The protagonist. Tony seemed to me a weak and malacholic individual ... it was so easy to seduce ... and the girl was far from being “blue blood” and not infected with the virus of good manners ... but this is the case when a man who was fed and satisfied with life, next to whom a wife / bride / girlfriend of his class / level, pulled on the shit – the case is not so unique.
Decent acting, take any - the game is great! The magic power of Bogarde, as an actor, hit hard! Even at the very beginning of the film, when He is still only a servant, in every gesture, turn-turn, in every movement, half-smile, slight smile, his superiority and arrogance over his master is felt. The view is condescending, the view is meaningful, the view that declares categorically “soon... very soon everything will change...” Bravo!
The fate of the hero, infantile and spineless, was sealed. Once in the sticky web of Hugo, skillfully groping for weaknesses, Tony will not have enough strength or character to get out of this insidious cocoon. In turn, the Hugo-demon, the Hugo-devil is fully content with prey, without much effort takes possession of the soul, destroying the personality.
Until the last, she was confident in Susan ... I am sure that with her foresight, distrust, straightforwardness and ability to indicate the distance in the part of the master - servant, She at a critical moment will take control of the situation, will be a lifeline for her fiancé and will not allow a personal catastrophe.
Every scene in the film is a wave of emotions. The struggle of mixed feelings – dislike, surprise, indignation, pity, admiration – do not let go and keep interest until the very end. This is the skill of each and every one involved in the creation of the film.
PS: When Tony and his fiancée Susan arrive home ahead of schedule, Tony's watch is "quarter-second" (01:15 a.m.) ... but after a couple of minutes we hear the clock beat twelve times in the apartment.
Watch out, spoilers! ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------- I love Joseph Lowsey’s films, and one of them that made a big impression on me was Joseph Lowsey’s The Servant in 1963. A young English aristocrat, Tony (James Fox), buys himself a house in London and hires Barrett’s servant (Dirk Bogard). He makes "Napoleonic" plans to build cities in Brazil, meets a pretty and smart girl Susan (Wendy Craig). At first, Barrett, who looks modest, gradually begins to behave differently from a servant, but Susan felt dislike for him from the very beginning. But the spinless Tony does not notice something like this and more and more gets into the network of manipulations of Barrett, who is joined by his fiancée Vera (Sarah Miles), seducing Tony from place to career, with the knowledge of Barrett, of course. Even after kicking him out, Tony can not resist his request to “give him another chance”, Barrett, accidentally meeting him in a pub, immediately makes up a heartbreaking story, but in fact he wants to finish what he started and behaves more and more brazenly every day. In the end, Tony is completely destroyed as a person, he is completely degraded. The film is actually very good, especially good, of course, Bogard in the role of Barrett, with this role essentially beginning a string of outstanding subsequent roles. James Fox at times looked next to him a little theatrical, a little artificial looked his body language, gestures. Excellent camera work, the film is black and white.
Here are the films to be assigned the genre 'horrors'. Not zombie movies, not alien movies. Why? Because this is a film about people, about how it happens in life. It is such films that give you a look at yourself or others from the outside.
At first, Tony appears as a person who travels a lot, with a perfect hairstyle, sleepy, who confidently communicates with waiters. By the middle of the film, the picture changes to the opposite. Even his body movements have changed. The overprotective servant did a good job on it. What is the scene with a basin and socks?
Susan was the only person who watched from the sidelines. And she didn't like what she saw. She didn't like the way Tony reacted to Barrett. The way he satisfies himself with apologies and passively treats the servant's behavior. It seems that he was not looking for a servant. Or at all, he did not realize what he was doing and why he needed it. But what happened was the goal.
The film pushed me to the following conclusion: if you spend more time in a place where you have less initiative and space to exercise your will, where others take it away from you, where they do not teach, but do for you, then you are looking for ways to get rid of this addiction and keep such people away.
Any of them, positive or negative. Only characters are present. Not heroes because their lives are passive, the authors kind of tell us that they are what they are, let’s take a closer look at them. And once again offer us an analysis of individual fricism in the chamber & #39; decorations of one bourgeois-aristocratic apartment, denying any generalizations and cutting off the possibility of tracing at least the origins of such decadent characters. And yes, I once again in positive reviews explained what is happening and why, but in the film it is absent, and there is a shown freakiness of characters in complete isolation from the surrounding reality, which distinguishes ' Friks' say Dostoevsky from the staff of European cinema of the last 70 years from, say, ' Difficult children' 1950 to ' Beautiful bandit' 2019. And throughout this period, European cinema seeks out various deviations for their characters and savors presented to the audience without generalizations, conclusions and answers to questions.
So in this film, suddenly, in the middle of the narrative, there is a breakdown in the actions of the characters, naturally not explained by the entire previous part of the film. So this is not a psychological element, but just an element of the plot - a turn made for ... I don't even know what ... apparently to have something to say to the authors, because they were unable to understand and reproduce the subtle, not so plot-turning nuances of changes in the character of the characters and therefore famously broke the course of the plot.
