Lieben Sie Brahms?

For better or worse, the book on which this film is based, Francoise Sagan's highly-touted French best seller, "Aimez-vous Brahms?" was a key document in the early 60's feminist awakening, depicting as it does a horrendous case study of gallic male chauvinism toward an intelligent and faithful woman. Despite the obvious soapiness of the plot, Bergman makes the movie version credible. Her soulful eyes and sad little smile enhance a lovable portrayal of the heroine Paula. Few other actresses of the time had the presence and skill to bring this off -- allowing us to fathom the almost tragic depth of the jejeune Phillip's fascination with a gorgeous "older woman" while avoiding the appearance of silliness which might have, but does not, taint Paula's irrational loyalty to Roger. In short, Ingrid probably set the standard for the many subsequent portrayals of more successful independent yet loving women. The rest of the cast helps too -- Montand's magnetism makes Paula's continuing love for the cad almost believable and, for once, Anthony Perkins' stereotypical "spoiled rich boy " portrayal is right on target and his infatuation convincing.

Part way through I found myself wondering why I was still watching the movie. It was nice to see Ingrid Bergman 20 years after making Casablanca, but I just couldn't care that much about her dilemma in this film.

One major detraction is Anthony Perkins. He has no business being in this film. I know he belongs in 'Psycho', but I don't think he's a fit as Bergman's younger lover.

What's great though is the many outdoor shots of Paris in the 60's. The automobiles. Wow! Really great street scenes, night shots of Paris, and again, those goofy looking cars.

And then there's that knockout Jocelyn Lane. She's doesn't last the duration of the film however, and that's really too bad.

So in essence I'm recommending the first third of this film.

Good Bye Again (1961)

Wow, such a beautiful and poignant look at fidelity and sacrifice in a relationship, just as the world is teetering from mid-20th Century stability to the 1960s and the free-for-all that meant for many. And the movie itself is one of the last, like "The Apartment" on this side of the Atlantic, to be made in the old Hollywood style, with invisible editing, gorgeous black and white photography, tight story construction, and a full, rounded sensibility that might, without being derogatory, be called "classic." I could watch it again today just for its perfect blending of acting, writing, filming, and tragic themes, which struck me hard.

It's hard to believe this kind of movie didn't fly at the time, and hasn't made an impression since. Anthony Perkins is at his charming, disarming best here (he had just finished filming "Psycho"), and in some ways steals the show from the much bigger headliner, an amazing (as always) Ingrid Bergman. They make an unlikely screen couple, but a great one. The tensions between them are not only reasonable, their inevitable, or so the writing has made it seem. Which is perfect. The third star is a paradigm of old school suave European manliness, Yves Montand, quite wonderfully appealing and disgusting at the same time. Everyone is dressed great, thanks to costume design by Christian Dior. (There's even a comment by a rich older woman who says she's going shopping "to Dior's.")

This is a very European feeling film, though it is of course an "American" movie in that it's in English, but it was officially made by the small production company, Argus, which otherwise made only French films. This was the era of the declining and disappearing studios, and one way a movie got made was exactly like this, patching together talents and money and location shooting. Making it a European film had the advantage of pushing some adult issues, which is what helps the film have relevance today. The director, Anatole Litvak, though an immigrant to the U.S., was thoroughly a Hollywood director, and overall this has the feel of the best of the great Golden Age movies, though updated of course by the realities of 1960s Paris. Along those lines, there is a great appearance of club jazz singer Diahann Carroll.

For a really nice detailing of the film see the TCM article here: http://www.tcm.com/this-month/article/88170%7C0/Goodbye-Again.html or just google the title and TCM.

I've only just read the other comments on this beautiful film. I first saw it on its release in 1961 - and nearly spent a whole week of evenings at the cinema.I was 16 I'd become a fan of Ingrid Bergman two years before this, on seeing her in "The Inn of the Sixth Happiness, which was her best film [in my opinion!]. Also then saw and loved "Indiscreet", but was bowled over by her next film -"Goodbye Again". I wish they had kept the original French title: "Aimez-Vous Brahms?". It evokes the atmosphere and meaning of the film and you don't have to be fluent in French to understand it - so why change it? Once again, Ingrid hardly seemed to be acting - she just swept you along with her character, Paula. Some people said that the film didn't work because Ingrid was 45 at the time, supposed to be 40 and looked younger. True! Her make-up artist, John O'Gorman, had to put in a suggestion of dark circles under her eyes and lines on her neck, in order to make her seem 40! All through the film I felt so much for the character of Philip [Tony Perkins], because you could understand why he fell totally in love with Ingrid . You also wondered if Roger [Yves Montand] was out of his mind, drifting around from girl to girl, when he had the most beautiful woman in the world. This was another reason why some people thought the story didn't work. But I don't care - I'll always love it! Ingrid never acts, she just IS her characters, and she always cries "for real". That's why there has never been anyone like her and there never will be. This film should be issued on DVD [as I have already suggested for "A Walk in the Spring Rain" ]. Owning the video is all right, but it deserves to be preserved for future generations on DVD, so that they can see what a GOOD film really is!!!! Mary

This film has alot of good qualities, but the length and the miscasting of Anthony Perkins really drag the film down from a great rating. I think the film would've been much more effective at about 100 minutes. So much of the second half of the film should've been edited out, because of redundancy and because the scenes don't add much to the story. And about Anthony Perkins, he's just so unbelievable as Ingrid's lover. He's too skinny and just doesn't have the magnitism required to realistically draw her away from Montand, no matter how disenchanted Ingrid is. One wonderful surprise is Miss Carroll's performance. She simply shines in her one scene as a nightclub singer. What a great voice! Bergman is still so gorgeous, and Yves is perfectly cast as the straying boyfriend. 6 out of 10.