The Servant [DVD]

(may contain SPOILERS...how am I supposed to know when you feel spoiled?)Hmm...Hugo Barrett.Surely, some of you black-and-white lovers (of which I count myself one) remember another character named "Hugo," from a movie 18 years senior to this one, who ruins his master's life and takes away his sanity. Last Name's Fitch. The, ah, master is played by an actor who may even be a little superior to Bogarde...and there're not too many of those, and you may disagree. And in case you hadn't noticed yet, Vera, after the two of them are busted turning on in Tony's bedroom, calls down the stairs after Barrett, "I've been waiting for you...." As for "Barrett," I see from other reviews that it IS necessary to say that Bogarde's movie immediately preceding* this one ("Victim," 1961) had a character named Barrett (not played by Bogarde), who is sweet and unsuccessfully self-sacrificing--in short, just the opposite of our Barrett here, whose name is repeated almost as many times as "Barrett!" is in this movie. Unless of course the original "Servant" novel or short story by Robert (or Robin) Maugham (nephew of the more famous writer) predates both of these, and the name was already in place.... enough of that (except, in my favorite "Columbo".... FORGET IT).I've seen the movie twice, own it, and hate it. It is perfect--the acting, the character-I hate to say development!--, the glorious cinematography, the music, the sets, the costume design, the economical and perfect dialogue. I keep telling myself I hate it because I hate or despise (or both) everyone in it, but I hate or despise everyone in Madame Bovary (Flaubert) and The Red and the Black (Stendahl)--and I love those. I think it's because Barrett's really only turned on by his own sadism and others' reaction to it. It's hard to figure him out on first viewing, because his character--I'm not talking about Bogarde, but Barrett, "acts" all the time. I think he had the whole thing planned from the beginning, starting with downcast eyes, and perfect service, then the opening of the eyes and dropping of the perfect English, and so on. I don't think the-very few!--surprises that came his way (getting busted in Tony's bedroom; Tony showing himself to be not unsusceptible to the sexual attentions of a man; Susan's kissing him at the last party) changed anything, a whisker. I do NOT think he "ran into" Tony accidentally in that bar (what a crock of lies he told him there!). You know...maybe Vera really WAS his sister! The only people who really change are Tony, who disintegrates, and Susan, who is, at least temporarily, destroyed.Considering that nearly everybody has sex with nearly everyone else in this movie, it is hardly what I would call a sexy movie. This is because, except for two early scenes of Tony and Susan (she's his fiancée? He asked her to marry him, but she didn't answer the question), the second interrupted by an extraordinarily light knock by Barrett, they all involve Guess Who, for various purposes of his own. The intense, in no way innocent game of hide and seek is accompanied by Barrett's spitting out words of hatred ("You've got a guilty secret! But you'll be caught!"). His enthusiasm is intensified by his natural sadism.It's not because no sex is shown, but only understood, that the movie isn't sexy; it's because...it's so cold in this movie! Only toward Vera, whom Barrett probably has no sexual feeling for, is he--slightly--affectionate. (As I said: maybe she is really his sister!). And that phonograph record, playing five different times: "Now that I love you alone..." each times less loving than the last.The sexiest thing in "The Servant" is the playing and singing of guitarist Davey Graham,which Tony not only hears in the coffee shop, but all the way home, at full volume. Not too loud; just right. The last verse goes:Baby, baby, in your big brass bed,Rock me Mama, till my face turns cherry redRock me Mama, rock me slowRock me one more time before you go.It's like an oasis.Never hire a manservant (I believe the most popular review mentioned this), no matter how innocent he is, and if you do, for God's sake, don't hire his sister, no matter how competent she is. The last thing you need in your home having to deal with an oligarchy! (other than your own)Next weekend, I'm going to see another Losey movie, "The Go-Between," which has Hugo Fitch's master's last performance* at the end of it. The role doesn't call for any speech (a woman is beseeching him to do something he doesn't want to do), but by the '70s, Redgrave was probably more comfortable not talking, anyway. There--I told you his name.* (Not quite!)

Somewhat reminiscent of the Korean film Parasite that won best picture Oscar, this is well-acted, with surprising plot twists, and a clear statement about the waning popularity of class society in Britain by the underprivileged class, and their ultimate revenge.