As a result, the film will be interesting to fans of the decadent-aesthetic undead, in whose image the creators, of course, masterfully succeeded. But do not look for any idea or solution to the conflict, even in the style of Italian neorealism or the Dardenne biblical solutions. And there is the protrusion of individual-personal aberrations, which guarantees actors from the cinema a long and rich future - whether there is a joke in the world with more than 7 billion such stories, and in combination ..., besides, you can not catch the nuances of reality and predict changes, but boldly sweep away the pieces of meaning from the field - playing with the viewer not in chess like Solondze or poker with Trier, but in ' Intellectual' Chapaeva...
The stately mansion was transformed before our eyes. Luxury renovations, quality materials, Impressionist canvases and an aristocratic spirit hovering from the hall to the bedroom - the house was simply created for visits by wealthy guests. And they did visit these walls, but more often the young heir to a huge fortune was in the company of one man - Barrett's servant. Millionaire Tony was looking for the perfect footman, a cunning maid, a beautiful cook and a compliant person in one person - fate itself led such a person, now live and do not know the trouble. Tony lived. He brought a friend to dinner, went through elite alcohol and periodically scolded Barrett for excessive care. The glorious family came out of the master and servant, but instead of happiness, anxiety began to rain on the windows. Another rich man is corrupted by power and forces to comfort the noble vanity, but in the company of an assistant, charmed by his servileness, pragmatic thoughts visit his head. Money and position in society are not only a privilege, but also a burden that is not easy to bear. There comes a turning point, and the master looks at the servant not with an imperative, but with a begging gaze: Take a little power, it destroys me. It was “a little”, but Barrett, who turned out to be by no means a village simpleton, was enough.
Bulgakovskii Sharikov, a proud bearer of proletarian thought, agreed to be content with sixteen square yards. The servant, who moved from the pages of the novel by Robin Maugham to the picture by Joseph Lowsey, had more serious plans. A rich and carefree life is a dream, a stimulus and a challenge for a cunning person who can convince with his eyes. Dirk Bogard's facial expressions became an effective means of suppression, a spy weapon, retrieved at the right moment. The servant who is always slapped by the arrogant master's passion causes pity - for what is the poor man so much? But this "poor fellow" is prone to unexpected moves. Barrett would be a nightmare for a venerable psychologist. He's malleable, but he knows how to profit. He is obedient, but where necessary, he will get his way. He's not a genius of undercover games or an apartment crook. He's just a very good student. Like the transformed hero of Heart of a Dog, Barrett is strong at finding the weak spots of the people around him. Dangerous in its irreplaceability, he appears to be a man who exactly spent his whole life preparing for the “operation of the century”, but this is not the case. The situation prevailing in the film Lowsey, itself suggests the way to climb the hierarchical ladder. A lonely gentleman, whom even his woman pushes, is a suitable prey for an opponent who knows how to wait.
Joseph Lowsey exploits the plot of declassifying one character and elevating another with a chilling naturalness. The process of moral degradation experienced by a millionaire is like the decay of a civilized man who finds himself in the company of unwashed savages. Tony flares up from time to time, fervently talks about plans to build cities in Brazil, but is unable to overcome his own character. He who has everything but the warmth of his loved ones is a much greater servant (of life, naturally) than he who cooks, washes and cleanses him. And this metamorphosis of relations, which occurs between heroes, “equalizing” in rights and opportunities, impresses with its irreversibility. Lowsey focuses on the little things. The owner only makes a hint to the girl about the length of her skirt. He does not punish an emboldened servant for clearly intentional sins. Finally, Tony becomes a slave to female beauty, not Barrett. The symbolic residence of the servant over the master is the last touch to the picture of household discrepancy. The toughness that Tony sometimes shows turns against him. A dependent person is a defenseless person. For the millionaire was a real revelation that financial dependence is much weaker than everyday. And the most amazing thing about this story is that none of the men could avoid such a turn. The luxurious mansion turned out to be the wheel of fate, which can be launched only once.
“Servant” remains a film, magnificent precisely in the style of its time. Excellent camera work allows you to follow the slightest change in emotions and watch as one on the move loses confidence, and the other gains it. A relaxing saxophone melody is an effective means of contributing to the goal of hiding the fateful moment of irreversibility to the last. Only the smell of the rat, which is mentioned by the host at the game, is present from the very acquaintance of Tony with Barrett. The evil rodent is famous for its extraordinary vitality. Dirk Bogard confidently adopts rat habits, demonstrating the ability to escape in time and also bite. Sadly for James Fox’s character, the sense of smell has proven to be utterly useless, but such is the price of his status. Repeatedly, the camera returns the viewer to the restaurant, where the aristocracy carelessly burns through life. What about those Brazilian cities? Without taking a judgmental role, Joseph Lowsey entrusted her to an energetic servant who is at least one stronger than any rich man - he has a better instinct for survival. This trait becomes the main one for the director, because money and wealth have a habit of evaporating like tobacco smoke from the bathroom. The time comes, and the man looks in the mirror, trying to understand how much he owns himself. Only a positive answer gives real power, not measured by the number of zeros. And someone may like the role of a servant, because it is sometimes hidden real freedom.
