The Caretaker (1964)

Thanks for the memories!

Best movie of this year hands down!

Beautiful, moving film.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

What is the point of anything ? Weary, stale, flat, unprofitable.Three aspects of one persona. That is the point and message of this play and movie. If we could get down to Sidcup, get our papers, discover our identity, it would help. We could then finish the shed, and get all the rooms in the house decorated, and then rent them out. But it doesn't seem likely. We go round in circles in our dingy little car. Our current situation is just not our bag. End of story. Gripping masterpiece, not equalled by anything else from Pinter, nor by the actors. In fact, an acting masterclass, provided by the script. Once seen, never forgotten. No sex, no drugs, and any violence is merely virtual. Wonderful. But dated. Like Hamlet.

I could not belief how good this movie is having seen many years ago on the big screen, and now on a BFI DVD. The sets suit the play so well, and the cast is very believable in every thing they do. The transfer from stage to screen is first class, and the pauses, delivery of the said lines is just right for the play. My only sadness is that WE "the British Film Industry" are just not producing things of this type nowadays rather than just a sad pap of work which demands no merit. Long live Pinter, and long live the Caretaker, see and died!!! The black and white photography is perfect and does not inter fear with the telling of the story. It must have been a very cold, cold, set on which to work.

Someone said in a comment that this is "barely an adaptation" and I have to second that. Though the cast list has names of characters other than the main three, that's because there's a minute or two where the film is outside so there were a few extras who got credit.If you like the play (seeing it or reading it, whichever) you will love this interpretation of it. I can't believe this was made in 1963-the acting is passable even by today's standards and amazing for back then.There are a few lines that are switched around, very very few that are removed altogether, and certain parts of scenes are set outside of the attic-otherwise it stays true to the original version.I suppose if you know nothing of the play then this could still suit you, however, it has a strange premise, and is generally a bizarre movie altogether. The focus is mostly on character development and unusual dialogue, with monologues every three minutes, one of which is easily one of the best absurdist monologues of all time (Aston's bit at the end of act 2).Personally I would buy it just for Aston's monologue, but the movie has many other virtues, and for the standards of its day I'd feel uncomfortable giving it anything other than a 10/10

The Caretaker is a truly great play and lends itself only to minimal tinkering for the screen. Thank goodness, that's what the makers of this film decided to do, so the film is barely an adaptation. One or two short scenes are moved out of Aston's claustrophobic attic room, but for the most part we're stuck in there, just like the play. I'm too young to have seen the original cast on stage, so it is good to see how Alan Bates and Donald Pleasence must have plied their craft on the stage. Robert Shaw does an excellent job of Aston, a part that is often under-rated as it is best performed under-stated. I have seen two fine productions of this play on the stage, back in the 70's I saw Max Wall play the lead and more recently the mighty Michael Gambon supported brilliantly by Rupert Graves as Mick and Douglas Hodge as Aston. If you can get to see a great production of this play, I recommend it for the stage rather than film. In the absence of a fine cast just down the road, this film is a super second best.