Fremde, wenn wir uns begegnen

Kim Novak and Kirk Douglas positively steam up the screen in this well-done film depicting a torrid suburban affair in Eisenhower's sexually repressed America. It is a great story and is singlehandedly responsible for my being a huge Kim Novak fan. Not only was (is) she undeniably beautiful, she is a remarkable actress. Look for Walter Matthau in a villainous turn, and the great Ernie Kovacs in one of his final performances.

If viewed from the morality of the period, this is actually quite a good movie. It attempted to tell a story about and comment on American family life, particularly on repressed desires and wedded relationships in the suburbs just before the "swinging 60's" exploded. Hearing Walter Matthau sum up his marital role as merely being considered "furniture in his own home" speaks volumes about what this film is about. Kim Novak is the sexy wife and mother to one family. Living down the manicured street is Kirk Douglas, the virile husband and dad in another - both living their lives against the backdrop of 1950's-60's morality. You do the math...

Is it worthy of awards? No. Is the conflict entertaining? You bet! Definitely worth a look to those who like films from this era.

Richard Quine seems here very different.This is not exactly an entertaining movie but rather a middle-class group study focusing on Novak and Douglas ' characters.Absolutely unmelodramatic,with no spectacular scenes -except for two fightings- .Novak's memory of her affair with a trucker could have been treated as a flashback;but she simply tells it to her new lover Douglas,and the camera shows her mouth in close shot.Except during the party,the characters brush against each other more than they really meet.

Actually it's closer to European ,particularly Italian cinema of the same era:Antonioni comes to mind,'l'avventura"(1959)and chiefly "la notte"(1960).Delicacy,painful frames of mind,wistful looks,in a muffled atmosphere,with more whispers than cries:Quine proves that a scandalous topic such as adultery can be handled gracefully.Unlike further works as "the world of Suzy Wong"(1960) or "sex and the single girl"(1964),this is true psychological drama.

Kirk Douglas and Kim Novak star in this tale of love found outside of an unhappy or rather a dull, or shall we say, a trapped marriage in suburban America. Kirk is an architect who likes to build to suit his tastes rather than conform to the mundane, everyday buildings and houses that the masses use on a day to day basis. Barbara Rush is his wife, who tries to help him get jobs, but maybe she "doesn't understand him," and what he's trying to do in his career and with his life. So Kirk feels trapped by her expectations of him. Kirk meets Kim, by way of the school bus stop; they both have sons that go to school together. Kirk hears talk about Kim and her husband, who are new to the block. She is really neglected by her husband, who is not affectionate at all, and very cold to her basic needs. Kim hears talk about him, the architect and his wife. They start an alliance, when, after talking to her at the grocery store, he later invites her to see a client's vacant lot, on which a new house will be built, one he will design, obviously. She is hesitant at first, for many reasons, some of which we can guess and some we can't. One clearly is that, there is a time and place for social interaction that is acceptable. As an adult and spouse and parent, you know what your boundaries are. But when you're unhappy or find the opposite sex attractive, sometimes it feels like...maybe. She tells him to turn back as this doesn't feel right, but then she loosens up a little. Long story short, this is a movie, right? This deals with infidelity head on and doesn't hold back in its realistic portrayal of who gets hurt. Real emotion and raw feelings are brought to the surface, and we are able to see real, complicated people and the after effects of Kirk's actions. All this drama is heightened by expert actors in the leads, but Barbara Rush is particularly good as the wronged wife. And Walter Matthau gives a very understated performance as a neighbor who turns out to be an opportunist too. Having said all that, me being single and unable to really relate to this situation, I don't know that I would re-watch this. It may be more enjoyed by those who have had brief affairs. But its unsentimental treatment of the subject matter doesn't mince words with its viewers. We know what's what. But what becomes of a couple who may have gone past the point of no return? Is there a marriage that is salvageable after infidelity? "Strangers When We Meet" is about people looking for love and acceptance in all the wrong places and learning from it. Hopefully, we, as viewers, can too.

In an earlier commentary I said that the only good things in this film were Barbara Rush and the final scene. Besides, Leonard Martin gives it only **1/2. Well, Leonard Maltin and I were wrong. I have just seen it once more and now I think it is a honest and real look at the dissatisfaction and crisis of the conjugal life in the middle class. The characters and scenes between Maggie and her husband are underwritten, Kirk Douglas overacts as usual, but:

Very intelligent the relation between Altar and Larry, being the first a counterpoint of the second. At last, Altar "did it" but he is alone and envies the conjugal life of his friend ("Don't throw everything away").

Very real and moving the crisis between Eve and Larry. What a good and wasted actress was Barbara Rush!, her character almost steals the show.

Other good moments: Larry stress and lack of control in the party at his home, his wife smiling and saying: "I want you sober", the fight between Larry and Felix under the rain, the cross cutting between Maggie in the kitchen as a housewife and herself putting her earrings in the motel "after the sin", etc., etc.

A great idea is the parallel between the building of the house and the love story, the beautiful visit at the house with the tape measure and the moving farewell in the already finished house.

Last but not the least, the visuals: The elegant use of the widescreen and the long takes, the smooth camera movements and tracking shots (for instance, the first scene in the Larry's kitchen or in the "tape measure" scene or at the very beginning of the film). The beautiful cinematography and color, always a pink or red spot in the frame (the Larry's jacket, a cushion in the Altar's apartment, the Maggie's dress, a fruit dish in the kitchen), etc.

Well, as you can see one can't trust his first impressions. I like this film