Jeeves and Worcester is the opposite. Clever and inventive servant Barrett is in complete control of the life of his master, a young slacker-aristocrat Tony. But, unlike Jeeves, Barrett does not solve the problems of the owner, but creates. And if Mr. Worcester finds it difficult to reach the intellectual and moral level of Jeeves, Tony degrades to the inferiority of his servant with frightening ease.
The black and white picture allowed the creators to enjoy the play of light and shadow. But the story itself left me cold. A beautiful picture, a history jumping on its head, the harsh reality of the moral decay of an outmoded aristocratic society. However, it prevents the feeling of artificial contrivance of what is happening on the screen.
I think film critics really like to analyze such stories by cogs of meanings, hints, associations, with each new conjecture falling more and more in love with the film.
6 out of 10
Tony and Susan agonisely resist stepping outside their social roles, even when it becomes obvious that staying in them is disastrous. Living in a sketchy little reality “meter by meter” with good music, a lamp lit and a glass of claret, Tony creeps into it after being hit by reality, sincerely believing that being a successful engineer-architect, a wealthy person and “just a good guy” is enough to live in a changed world.
The environment that gave birth to Tony, refined-cozy and conditionally protected, has almost caught up with the environment of poverty and cruelty that gave birth to Barrett, in terms of the degree of death, the degree of pain created by her people.
Barrett sees both worlds: his own and the “masters”, they, throughout the story, cling to their own as the only possible, removing reality from consciousness in every conceivable way. In their world, what happens is simply impossible, and, accordingly, they have no way to respond to it. The director emphasizes this repeatedly, literally in red highlighting the moments when the characters one by one miss opportunities to protect themselves and save.
The destruction probably began when the upper classes unleashed their swords and stopped fighting. To fight not only to constantly confirm (self and others) their position, but also to be able to protect those below, to use their opportunities, so that a sick reality does not arise through the conditions from which people with a broken life attitude emerge: destructive for themselves and for those whom they will bear their pain. And now, the conventional elite hide behind the tulle curtains cherished her “own” culture, shooting away from reality with apt remarks about the current state of affairs, which, like the heroes of the film, is not enough to protect.
"The outlook is disappointing, Miss."
The Dialectics of Master and Slave: The Second Generation
English actor Dirk Bogard began with the films of Joseph Lowsey ascent to his brilliant roles of continental big cinema - in the "German triptych" Visconti (in “Death in Venice” and “The Death of the Gods”), in the “German triptych” of Cavani ("Night Porter), in “Despair” by Fassbinder, in “Providence” by Alain René.
And even more specifically - from the movie Lowsey "Servant". Inherent in future roles, the ambivalence of the character of Bogarde, his intermediate position of the “trickster” between the celestials and mere mortals were set as the basis of the role in this film.
The Hegelian dialectic of Master and Slave is based on a simple initial relationship: The master is created by the fact that he risks his life, the slave is created by the fact that he avoids this risk and is ready for humiliation and servitude for the sake of preserving life. But Hegelian dialectics, as well as the more sophisticated Nietzschean critique of the ressentiment, concerned with what happens to the slave, overlook, surprisingly, the biological fact of the second generation of Lords. They no longer take risks, they got everything because they “give themselves the trouble to be born.” These children of the “bad sea robber from Prussia,” as Ibsen put it, can stand up for their nobility, but there is no previous energy of the Master in them, and the slave, who conquers nature for the Master, brings its fruits to the Master, at the same time increases (this is what Hegel and Nietzsche noticed), becoming the master of the conquered nature.
Tony in the film Lowsey is the Lord of the second, or even third generation, figuratively speaking. He has all the signs of a degenerate breed: a tendency to alcohol and substance abuse, sexual intemperance, weak character in an early degree of spinelessness, lethargy and a tendency to passive despondency. And despondency is a mortal sin. Even for Hegelian dialectics and Nietzschean criticism.
So Tony is easily manipulated by Hugo, a servant who can make himself necessary, particularly with the help of women and alcohol. This is a strong and cold man, hiding his vulgarity and anger under a little tactless service. A shadow sneaking into the house and occupying the chair of the master. A vampire.
But he does not become Master, although by his corrupt breath he decomposes Tony to the level of a slave, a servant. For example, Tony's fiancée might fight back. What's the secret? Why is a slave not allowed to become a master? Hegel replies: The slave has so much dominion over nature that he himself does not eat of the blessings he obtains from nature for the Master. Hugo violated this sacred prohibition. Nietzsche replies: The slave is not able to accept the values of the aristocrat, he contrasts them with his anti-values, which secretly, secretly prepares for triumph. It's a slave revolt in morality. I offer a choice of any explanation. We can limit ourselves to the well-known paradox of Chesterton that a gentleman and a footman differ in posture, gait - and only.
There will be a corroding wormhole in the stern intellectual Aschenbach from Death in Venice, the Night Porter's famous weakness for a girl from the past, the imprudence of the upstart Bruckmann, who entered the office into the Essenbeck family of steel tycoons and brought crime with him, in The Death of the Gods. There will be Herrmann's split between a rogue tramp and a prosperous merchant in Despair. But it all started, it seems, with "The Servant" by Joseph Lowsey.
9 out of 10