The Servant (1963)

A wealthy young British aristocrat, Tony (James Fox) hires Hugo Barrett (Dirk Bogarde, fabulous as always) as his live-in servant, to cook and offer general help around his large house. Hugo is mostly a very diligent and efficient worker and especially particular about the decoration and neatness around the house.

A usually lazy and habitually spoiled Tony is quite pleased with Hugo's work and both appear to be quite happy with the established arrangement. Tony's fiancée Susan (Wendy Craig) disapproves, however, and is quite uncomfortable with his presence and a resulting invasion of privacy. She also seems to be quite distrustful of him and his motives.

The status quo begins to shift, when Hugo brings home Vera (Sarah Miles), who he introduces as his sister, to help around the house as a maid. Her presence creates ripples in the existing scheme of things, as certain social barriers are transgressed. A devious machination of Tony's psychological manipulation begins to become apparent, with Tony's existence getting increasingly dependent on Hugo, giving way to a shift of power as the master and the servant gradually appear to switch roles!

Joseph Losey's "The Servant" boasts of Harold Pinter's complex script with an intriguing premise, that makes it a powerful psychological drama addressing a multitude of issues such as power play, social class conflict, an existential ennui associated with the decadent wealthy, and an employee's desire to realize the unrealistic ambition of stepping into the employer's shoes.

But the thematic concerns don't end there. As veiled as it may seem, Pinter makes a cryptic but very tangible exploration of repressed homosexuality, a sexual preference that was a criminal offence at the time, and its depiction in film, generally forbidden.

The stage is set for an unnerving sense of tension and unease, the moment Hugo enters Tony's plush abode. The house is in a sorry, messy shape with its owner slumped on an easy chair, asleep because of too many beers at lunch! Of course, it is learnt that he just returned from Africa, which explains the state of the house. Hugo's interview with Tony begins and ends well, but the interaction itself seems somewhat awkward.

Perhaps Hugo senses some trait of Tony which seems unpleasant or unusual to him. It's a cleverly executed sequence in which the duel has already begun between the two classes. Although it is Hugo who is being interviewed, he is in turn gauging his would-be employer, and studying his body language, and perhaps at that very moment has sensed something queer about him. Noteworthy is the somewhat oblique verbal exchange here, when Hugo raises an eyebrow as Tony takes a moment's pause whilst outlining what he expects of him.

Tony's fiancée Susan belongs to the class conscious breed of the rich and is more concerned about the encroachment and invasion of privacy. She looks down upon Barrett from the beginning, and her loathing for him is cemented early on when he deliberately barges in on the couple, without knocking, in the middle of their canoodling. Most of the film's heightened dramatic tension comes from the exchange between Susan and Hugo, who realizes Susan's contempt for his kind, and Bogarde's very expressive face, conveys this most accurately.

Vera is the mysterious fourth side of this quadrangle. She is the perfect epitome of lascivious desire with her strange mix of childlike yet carnal aura. Vera's arrival makes things a bit more ambiguous, but it is not a stretch to assume that she is brought in disturb Tony's relationship with Susan, knowing that theirs wasn't a strong bond to begin with. Another motive could also be to make Tony more dependent on Hugo. An assumption based on the homosexual subtext here is, that Tony isn't straight and hence he is probably feigning his normal relationship.

The intentionally nebulous dialog is a highlight of the film, and may leave a viewer scratching his/her head at times. For instance, one wonders why Susan once in a lovingly mocking way calls Tony a "bachelor"! Then there is that brief scene in which Tony tells Hugo that sometimes he gets the feeling that they are old friends, a feeling that he last experienced only in the army. Hugo reciprocates and says he identifies with such a feeling; very off-kilter musings but they certainly hint at a confession of a past homosexual experience.

The seemingly unconnected scene in a restaurant and the sudden random focus on characters completely unrelated to the story (the great Patrick Magee included!) may seem befuddling but one must carefully observe these characters and pay attention to their conversations. There is enough to suggest the presence of homoerotic undercurrents in the unpleasant exchanges of these characters. One of these characters also mentions about some artist or comedian being in prison; perhaps arrested on charges of homosexuality or even referring to it?

Losey abundantly employs the visual device of mirror reflections and distortions to emphasize the film's themes. Characters' crooked images are often shown in the convex mirror in the main room, symbolizing that they are deviant individuals, and they are all twisted in some way! Mirror images that swap positions of the two characters in various scenes symbolize the switch or a role reversal that has irreversibly been set in motion.

The visual gimmickry doesn't end with the mirrors. The third act takes a rather sudden and bizarre turn when we see the personalities of Hugo and Tony gradually changing, as the reversal begins to occur. In that one segment, Hugo and Tony almost seem to cohabit as a gay couple, bickering as partners, over sharing responsibilities! Hugo seems more temperamental and dominating, while Tony begins to get more submissive, gradually dissipating and presumably losing his sanity under the influence of drinks and other intoxicants.

To accentuate this surreal change in the scheme of things and to heighten the impact of Tony's steady decline, Losey employs an often creepy background score and a frighteningly effective use of lights and shadows to create a maddening, hallucinatory atmosphere of doom and hopelessness.

