Almost needless to say, this is an adaptation of Harold Pinter's play "the Caretaker." The play is a great one -- combining cryptically poetic language with impeccably-tuned character tension. This film hews very close to the play and its contributions do nothing but do justice to its very special material.
Alan Bates, Robert Shaw, and Donald Pleasance create their characters beautifully and completely, such that the sparks (sometimes overt, sometimes right beneath the surface) fly rivetingly when they interact. Everything about how the film is shot compliments the atmosphere of oppressive desperation, such that this tight film about - essentially - three in and out of a cluttering room involved in invested discussion about shoes, interior decorating, and getting down to Sidcup becomes hypnotically compelling. -
oOgiandujaOo_and_Eddy_Merckx19 January 2023The Caretaker is a stimulating and intimate film that is deceptively simple. It's about two days in the lives of three ordinary men in and around a rundown flat; two brothers and a homeless man and their rights to inhabit a space. It is not Gunga Din, or Amadeus, it is not an escape, it is an inscape. Whilst the events cannot be considered pivotal in the lives of these three nondescript men, the film also has got as much in it as you can bring to it, match it in effort and it expands. It is a very well shot and deliberate movie, it reminds me that every moment of every individual's life has a preciousness, a nobility, a significance, however saturated they might be by fallibility and ignorance, which they unfortunately almost always are.
What does the title "The Caretaker" mean? Most obviously it's the role of building caretaker, but it's also about the care Mick takes of his brother Aston, even if he does it in a misguided way, the care Aston attempts to take of broken household items and Mac, and maybe about how Mac takes care to keep warm. It's a film that reminds me that one of a human being's core objectives is to maintain body temperature within a very tight range, we construct what we call houses mainly to achieve this objective, and that's why housing is so emotive. I was glad to have watched this in British January, as the film was clearly shot over a cold Winter (the actors breathing often condenses).
It spoke to me a lot about power. What does it mean to have rights over a property, how easy it is to exert power over someone who has dropped out of a system; how we both fight attempts to control us in one breath, and in another attempt to control others; how we are both aggrieved and pitiless. Is any social interaction untainted by this wrangling? Aston certainly seems to have withdrawn from society and may well believe so. He is consoled by a plan to build a shed in the garden, an authentic space that he will have made with his hands and his labour, that he can own and feel pride in.
One of the excitements of the movie is to see actors who were never really given room to astound on screen being given exactly that. Robert Shaw, talented stage Shakesperian playwright and novelist gets a rare chance to impress in front of a camera outside the limitations of character acting; Donald Pleasance entrancing in a role he honed to perfection in the stage version of the play. It is not possible to single out Bates, Shaw or Pleasance as "leading man", they are a triskelion.
The Caretaker felt in general like a labour of love, many celebrities felt that this adaptation of Pinter's play was worth funding (Peter Sellers and Elizabeth Taylor among many others are mentioned in the credits as funding the movie) and culturally significant, commercial imperatives be damned. Nic Roeg, who would go onto achieve widespread public acknowledgemnt as a director was the principal photogrpaher on this movie and does a lot without showiness or insistence, some of the micro tracking shots are worthy of study and greatly enhance the psychological effects of certain scenes.
Each character is allowed moments to emblazon the screen, Aston when he recounts his electroconvulsive treatment, Mac in his terror in the dark, Mick as he wordlessly empathises with his brother in the garden. In the end every man does as he sees fit and has the same right to exist as any other. Even Mick's abject villainy is an attempt to help his brother. By whatever miracle or obscure sequence of events we humans, we "ancient race", come to be here, we have not been gifted with much capacity for self reflection. Each character in the play is well aware of the faults and delusions of the other characters, but their own dubious gameplans and blemished histories seem well formed to themselves, as at the fairground when our images are distorted and sent back by funny mirrors, but here the characters are wonky whilst the mirrors reflect back coherence.
The original play is inspired by moments from Pinter's own life and characters he knew and made impressions on him during his struggle years. It is worth noting the small mercy that by the time the film was made, the crude and drastic measure of electroconvulsive treatment was performed under anaesthesia as standard (Aston's character received it on the wrong side of history, circa twenty years before the events of the film if we assume Aston's age was the same as the actor Robert Shaw's). It is now no longer used as a standard treatment for schizophrenia. -
grunsel20 November 2000Apart from the scenery and huge cast, this has all the ingredients of a Cecil B De Mille epic. Three men, (two of which are brothers and a cunning almost invited guest) struggle for power and dominance in their dingy little house. In my opinion it says something about the predicament of human behaviour what ever their surroundings.Its dark, sometimes funny and you can almost smell the decay.
-
rosscinema28 August 2002I have also been searching for this film on DVD or video but I can't find it either. I've seen it 3 or 4 times on PBS in the last twenty years or so and its a tough one to locate. I think it's Robert Shaw's best performance. So emotional without being emotional! The silence in this film is like a constant scream of pain. Low budget but I think that helps the film by enhancing the performances. If anyone finds a copy let me know. I guess I'll wait for PBS to show it again sometime and I have a blank tape ready!
-
jerbar20045 March 2010I could not belief how good this movie is having seen many years ago on the big screen, and now on a BFI DVD. The sets suit the play so well, and the cast is very believable in every thing they do. The transfer from stage to screen is first class, and the pauses, delivery of the said lines is just right for the play. My only sadness is that WE "the British Film Industry" are just not producing things of this type nowadays rather than just a sad pap of work which demands no merit. Long live Pinter, and long live the Caretaker, see and died!!! The black and white photography is perfect and does not inter fear with the telling of the story. It must have been a very cold, cold, set on which to work.
-
Eyesore_is_cool19 July 2007Someone said in a comment that this is "barely an adaptation" and I have to second that. Though the cast list has names of characters other than the main three, that's because there's a minute or two where the film is outside so there were a few extras who got credit.
If you like the play (seeing it or reading it, whichever) you will love this interpretation of it. I can't believe this was made in 1963-the acting is passable even by today's standards and amazing for back then.
There are a few lines that are switched around, very very few that are removed altogether, and certain parts of scenes are set outside of the attic-otherwise it stays true to the original version.
I suppose if you know nothing of the play then this could still suit you, however, it has a strange premise, and is generally a bizarre movie altogether. The focus is mostly on character development and unusual dialogue, with monologues every three minutes, one of which is easily one of the best absurdist monologues of all time (Aston's bit at the end of act 2).
Personally I would buy it just for Aston's monologue, but the movie has many other virtues, and for the standards of its day I'd feel uncomfortable giving it anything other than a 10/10 -
aramis-112-8048806 February 2024Three damaged people, two brothers (Alan Bates, Robert Shaw) and a visiting tramp (Donald Pleasance) have several uninteresting interactions. The dialogue tends to suggest two have been mental patients and the third should be. But I won't spoil it by revealing who should be behind door #3.
Disclaimer: my late brother was a Pinter fan and loved this movie and could quote chunks of it. Frankly, I never saw much point in it.
The cast is remarkable, but so is the list of people who shelled out good money to make sure this movie got made (including but not limited to Richard Burton, Elizabeth Taylor, Peter Hall, Leslie Caron and Peter Sellers). Frankly, I'd rather have seen a movie with them that has some sort of plot. Though it would have been interesting to see what Sellers could do with Jenkins. Maybe make him the least bit interesting?
Pinter is not a writer readily accessible to common audiences but who commands they come to him. Unless the whole thing is a leg-pull?
This is a plotless movie about three characters who talk a lot but don't seem to have much to say. I loved my brother but I wonder if people who want to be perceived as sophisticated glom onto pointless material for feelings of superiority over the rest of us shlubs.