MovieChat Forums > The Servant (1964) Discussion > homo erotic elements

homo erotic elements

posted 18 years ago by digibeet
43 replies | jump to latest

I just watched this movie. its a still a masterpiece.

I noticed when tony is crying on his bed after he had thrown out vera and hugo for the first time, the camera glazes over a few magazine clippings on the wall above his bed, depicting some athletic model guild men.

when tony comes back the second time, the relationship between hugo and tony looks like a gay couple, with their little fights and pleasant dinner talk (hugo also puts on a queeny voice somnetimes when he has to clean up after tony)

is tony bisexual and is hugo trapping him in his "guilty secret" or are the hmo-erotic elements just another layer in the story?

reply

[–] agri4042 18 years ago

I thought there were definite hints of very repressed homoeroticism.

reply

[–] Xcalat3 (3701) 7 years ago

/I thought there were definite hints of very repressed homoeroticism./

indeed

reply

[–] indeduous 18 years ago

Im studying this film at the moment. The homo-erotic elements were something that made the film so shocking back when it got released.

reply

[–] BlondeIsBetter 18 years ago

Of course. That's the film. That's what the whole film is about, his repressed homosexuality. He is really in love with Barrett. He needs him, and he is even jealous when Barrett is having the affair with Sarah Miles, not so much because he loves HER, but because he desires Barrett.

And being a proper English gentleman, he can never come out of the closet or accept that he is gay. So he degenerates instead, trying to fight his own emotions and desires...

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Devans00 18 years ago

BlondeIsBetter
Of course. That's the film. That's what the whole film is about, his repressed homosexuality. He is really in love with Barrett. He needs him, and he is even jealous when Barrett is having the affair with Sarah Miles, not so much because he loves HER, but because he desires Barrett.
Yep, that's how I interpreted the ending. Tony was less upset that he lost the skinny blonde chick than the fact Barrett was with Vera. A couple of signs that Tony was repressed: 1) the physique pictures on Tony's bedroom wall were like the gay porn of their time and 2) the fact that Barrett was the only character Tony was ever really comfortable with. I wonder if the big ass bottle of cologne was another sign?

With the women, Vera , Tony just seemed to be going through the motions of what was expected of him as an upper class man.

Life is never fair, and perhaps it is a good thing for most of us that it is not.

reply

[–] unclediss 18 years ago

Well it surprises me that no one else has noticed this, but the clippings of athletic men on the wall were in Vera's old room. After telling Barrett (DIRK BOGARDE) & Vera (SARAH MILES) to leave, Tony (JAMES FOX) goes into Vera's room and collapses onto her bed, not his own... That's a pretty important detail to misinterpret...

True there are other elements in the film that hint at "male-love", but this is not one of them... Barrett is totally manipulating Tony the whole time, so the moments in which they seem to become a "couple" are all part of his plan just to get back into the house. After all, the final scene of the movie is Barrett & Vera fooling around again while Tony lays on the floor too drunk to speak or react...

reply

[–] Devans00 18 years ago

Ah.

I didn't realize Tony went into Vera's old room. That's kind of weird that a single man would have a maid's room right next to his. I could see if he had a wife, then it would make sense to have a female servant so close to where he sleeps.

I guess that part wasn't clear since others misinterpreted the pictures too.

Life is never fair, and perhaps it is a good thing for most of us that it is not.

reply

[–] yan-trussart 17 years ago

The maid's room is not close to the Master's romm, but rather next to the servant's room. Tony discovered its existence when he walks Barrett through the house on the day of his arrival.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] allenrogerj 15 years ago

Rather:
It was a common element of old English houses- it isn't a mansion actually- to have smaller windows on the top floor. That was to reduce loss of heat through the windows. That's why the servants' rooms were there too. If anyone was going to be uncomfortable and go up and down stairs all day it was the working class.