Twenty minutes too long. Apart from that, the movie was excellent. The main characters each displayed a different manifestation of evil. Yet each of us has his/her own standard for what is evil. When this movie was made, in 1963, Western civilization was just beginning its descent into weakness, depravity and coarseness. My standard is that of a person who, while trying not to live it, enjoys the dark side. Film-noir is something I have enjoyed since I was eleven or twelve years of age.The performances of the actors in "The Servant" were quite good. I say this because I have seen them in other movies in which they portrayed characters which were quite different from their roles in "The Servant". Barrett was as evil as the devil himself, but like the devil he had his pride ... "I'm a gentleman's gentleman, but you're no gentleman". To perpetuate their evil schemes, both Barrett and his girlfriend (sister) Vera, used the same ploy as Adam and Eve; Adam blamed Eve; and Eve blamed the serpent.There are a number of side-episodes and characters appearing throughout the movie that illustrate the decadence of the times; the two clergymen in the restaurant, the woman with the sad countenance in the bar inviting attention, the woman with the large see-through hat and others. The differing musical arrangements played in the episodes of the movie also contributed to the message, Contrasts were evoked through various references through art work to the gallant past of Western culture; although history show that too was an illusion.Tony, played by James Fox was the epitome of weakness. Seduced by three of the most significant temptations of the flesh, sex, alcohol and drugs, he collapsed into total degradation. In the near orgiastic scene just before the conclusion of the movie, all of the characters from the earlier episodes, appeared at Tony' house. Tony, by this time under the influence of alcohol and drugs, had neither the will nor the strength to protect his fiancée, Susan, played by Wendy Craig. In this Susan, perhaps the least evil of the characters portrayed in the film, was almost pulled into the maelstrom at the conclusion, but resisted, and broke free from Barrett's power. This resistance on her part demonstrated that while the allure of evil is strong, it is possible to break loose from it.This anticlimax shows that evil, or the devil, never forces any one to follow it (him). Although there is power in the attractiveness of evil, one chooses it. Only in the complete breakdown of the will to resist, does the complete collapse come. Of all the characters in the movie, Tony is the one who

I was a teenager when I saw the film in 1963 and was not emotionally and sexually mature enough to understand what was going on. I did, of course, grasp the class issues--how could I not. they hit you over the head?--but as the balance between master and servant shifted I found myself confused. On a second viewing half a century later, I still am. Admittedly I appreciate the fine acting by Bogard and Fox, but I lost interest in the film long before it ended. Call me a philistine if you will, but I found myself focussing more on the beautiful interiors of the house to fight off boredom as the story wound down. Just why the critics in the UK think this is one of the best British films is quite beyond me.

This 4K version of Losey's THE SERVANT has a razor-sharp tightness to it, and a sumptuous deep inky blackness courtesy of the Dolby Vision pass it has received; at times the image is three-dimensional, like an optical illusion [ which of course it is. . . ]The film itself needs no superlatives - if you're reading this you know how wonderful it is.It replaces the earlier StudioCanal bluray from circa ten years ago - this was [ still is] excellent in its own right, but if you have the tech to watch this new disc in 4K, do so! The rewards are there.The decision to include two ever-so-slightly different aspect ratios genuinely baffles me: a complete waste of disc space that could [ should] have been used to lay over the film a commentary track instead. Very strange, and pointless.A great film, gorgeously presented in the new format that is likely never to be bettered on the home video market.

Studio Canal Blu Ray version: THE FILM: This is one of the finest films ever committed to celluloid and deserving of this high quality restoration; Harold Pinter's screenplay, a reworking of an original short story, was written at the height of his powers, cleverly omitting enough from the narrative for the viewer to think and draw his own conclusions (the covert hints of homosexuality, the unspoken battle of who is really the master of the house, an observation of the class structure). The camerawork and lighting exemplify the finesse with which Douglas Slocombe executes his craft as the master - look at the rainy afternoon in the lounge scene and you'll see what I mean. This is one of those rare films that improves with age, capturing the atmosphere of 1960s Britain wonderfully. The off-beat humour injected by Patrick Magee as a bishop in the restaurant scene is pitched well. And notice Patrick's gritting of teeth as he swigs the last of his wine! A very fine film which I hope one day will be released in 4K. For those interested, Losey was taken ill during filming and Bogarde took over some of the direction, at times receiving instructions from Losey by telephone from his sick bed. When Losey returned he was unhappy with some of the direction and re-took certain scenes. Dirk mentions the tension between himself and the Director in an autobiography but adds that he always respected Joseph's professionalism. The pub sequence was actually filmed in a real pub in Fulham, although sadly it no longer exists as a pub. THE BLU RAY: Picture quality is excellent - clearly a lovingly restored project. There are also many interesting extras. Amazon has a serious data quality problem with their synopsies as they tend to use their same review on different presentations of the same material (eg a review of an unrestored DVD release seem to be used for restored BD release, etc - so buyers should conduct further research before buying). This BD presentation is unequivocally recommended.

My son bought me this film in the remastered 4K version. It's one of the greatest British films made. All the characters are played well by the actors. The film has a definite pre 'Swingin' Sixties' London feel to it. It captures the dark and seedy premise to the story. There are great features with this edition, with the locations used in the film. There are interviews with some of the actors, and also Joseph Losey. Some of the finest British films were made during the 1960s, many of them capturing the very essence of that time, and this rates as one of the finest. A must for any film buffs collection.

There is a need for an edition of THE SERVANT which includes, as extras, the deleted scenes. In the interviews published as LOSEY ON LOSEY, the director told Tom Milne that he 'would really like to restore all the scenes that were cut. They do still exist'.

On this Spanish import blu ray you can't remove the yellow Spanish subtitles which unfortunately stand out even more because the film is black and white. So consequently makes the film unwatchable.