The End of the Affair

This is not a great film, but it is better than many critics said it was when the 1999 remake came out. THE END OF THE AFFAIR was one of the key novels of Graham Greene in the 1950s that delved into his intense Catholicism.

With a background of World War II, neighbors Maurice Bendrix and Sarah Miles (Van Johnson and Deborah Kerr) have a deep, passionate romance. But they are separated for a year or so, and when they try to resume the relationship (or when Johnson tries to resume the relationship - Kerr seems relatively hesitant). It turns out that, due to personal experiences, Kerr has had a religious revelation. She is listening to a Catholic priest. She is also trying to help a man with a deformity (a birthmark) on his face who hates God. She is also concerned about the spiritual health of Johnson and of her actual husband Henry (Peter Cushing, in a very moving - and non-horrific role). The film shows how Kerr affects all the lives around her, even beyond her death after a short illness (as the novel does). Yes, it is too talky - novels about ideas (and here it is the age old question of what is real love, the spiritual or the profane)usually are. Greene, good Catholic exponent that he was, would have said that Kerr's devotion to her God was an outpouring of divine true love to her fellow creatures. Her death is not a tragedy. But Greene the novelist and part-time realist cannot leave it there. Johnson's character is bitter at the end of this remarkable novel, and at the end of the film. And his bitterness is directed at the source of that love that triumphed over his profane one.

The Hays Moral Code specifically stated "Adultery and illicit sex, sometimes necessary plot material, must not be explicitly treated or justified, or presented attractively." Still in effect at that time, this is certainly the most explicit treatment of the subject of adultery during the time of the code's strict enforcement from 1935-1955. ("Baby Doll" released in December, 1956 goes a bit further).

While the movie should gets points for its explicit and adult treatment of the subject matter, the film does explicitly preach Catholicism which may be the reason that the theme was allowed. In the 1950's and early 1960's there was a Catholic anthology drama series on U.S. television which often dealt with serious issues like adultery, communism, abusive families, racism, incest, rape and abortion; issues that were almost never raised on television at the time. The show was apparently given a pass because it always ended with one character realizing the issues of his/her ways and having their soul redeemed by joining or rejoining the Catholic Church. This movie reminded me of that show.

The movie does have terrific performances by Deborah Kerr, Van Johnson, and Peter Cushing. It should be watched just for the performances. They underplay their roles beautifully and hit emotional high points in just the scenes that need them.

Graham Greene is an excellent writer and knows how to keep a plot moving and constantly surprises the audience.

One can dismiss this movie as Catholic Propaganda, but the movie is touching, thoughtful and well done. The Catholic Propaganda only mars it slightly, a small price to pay for the pleasure it brings. It is a good affair between two handsome/beautiful people, even if it ends with a bit of repentance and feelings of guilt.

Van Johnson is miscast but still surprisingly good as the loving/bitter writer who tells this story; Kerr is very good and Cushing is even better. In fact, Cushing is distinctly superior to Stephen Rea, who played the role of the husband in the 1999 version. Rea was mopey and morose, but Cushing is a mild man doing the best he can, a picture of unexpected courage -- and frailty. It's one of the best performances he ever gave; it's a shame it didn't lead to bigger roles.

The movie does not, cannot, express the passion so much a part of Neil Jordan's version; furthermore, it's talkier, and the talk isn't as good. It doesn't capture the period (World War II and just after) in the slightest, despite some newsreel footage, but otherwise London is presented very well in handsome black and white photography. It's an honest and respectable version of Greene's novel, but Jordan's is the classic.

When I saw that this movie was by Graham Greene, I expected a suspense story, maybe a spy story. So I wanted to warn people that this movie is nothing like that. It is about faith and God.

It is couched as a love triangle melodrama. This disguise is so well-wrought that it seems to have fooled a lot of people into thinking the movie is a love story. But all that is merely an excuse for the rather deep philosophical issues that the movie tackles.

In typical Greene manner, though, it is rife with unexpected plot twists. For example, just when I thought the movie was about to wrap itself up, it launched into the real reason for its existence, via a flashback into "what really happened" in Sarah's life. This is an unusual place in a movie to have a long flashback, it seems to me.

After this point, there is one change of direction after another. Up until the very last scene, the movie is quite ambiguous, and it is not at all clear whether Greene views belief in God as a bad, destructive thing or not. Even the last scene does not completely resolve this question.

Johnson has a particularly unusual part, his all-consuming passion for Sarah inadvertently causing her misfortune after misfortune. His understated guilt and horror each time he discovers the effects of his actions is an interesting part of the story.

The acting by the three mains, Kerr, Johnson and, surprisingly, Peter Cushing, is top notch. This movie is not "entertainment," however. It is an intellectual challenge, engaging the viewer to wrestle with issues most thinking humans must come to terms with at one time or another in their lives.

The dialogues between Johnson and Kerr remind me very much of a non-humorous presentation of the themes dealt with in "The Screwtape Letters," with Johnson (and Goodliffe) presenting all the rational, reasonable conclusions favoring atheism, but Kerr inevitably being drawn deeper and deeper into faith in God, more because of their efforts than in spite of them.

As has been demonstrated in other comments, this movie will not be enjoyed by those unwilling to examine their stances towards these fundamental issues of human existence.

An American writer meets the wife of a civil service acquaintance and quickly starts an affair with her. However Maurice is plagued with feelings of guilt and jealousy against Henry having Sarah, and bitterness that Sarah is being deceitful to her husband and perhaps, him too. After a bombing falls near their love nest, Sarah leaves and Maurice assumes that she had wished him dead. When Henry confides in him about his wife's possible infidelity, Maurice poses as her husband and hires a private detective to follow her and find out what she's doing.

I have not seen the remake but was quite interested to see how a 1950's movie would manage to depict the illicit affair between Maurice and Sarah without breaking every moral code of the day. The answer is – with lots of talking. The film is significantly shorter than the modern version and had less controversy (or at least, does now) but it still manages to bring things out. The plot is pretty good but relies very heavily on the extended flashback/journal sequence to keep things going. The talk heavy feel is a little tiring but does work well – the characters' emotions are brought out well without profanity or nudity.

I don't think Johnson fitted the role that well but he was still good. His inner bitterness and guilt came out well at points and he brings his complex character out well. Kerr is also good although her role is less difficult. She does have to carry the whole journal sequence near the end and she doesn't let the film dip. Cushing only has a few scenes but he is very good. He gives an English gent performance but eventually you can see the cracks as he tries to hold his feelings together.

Overall this is a solid adaptation of the book that manages to bring out the subject matter without the sexual excess of the modern version. While it is a little heavy on dialogue at times, the emotions come out with all the stilted control of the period and it works quite well as a subversive melodrama.