A Night to Remember (1958)

Forget James Cameron's "Titanic" (1997), that mawkish melodrama, most remembered for the Jack-Rose steamy romance, rather than the colossal tragedy that was supposed to be the ultimate takeaway. Roy Ward Baker's "A Night to Remember" (1958), based on Walter Lord's book of the same name, did a much better job. No needless romanticism, no emotional manipulation, no fictional characters; just fully focused, straight-out chronicling of the final hours of the unsinkable ship, with a number of tiny episodes revolving around tiny characters that linger in your memory long after the final frame.

Just half an hour into the film, after warming us up to the environment and the characters, the ship makes its fatal collision with the dreaded iceberg, and its final one and half hour, as estimated by the ship's designer Andrews (Michael Goodliffe), begins to unfold.

Notable is how the film does not concentrate on the one supposed protagonist, Second officer Lightoller (Kenneth More), but rather on a multitude of other secondary characters as all of them share a disastrous fate, and not to intend any pun, are sailing on the same boat! Although we know the outcome, the Eric Ambler/Roy Baker team of writer/director ensures tautness all the way through. 

As the ship sinks, so do our hearts, when any hope of help arriving on time is thwarted, thanks to the infuriatingly clumsy behavior of the crew of the Californian just ten miles away! The writers seem to have taken real life accounts from survivors. Did it really happen this way? The neglect of such monumental proportions is baffling; help wasn't extended when it was only a stone's throw away. Imagine the number of lives that would've been saved in this completely avoidable catastrophe!

The inevitable eventually happens, as it happened, in the most unimaginably brutal fashion. Pandemonium gradually builds up, and the race for survival begins and ends in a devastating culmination. While we, the viewers watch the horror unfold with bated breaths, from the comfort of our living rooms, one shudders to imagine what the passengers must have actually gone through on that fateful night, as they gave in to the call of death.

The camera work and effects are most astonishing for the 50s, barring the visibly fake iceberg. For instance, the ingenious technique of shifting an entire set by a hydraulic mechanism, to produce a tilting effect, complete with the creaking sounds intact, is a masterstroke. So is the gentle rocking effect of a floating ship that gives you a feeling of actually being a part of the action. Among the many haunting images that are a direct result of these effects, are the ones of the soup/food cart gliding across the dining hall, as does the rocking horse.

No words for the band of musicians and their attempts to "soothe the nerves". That is some hearty courage on display. It is all the more believable though, for music has an unparalleled strength, and it keeps them going.

Some of the faces that stay in memory despite having minuscule roles are:

1. One of the youths from the steerage (perhaps an inspiration for Cameron to extend and write the character of Jack?).

2. The man with three children, who seeks the direct truth from Andrews; and mouths the chilling lines - "I take it you and I may both be in the same boat later".

3. The baker who guzzles scotch: "All roads lead to Rome", and in a quirky turn of events, survives the chilled waters owing to the alcohol content in his body!

4. The old man who takes in a lost child looking for his mom and comforts him 'til the end (most heartbreaking).

5. The recurring image of a man desperately clinging on to two wooden chairs (?) in order to help stay afloat later, but ultimately loses them as the ship makes its final plunge.

6. The snobbish first class passengers who gamble and drink away at a table being blissfully ignorant of the chaos outside; only when the whisky in the glass tilts to a considerable extent, is anything even noticed! "You can't sink this boat, that's certain", exclaims one of them. The unsinkable nature of Titanic is often talked about in the film; and more so coming from this elite class of individuals, perhaps in a way mocking their arrogance and overconfidence about the infallibility of man-made technological advancements against nature's great power.

One wonders though, if in an attempt to keep the melodrama at bay and maintain a mostly objective view of the tragedy, did the filmmaker go overboard with the stoic characterizations of Lightoller and Andrews? It is doubtful if it is an acting fault, and the body language including facial expressions of both these men seem to exhibit that they are strangely unperturbed by the events happening around them. If you are gonna face certain death soon, how could you remain cool and smile on occasion? Granted, one may not necessarily start taking giant panic breaths or go hysterical, but there is such a thing as being too calm!

Andrews does display a silent acceptance of defeat and hopelessness in but one shot. But Lightoller seems to be made of stone all along. Even after the ship finally sinks and he commands the overturned boat, the lines he utters and the way he utters them with a slight frown and nothing more, seems as though he came out of some very mundane episode and not a disaster as mammoth as it really was.

Nonetheless, Baker and team have given us a controlled, thoroughly restrained and what is perhaps the best celluloid depiction of one of the deadliest disasters humankind has ever seen. Wish Cameron had taken a lesson or two about directing from this film, instead of shamelessly replicating some scenes and lines in his bloated blockbuster.

Score: 9/10

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