The ideas conveyed in the film wouldn't be as effective if not for the superlative performances. James Fox is a revelation, and Dirk Bogarde shines as is expected of the fine actor. His transformation from the controlled to the controller is beyond extraordinary. Joseph Losey's "The Servant" (1963) is a forgotten masterpiece that promises a more rewarding and enriching film experience with each viewing.

Score: 10/10

Accident (1967)

"Accident" (1967) is one strange little beast, with a simple set up and a spare plot, but rife with an alarming complexity of human emotions. Joseph Losey's second collaboration with Harold Pinter after the 1963 film "The Servant" is a moody, calculated psychological study of a midlife crisis, ethically forbidden relationships, one-upmanship and associated jealousies.

A deafening car crash breaks the silence of the night in an English countryside not very far from the Oxford University. Stephen (Dirk Bogarde), a 40-something professor of philosophy, reaches the crash site to find his student William (Michael York) dead and his beautiful friend and fellow student Anna (Jacqueline Sassard) disoriented and in a state of shock.

The film then goes in flashback mode, to the events leading to the crash, giving us a closer look at the relationships between these characters, especially Prof. Stephen's longing for the much younger Anna. As Stephen grapples with his increasing age, his own married life and a steadfast professional conduct, trying hard to keep his feelings under control, his more successful, unscrupulous friend and colleague, Charley (Stanley Baker) threatens to seduce Anna, further leaving Stephen in a state of dismay and seething jealousy.

Pinter's script is as minimal as it gets, and while soaking in the quiet nature of the proceedings, one may wonder where it's all headed. Losey spends a fair amount of time making us witness the character interactions; of Stephen and his pupils over their tutorials, or later at an elaborate, extended luncheon at his plush country home, primarily held for William and Anna, but gate-crashed by Charley!

Through these interactions, we get a glimpse at how competitive the men are. Everyone seems to be on an ego trip, in some kind of a contest of masculinity, owing to the presence of one young woman, the femme fatale, who seems to have captured their fancy. In order to make an impression, or make the most of their attractive company, the men indulge in excessive drinking, perhaps in an attempt to top each other in their liquor guzzling capacity, and exchange cryptic lines that may or may not be veiled taunts. Charley passes some drunken snide remarks which are promptly addressed by an equally tipsy Stephen, specifically with regard to the former's popularity on television.

William, the youngest of the three, seems considerably unconcerned, and very sorted out. He is perhaps very comfortable with his aristocratic background and the fact that he is young. A competition of this nature from his older professors is something that possibly hasn't even crossed his mind. And yet, he is clearly inexperienced, eventually even making a drunk spectacle of himself while trying to socially match steps with his older company, the only time when he ever snubs his revered professor Stephen.

Very casually holding the strings of all these men is the supremely cold and nonchalant Anna who loves the attention and plays a bit with the feelings of each man, almost effortlessly and without qualms. The warm center in the whole drama is Stephen's wife Rosalind (Vivien Merchant), the only person who seems to have any sense of morals left in her.

It is easy to see how Pinter's script is designed to portray Bogarde's character in a sympathetic light despite his straying emotionally as well as physically at one point of time. It is interesting to note that Stephen's moment of weakness, an amorous reunion with his beautiful ex-flame Francesca (Delphine Seyrig) is sandwiched between two massive blows to his ego, a double whammy of defeat against his arch rival, Charley.

By definition, Stephen is the happier of the two friends, married, with two kids and a third on the way. Charley's marriage seems to be on the rocks, but this ultimately becomes a matter of concern for Stephen, not because Charley's marriage is falling apart, but because it stands to give him an excuse to get closer to Anna! All the while, however, despite full knowledge of William's closeness with Anna, and a higher probability of them hooking up, Stephen makes every attempt to stay close to Anna whatever chance he gets, well aware that it wouldn't develop any further.

These complex psychological reactions are conveyed immaculately by Dirk Bogarde in a superlative act. He is a man who leads a perfectly content life, and yet is silently sad. Behold his nuanced change of expressions, his uneasiness at Charley's unwelcome presence at his luncheon, not to mention his frustrations resulting from an adherence to principles, despite an unmistakable love for his wife. His reactions are never outward but his angst is palpable in his body language and every move of his facial muscles. Noteworthy is his amazingly natural act of stammering when nervously trying to say something that he perhaps doesn't mean.

While Bogarde towers above the rest in the acting department, the others, mostly notably Stanley Baker and Vivien Merchant are almost as great. "Accident" is mostly a performance driven film; the performances make the film such as this, because with a narrative as sparse, strong performances are essential to convey the nature of the interpersonal equations between the characters. A sense of intrigue is always in the air however; an unhealthy tension constantly brewing, hidden within the superficially composed mannerisms, almost like a volcano bubbling beneath a calm exterior.

The culmination and return to the present from the flashback is not a neat wrap-up as one would expect. What happens in the final few minutes is most unpredictable; a conclusion that is more baffling than strictly satisfying. But by this time, having spent more than an hour and a half with these intriguing characters, Losey has us already prepared for such an outcome. With complicated individuals such as these, how could one expect easy answers anyway!

Score: 9/10