Robin Maugham, who wrote the novel, was homosexual and the novella is more openly about repression as well as power. In fact, like Maugham, it was perfectly possible for the english upper-class to recognise- and enjoy- their homosexuality and sometimes still to marry and have children. Sir Harold Nicolson and Victoria Sackville-West who were both predomiantly homosexual in their tastes had a long and happy marriage. Tony is rather different in that he is dependent and something of a fantasist- not just his cities in Brazil (this was soon after Brasilia was bult, so they were a bit more than updated castles in Spain)- but his tales of going to Africa and his claims to know about Indian food (was he a remittance man, perhaps?) don't seem to have any substance behind them.
Finally, the fact that we don't know just what exactly Barrett's hold on Tony is or the full nature of their relationship- and nor do they, perhaps- makes it much more effective than if it were or could be explicitly explained. the unknown is always more frightening than the explained.

reply

[–] e-a-milliken 15 years ago

Thanks allenrogerj, for the insights on Maugham's novel and British class system. I found some of the negative reviews in the comments section hilariously obtuse about most of this. One who was in total denial that there were any hints of homoeroticism at all, and others that could not see the class warfare going on through the whole movie. One couldn't figure out why the upper class Tony would give over his power to the Barrett--like the upper classes dependency on the working class in the seed of their own destruction is just something he can't fathom. This is definitely not a film for people who need everything spelled out for them.

reply

[–] agera 12 years ago

Thanks for the insights.

Knowing that some upper-class Englishmen were comfortable with their homosexuality as long as it was kept within certain bounds (i.e., no scandals, willing to sire legitimate children), I thought Tony's "little secret" was just his weakness and dependence. He was almost like one of those weird "adult babies".

Homosexuality was always being hinted at and even winked at in that time and place so I don't think that alone explains Tony's essential vulnerability. It was his need to be taken care of and kept company that was way beyond what one would expect of a grown man.

"The night was sultry."

reply

[–] Andys1970 15 years ago

It’s the underlying theme of the whole film.

reply

[–] mascisman 17 years ago

Actually Tony isn't drunk at all, at least not according to Dirk Bogarde (and so probably acoording to the screenplay as well). In an interview somewhere in the seventies he said, "I think the movie will be understood better and better, at the time nobody knew anything about LSD, but nowadays everybody understands that at the end the boy is on a trip."

reply

[–] max von meyerling 15 years ago

"I'm in the inferior position"
"I'm not playing some game where you chuck balls in my face"
"It's a bit salty"
"I wouldn't know what to do without you?"
They both had that "same feeling" once before "in the army"
and on and on.
Written by Somerset Maugham's nephew.

reply

[–] birdman3501 17 years ago

While the photos of male models are in Vera's room, I don't think that others are "misinterpreting" the detail of those photos, at least not necessarily. The camera leaves Tony on the bed and goes up show those photos. The camerawork connects Tony on the bed to the photos. If the scene is just to show Tony crying on Vera's bed, why bother even showing the photos at all, much less lingering on them like the film does? The camerawork here imbues those photos with some level of importance, especially when viewed amid the clear homosexual overtones that are to follow in the film. Despite being in Vera's room, the photos do seem to remain a "cinematic clue" as to Tony's nature.

reply

[–] johnrupertg 15 years ago

unclediss is the only rational one posting on this thread. Everyone seems to be so focused on finding the homosexuality in everything that they miss the small nuisances of the film. You can visually see the higher Tony goes up the stairs, the rooms and the decor change and it is evident that the bed he lies down onto is that of his servant Vera.

reply

[–] Falconeer 8 years ago

That wasn't Tony's bedroom; it was the servant Barrett's and Vera's bedroom. After they left Tony went and lay an their bed, and buried his head in the pillow. I assumed it was to smell Vera's scent on the sheets because he missed her..but maybe it was Barrett that he truly missed. Certainly a strange film, and it is ambiguous enough that you can really draw your own conclusions..

Fabio Testi is GOD

reply

[–] BillyFisher 16 years ago

There are strong homoerotic overtones right from the beginning. The way the men talk to each other is laden with innuendo.

