When Barrett asks to be let back, the relationship between both men seems to change very abruptly. The every next scene, they are bickering like a pair long-familiar with one another. All the "yes sir, no sir" stuff has gone. This metamorphosis seemed too rapid to me.
shareSid-Blitzen^
"When Barrett asks to be let back, the relationship between both men seems to change very abruptly. The every next scene, they are bickering like a pair long-familiar with one another. All the "yes sir, no sir" stuff has gone. This metamorphosis seemed too rapid to me."
I agree.
I usually like movies like this, from this time period, and I have a healthy respect for the actors involved, but a lot of people praise this movie highly, and I think it went totally downhill from when Barrett comes back.
I did not enjoy the film one bit after that, all the way to the end.
"I can't stand a naked light bulb, any more than..a rude remark or a vulgar action" Blanche DuBois
If you've ever watched a strong-willed person dominate a weak-willed person, you will know the shift in power can happen quite rapidly.
When Barrett asks so humbly to be taken back and Tony says yes, Barrett knows he's got his former boss right where he wants him. No person with aspeck of self-esteem or common sense would take back an employee who acted in such bad faith.
And initially when Barrett returns, he is still doing all the work, even though he's overly familiar. He's let the house go a bit but he does all the cooking and takes care of Tony, which is really what Tony wants. So it's not as though the shift is total. Also, Tony is a problem drinker so Barrett makes sure to ply him with liquor. That increases Tony's dependence on him.
Like I said, it might seem unrealistic if you've never seen such a situation in real life but I have. I've known people to go downhill due to drugs, drink or bad company so fast I could hardly believe it. It happens.
"The night was sultry."
Also, the shots the camera gives of the absolute squalor Tony is living in before Barrett comes back is a very clear indication that Tony is one step away from living in the gutter, mentally. He had zero self-respect so Barret was easily able to dominate and even humiliate him, and Tony took it as his due because he had no self-repect.
.
Good point about Tony lacking self-respect. In a way, he works with Barrett to humiliate and degrade himself.
"I have had singing."
I believe the change could happen abruptly, but I agree with the OP that the way it's presented here feels like a rupture in the film's momentum.
After this point, the behavior of the characters became less interesting to me, because it frequently felt unmotivated, or unconnected to what had been built up to that point.
I don't think the first scene when Barrett is allowed back is meant to be interpreted as the very next day. I think some time has passed and we are not privy to exactly how and why their relationship has evolved to that point. It's still very effective and using one's imagination is not a bad thing.
shareI was also under the impression that some time has passed between Barrett asking to come back and the scene we actually see them together again. And like others have said, the fact that Tony accepts him again, just shows how weak and dependent he was (and that is even without counting his drinking), which Barrett knew perfectly well. Barrett's perfect serving allowed him to impose his will and made him a master.
shareYep. The whole point is, the very fact that Tony is willing to bring him back means it's over.
I think some of the people complaining on this thread seem to forget Tony's total devastation the night he discovers the two in his bed. And the blithe way Barrett leaves. THAT is the moment where Barrett really turns the tables on Tony. The scene in the pub when he "begs" Tony to take him back is both wicked irony and a demonstration of Barrett's mastery of playing Tony for a sucker. The "squabbling married couple" scenes (besides being very funny) are more role-playing by Barrett, as is the "two kids playing in the house" scenes.
According to the book, a year passes after Barrett returns before, as the book puts it, "[t]he screen of convention which stood between him and Barrett had been shattered. There was now an easy understanding. The barriers were down." The movie actually follows the book quite well, although there's some even more sinister stuff going on in the book, that I don't believe could have been depicted on film in 1963 (and maybe not even today). A "one year later" title card would have been helpful in the film to segue the change in relationship between the two men but I don't know that would've fit either Pinter's or Losey's style.
shareIt's something that is not clear from the movie, something left unsaid, and you mention that there is even more something going on in the novel. I would appreciate it if you could shed some light on that! thanks!
shareThe book is short and is a pretty good read. It's been a while since I read it so it's not fresh in my head but as I recall Barrett's role is more of a pimp, which is similar to the film but comes off being more disgusting. By the way, the book is supposedly based on a true story of a servant offering to procure a young boy for Maugham (or possibly someone he had heard of or knew). I can't be sure since I can't find the article again. It was in a British newspaper on the web.
shareNot really; Tony had changed by the time Barrett returned. He was a weak mess, and he had started drinking. Obviously Barrett picked up on that, and of course things went into full-swing immediately. Nothing was incidental here; this was all planned out by Barrett from the start.
Fabio Testi is GOD