Odio que fue amor

As the dry-as-dust, cuckolded public schoolmaster, dying of heart disease, yet heartless in the eyes of his pupils, Michael Redgrave gives one of the screen's finest and most moving performances in Anthony Asquith's superb screen version of Terence Rattigan's play. (Rattigan himself wrote the economical, precise and first-rate screenplay). The rest of the cast act in that arch, fastidious fashion prevalent in British films of the time, though that fine and under-valued actor Nigel Patrick breathes considerable life into the role of the adulterous but penitent science teacher while Jean Kent is superbly treacherous as the unfaithful wife.

As a director, Asquith never really displayed much in the way of a visual sensibility, relying instead on the quality of his scripts but he still managed to make some of the best British films of the period, this being one of them. Although well-played the Albert Finney remake doesn't come close.

Michael Redgrave was obviously born for the role of Andrew Crocker-Harris in this Asquith-directed version of Terence Rattigan's clever and absorbing play.

On the face of it, the subject matter and material are rather thin. Crocker-Harris, a stuffed shirt of a schoolmaster, is about to be retired due to ill-health, and replaced by a modern new blood who sees teaching as an extension of psychology. Mrs Crocker-Harris is a frightful snob and an unhappy wife who is playing away from home, and the schoolboys only have eyes and minds for a cricket-playing hero about to leave to join England's team.

You may feel all this would be predictable and more than a little dull, and perhaps without a strong actor such as Redgrave in the central role, it may well be. I have seen the stage play, with Edward Fox as Crocker-Harris, and found it a great performance and a wonderful period piece.

Here, Redgrave is a real tour-de-force, and his supporting cast, including Wilfred Hyde White as the headmaster, and Jean Kent as the battling Mrs Crocker-Harris, are well cast. There are several charming scenes between Crocker-Harris and his replacement (Ronald Howard), and between the older schoolmaster and pupil Taplow (Brian White).

And the Browning Version? A translation of Agamemnon which reminds Crocker-Harris of a time he was a young and enthusiastic teacher, ready to mould the young.

This film is a worthy companion to the earlier classic 'Goodbye, Mr Chips', and, I think, is just as good.

I do not think the 1994 remake is so appalling.But it cannot hold a candle to this one,for sure,though.Part of the reason can be found,IMHO,in how the two directors deal with the main character.THe color version gambles on Albert Finney's performance and overlooks the rest of the cast which is not that much exciting in the first place (M.Modine is rather bland).Here ,the whole cast is outstanding ,from the young guy who plays the student to Jean Kent,a bitchy wife ,from Nigel Patrick's bewildered science teacher who becomes a human being during the movie to Wilfrid Hyde-White's (whatever a precedent user's view on the matter)mischievous,suave and finally cruel headmaster.

Of course Michael Redgrave steals the show ,but he gets good support all along the way.His performance is subdued,but emotionally intense ,and if you do not shed a tear during his final speech,you must have a heart of stone.The black and white cinematography and the stifling atmosphere give the tragedy the three unities (place,time and action) and an inventive directing makes us forget it's a play,like in the best Mankiewicz works.

Based on Terence Rattigan's play, this is a moving story of a public (private) schoolmaster's disappointments as his life slips away from him, and his increasing sense of isolation from everyone around him as even his wife makes clear her bitterness towards him. Michael Redgrave's performance is masterfully poignant. The film was made in an era when the values inherent in the film still had considerable currency, helping the film to achieve a degree of authenticity which it is doubtful could be achieved today. (I have not seen the more recent version, though, so it may be that I am wrong). If you are interested in the human condition, or simply want to see a masterful portrayal of human pain then you should watch this film.

The 1951 edition of the film, The Browning Version focus's on the 'stiff upper lip' of the Englishman (and woman). In this sense the English stiff upper lip is less of a human trait, but more a phenomenon deliberately shaped by cultural ideology and attitudes from the upper classes of English society. This causes the human, as illustrated with precision in The Browning Version by Michael Redgrave, to subdue feelings, and by so doing transform the human being into a mere mechanism of an ordered society which serves to function as apposed to lives life.

For illustrating how the elimination of human feelings can be so destructive to mind, body and soul, here Redgrave deserves all accolades awarded him. Clearly one of the finest actors in cinematic history.

Just to add here that it is not a weakness to illustrate feelings but as the film states strongly, it is more of a failure to hide them.

This is a lesson in how the human condition can in the end and ultimately triumph over suppression of life itself.

Excellent film.