Talk:The Servant (1963 film)

Fair use rationale for Image:SERVANTLOSEYBOGARDE.jpg

Image:SERVANTLOSEYBOGARDE.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned references in The Servant (1963 film)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of The Servant (1963 film)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BOM":

• From Prometheus (2012 film): "Prometheus". Box Office Mojo. June 2, 2012. Archived from the original on June 17, 2012. Retrieved September 4, 2012.
• From Sleuth (2007 film): "Sleuth (2007)". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved 15 May 2012.
• From Monsieur Klein: "Monsieur Klien (2019)". Box Office Mojo. IMDb. Retrieved February 17, 2020.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Plot points

A revision to the plot section has been reverted.

Article before and now: "they find Barrett and Vera sleeping together" I had: "have been having sex in Tony's bed"

Film: They're not sleeping, they are very much awake :) and the dialogue makes it 1963-clear that they've had sex and Vera wants more. On hearing it, Susan says, horrified: "They're in your room. In your bed. Did you know this was going on?"

Article before and now: "which is exacerbated by Susan's refusal to answer his calls" I had: "exacerbates his inability to talk to Susan when he calls her"

Film: the only relevant call in the film is at 1h21m, when he rings her from a pub. He says nothing, she says "Hello? Who is there? Tony? Hello? Who is it?"

Article before and now: "He begs Tony to re-engage him as his manservant, and he agrees." I had: "He begs Tony to re-engage him as his manservant. // In the next scene, set an unknown time later, it is clear that he had agreed to do so"

We don't see agree in the pub, and we never see him do so. It may have been in the pub, or it may have been some time later - I'm not going to guess.

Article before and now: "prostitutes" I had: "sex workers"

Film: doesn't use either, so why not go for the current best practice?

Is this revert really about adding the reference to the physique magazine pin-ups the camera slowly pans over? "He lies down on Barrett's bed, where pages from physique magazines are seen on the walls". There's plenty in the Blu-ray extras about the homosexual aspects to the relationship between the two men (see the linked article for why this is 1963-explicit that Barrett's not completely straight!) and I will happily reference it.

When you can order stuff from the BL catalogue again, it would be worth seeing if any contemporary writers thought that the woman in the bar when Tony rings Susan (and doesn't talk to her when she answers) is a sex worker - she shows him something on a card. Lovingboth (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

A lot of the edits look like WP:OR and personal preference. Please refer to WP:FILMPLOT before making more changes. Sweetpool50 (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

There are five mentioned above.

You could say that the first lengthens it without adding anything much. "Being sexual" would be better than "sleeping together".

As far as the second goes, if you're going to mention this aspect, you might as well get it right. He rings her, she answers, and he is unable to talk to her.

For the third, how about "He begs Tony to re-engage him as his manservant. // He does so, but the two increasingly reverse roles"? - splitting into two paragraphs has less of a suggestion that he does so in the pub and to say it's gradual is guessing that it resumed as before whereas in the first scene after the pub, Barrett is already going 'why should I clean up your mess?'

Fourth - needs changing for terminology.

Fifth - I will get the references. The director, writer, the two leading men and, from memory, at least one of the two leading women all refer to this aspect of the film in interviews as do retrospective articles on the film. Lovingboth (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)