kijii
This film was made from Harold Pinter's first successful stage play of the same name. The play has only three characters and no clear-cut plot. (It is part of "Theater of the Absurd," movement of the time.) Yet, it was so powerful on stage that Clive Donner, Michael Birkett, and Donald Pleasence wondered about making into a film. Once Harold Pinter approved of the project, the financing—even for such a small film--was difficult since it was assumed that mass audience appeal would be limited. In the end, its financing and co-production was dependent on other actors and playwrights of the time, such as Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, and Noel Coward.As the movie opens, we see two men walking down the street on a bitter cold day. One man, Bernard Jenkins (Donald Pleasence) seems to be a vagrant. He is doing all the talking as the taller more reserved man, Aston (Robert Shaw), is taking him to his house after protecting him a downtown brawl. After the two climb the long spiral stairs to the upper story of a large rundown house, Aston invites Jenkins to come into his room and warm up. He asks what he can do for him. When Jenkins says he needs some new shoes, Aston tries to give him a pair of his shoes. But, they are too small for Jenkins. All of Jenkins' comments are met with short polite answers or affirmations from Aston. Aston's personality seems flat (almost mechanical) as he continually refers to restoring the shed in the backyard. That seems to be his goal in life since as he says, "I'm good with my hands, you see." When Aston says he has to go out, Jenkins gets up to leave, But, Aston says that he can stay in spite of him not being with him in the house. So, Aston leaves and Jenkins stays.Next, the third character enters the play-on-film: Mick (Alan Bates).When he comes into the room, Jenkins is taken back since Mike says that he is the proprietor of the building. Jenkins, who is there because of Aston, doesn't know how to respond. Mick is more acerbic than his brother, Aston. He never asks Jenkins to leave, but he is still cruel to him as he brags about his plans to restore the place. He implies that his brother is a slow worker and hasn't got much done. Jenkins then identifies with Mick in order to stay there. When Mick asks Jenkins to be the caretaker of the place and help fix it up—which Jenkins had already agreed to do with Aston--Jenkins agrees. When Aston returns, there is a very short scene with all three characters in the one room. Not much is said or implied about the relationship among these three characters. When Mick leaves, Aston tell Jenkins his personal story in simple terms. As a minor and without his consent, he was subjected to electric shock treatments in a mental hospital. The reason, he says, was based on 'lies' that were told at a local café. After hearing the story, Jenkins senses that his way into the staying in the rundown room lies with Mick- -and not Aston. But, later when Jenkins starts to put down Aston to Mick, Mick refuses to say that there is anything wrong with his brother. In fact, he attacks Jenkins for implying such a thing.The puzzle for Jenkins is to figure out which 'horse to back' between these two brothers: how best can he assure his 'caretaker' role in this rundown house. Jenkins is always the outsider trying to get in. But, he is unable to pry his way between these two brothers that need each other in some unspoken way. Each of the three characters has pipe dreams. And their pipe dreams are—in some way--dependent on one of the other two. But, since their dreams remain unspoken, the riddle is who will win and who will lose…and why.
writers_reign
A reasonably faithful adaptation of the stage play by the dramatist himself, Harold Pinter. As I write this the play has been revived yet again in London with Timothy Spall leading the cast. This proves that the play has legs even in the one-room claustrophobic setting which Pinter opened out marginally for the screen. There are still only three actors as Pinter wisely resisted showing those only mentioned on stage - the cafe proprietor who fired Davis, plus possible patrons of the cafe; the monk who brushed Davis off, etc. All three actors, Alan Bates, Robert Shaw, and Donald Pleasance are at the top of their game and play off each other brilliantly, none more so than Robert Shaw, best known for semi-violent roles to come, such as The Sting and Jaws, here playing a passive quasi zombie in the wake of a lobotomy. More Art House than Multiplex but none the worse for that.
rosscinema
I have also been searching for this film on DVD or video but I can't find it either. I've seen it 3 or 4 times on PBS in the last twenty years or so and its a tough one to locate. I think it's Robert Shaw's best performance. So emotional without being emotional! The silence in this film is like a constant scream of pain. Low budget but I think that helps the film by enhancing the performances. If anyone finds a copy let me know. I guess I'll wait for PBS to show it again sometime and I have a blank tape ready!
grunsel
Apart from the scenery and huge cast, this has all the ingredients of a Cecil B De Mille epic. Three men, (two of which are brothers and a cunning almost invited guest) struggle for power and dominance in their dingy little house. In my opinion it says something about the predicament of human behaviour what ever their surroundings.Its dark, sometimes funny and you can almost smell the decay.