When Barrett returns to the house, they turn into an outrageously queeny gay couple - puts me in mind of the later Staircase, with Rex Harrison and Richard Burton.

And just to confirm, the male physique clippings were in the maid's old room, in the servant quarters, next to Barrett's bedroom.

- - - - - - - -
www.davidlrattigan.blogspot.com
www.dictionaryofhammer.com

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] candoguy 15 years ago

I didn't notice the larger than usual draught beer handles, but when you see them in the pub Hugo (Dirk Bogard) is nearest the camera and Tony (James Fox) is furthest away - that makes Hugo on the left and Tony on the right as they face the bar. When the Catholic priest has finished stating what bad luck he'd had that day and Hugo and Tony have spoken to each other the camera shows a more distant shot of the bar from the other end. However, this time Hugo is on the left, but still nearest the camera and Tony is on the right, but still furthest away. This could only happen if one of the scenes was shot through a mirror, and I didn't notice that it was.

reply

[–] saintlysid 15 years ago

Just watched it tonight and couldn't help but notice the constant use of mirrors throughout the film.

reply

[–] jdkelleher 15 years ago

Tony was crying on the bed in Vera's room. The male erotica on the wall are hers.

reply

[–] deanowest 15 years ago

I'm sure you saw the post above where someone clarified that the photos were in Vera's room.

But i'd like to add something. YOu were right, they seemed like a gay couple at one point. Fox and Bogarde (sorry, I don't remember the character's names) seem to to cover quite a bit of ground once they are reunited. I too saw them bicker like a married (or gay) couple, but they also played like little kids and Bogarde's character said something like "I'm not your servant. I cooked and clean up after you." Here is is saying they had a parent/child relationship. towards the end the relationship becomes something like two soldiers on shore leave in search of skins to hit.

I'm not sure the point here, but Pinter was, I think, telling the viewers that this relationship can represent anyone, you, me, the guy next door, or that we can be in any type of relationship at any given time. Power structures in relationships exist no matter the type and they can be damaging.

The movie is brilliant. Check out The Pumpkin Eater if you like this one.

Dictated, but not read.

reply

[–] whybother7-1 15 years ago

I sensed some homoeroticism, however I don't think it was caused by any sexual tension, but from their steady regression into childlike destructive behaviour: playing hide-and-go-seek, a juvenile game where they violently throw a ball at each other and Barrett's hilarious babyish reaction when he gets hit in the eye. Such behaviour in full grown men is interpreted as homoerotic because there are no boundaries or self-monitoring, and excessive, emotional behaviour in adult males is seen as effete, whereas with boys-well, they're just being boys.

The dynamic between the two characters is extremely fascinating though, very strange. It showed the awkwardness, degradation, hostility yet extreme co-dependence between two men who are both very similar yet are on opposite sides of the class divide. Neither of them know how to tread that line and end up crossing it to such an extent, even reversing positions. Instead of master and servant they end up as two boys in this chaotic frat house.

reply

[–] peterduray-bito 15 years ago

Homo-erotic? Ya think?

reply

[–] karenrita 15 years ago

Has no one noticed the conversation in the pub, early on, between an anonymous man and woman, about a great wit who is in prison? A reference to Oscar Wilde! who was jailed for being homosexual. It's a signpost for the theme.

reply

[–] Deluge69-663-991830 14 years ago

There was that later scene at the dinner table where Barrett says to Tony, something to the effect that they are 'pals.'

Then both mention (more like admit) that they each had 'that feeling' once in the army. Can't recall all details, but it was something like that. Done, perhaps, to make you simply wonder. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Pinter always played with ambiguities in his dialogue and subtext.

reply

[–] ranier 15 years ago

When Vera brings breakfast to Tony, the edginess of the characters was ambiguous.
At first it seemed there might be a scene with Vera, but when she picked up the pj's (her expression spoke volumes) that implied something else entirely. A genius scene.

reply

1
2