MovieChat Forums > The Fall of the House of Usher (1960) Discussion > Am I missing something about Bristol, th...

Am I missing something about Bristol, the butler?


While Philip is changing shoes the butler vanishes in a ghostly manner. He reappears and it's never touched on again. Also Bristol states he has worked for the Ushers for 60 years, he doesn't look old enough for that.

Does the short story explain more about this or is it just a suspense builder?

reply

I'm not familiar with Poie's original story so I can't help you there. I'd say that the sequence in which Bristol appears to vanish is just a hokey-pokey typical horror suspense builder rather than a significant part of the story.

I also don't really think we should pay much mind to the fact that Bristol may not actually look that old. As far as these things go on face value, he's just your typical creepy butler archetype who's served the master family for a monumental amount of time.

"don't think...feeeeel"
www.obsessedwithfilm.com

reply

Thank you for the reply. I was leaning that way but wanted to hear some more input.

reply

In the original story, the butler has only a short appearance, and is never seen again after letting the narrator in.

reply

False

reply

What?

reply

the butler vanishes in a ghostly manner.


To call it "a ghostly manner" requires an imaginative leap. He simply walked down the hall to get Philip a different pair of shoes. Albeit him walking away is not shown on-screen. But the film certainly does not actually show anything ghostly happening there. It does play eerie music after Bristol walks away off-screen, but that's not enough to make it 'ghostly.' At most, that means that Philip was paranoid, and/or that Bristol is weird to walk away in the middle of a conversation.

He reappears


That is another imaginative leap. You make it sound as if the film says he rematerialized out of thin air. But really he just walked back on-screen, albeit the film doesn't cut to Bristol walking back on-screen, because it stays with Philip instead. Again, there is nothing ghostly happening when Bristol comes back with the new pair of shoes.

it's never touched on again


That's because it's not a big deal.

has worked for the Ushers for 60 years, he doesn't look old enough for that.


He also says that he worked for them "since I was a boy." So yes, it is believable that he was old enough for that. I.e. He could have been working for the Ushers since he was 5, and he could be 65 years old in the film.

or is it just a suspense builder?


It's establishing the theme/atmosphere that Philip is in a weird place with strange rules.

reply

Also Bristol states he has worked for the Ushers for 60 years, he doesn't look old enough for that.


He said he worked there for 60 years since he was a boy. Seeing as how the story takes place in the 1830s in the remote countryside outside Boston, I'm assuming there were no child labor laws there. He could've started working at 8-10 years of age, which would make 68-70 years old in the movie. I see no huge stretch in believability.

reply

For a really creepy butler in the Usher mansion watch the 1979 TV Movie version. In that one the Butler is called Thaddeus played by Ray Walston.

reply