Quest for Love

Considering the budget, Quest for Love is a remarkable accomplishment. Based on the SF short story "Random Quest" the story follows nuclear physicist Colin Trafford, who is thrust into an alternate reality during a scientific experiment. Trafford finds he has stepped into a world where his counterpart has taken a different path in life and is a respected playwright with a myriad of problems including drinking and womanizing. The scientist, who has led a solitary life is shocked to discover he now has a wife, Ottilie, played by a very effective Joan Collins (who made a very wise decision to accept this role). Their rocky relationship is at the heart of this film. Does Trafford really want to return to his world...or must he? One of the interesting things is there appears to be some sort of edit done about two thirds through that makes a certain transition event confusing, but in no way effects the story. It's just, I would love to see the screenwriter's full intentions for this scene. Quest for Love benefits from fine performances by Collins and Tom Bell as Colin Trafford with good support from Denholm Elliott. Several well known performers, early in their careers, turn up in party scenes. Also of note is the wonderful musical score by Eric Rogers and especially the haunting 'Ottilie' theme by Peter Rogers. As a bonus, Joan Collins has gone on record stating this is her favorite film role. If it's on, don't miss it. You won't be sorry! 10/10.

To my considerable annoyance, every time this movie has been shown on TV I haven't had my VCR ready to record. I've probably seen it about three or four times, on the proverbial rainy afternoons when little-regarded films are broadcast. It's been described by other IMDb reviewers as a sci-fi love story, and it certainly is that. But it's also a rare foray for a mainstream movie into counterfactual history. (In this respect it resembles novels such as Kingsley Amis's "The Alteration", Keith Roberts' "Pavane" and Robert Harris's "Fatherland" more than it resembles other movies.) Colin Bell, a physicist, finds himself in a parallel version of our world after an experiment that goes wrong. The Second World War has not happened, and in all kinds of subtle and intriguing ways society is less advanced. The course of his own life has been drastically different as well: he is a playwright and novelist, not a physicist; he attended Oxford (arts and humanities-based) not Cambridge (science-based); his best friend (played by Denholm Elliot) has not lost his arm in WW2; most significantly, while single in OUR world, he discovers that he is, albeit unfaithfully, married in this one.

I'll concede that the conclusion of the movie IS rushed, but the rest of it is so superbly executed that I'm prepared to overlook this. Of course not all of the implications of this bizarre scenario are investigated; how could they be in a 90-minute movie? I'd agree with the other IMDb reviewer, who remarked that OUR world is limned far less vividly than its doppelganger. But this is surely as it should be; after all, we KNOW our world.

The unanswered question that has nagged me every time I have seen the movie is: Where is the other Colin Trafford? Surely the arrogant, womanising drunk isn't on the loose in our world, wreaking havoc in the the domain of research physics? (I think we're meant to assume that he's temporarily inhabiting his double's comatose body in hospital.) What is highly ingenious, and could pass unnoticed, such is the subtlety of its handling, is the way in which, although we never actually see him, we infer from people's reactions exactly what sort of person the other Colin Trafford was. (I'm reminded of the scene in the original "Nutty Professor" in which Buddy Love is introduced; we see him, at first, entirely in terms of other people's reactions.)

We still seem to be too near to the 60s and 70s (psychologically if not chronologically) for people to overlook the now-quaint fashions. Come on, though! Even the 70s are thirty years ago now. We're not surprised to see people in Edwardian times, or the 1930s, dressed in radically different clothes. Why should it strike as odd (and funny) that people more than a generation ago inhabited a universe more different from ours than the one that physicist Colin Trafford finds himself in? Every time I read someone dismiss a movie because the fashions are dated I want to scream! Such a lack of historical perspective means that there's a very real danger that anyone much under 40 or so will not be able to observe the subtle, but very real, contrast between the "real" world in "Quest For Love", and its slightly more old-fashioned twin, and will thus miss out on an important layer of the movie's meaning.

The genre of SF romances is pretty slim, and well done ones even slimmer still. The only two that leap immediately to mind are "Quest For Love" and "Late For Dinner". They both rank among my favorite films. For the romantically inclined, both are also worth at least two hankies (one reason I never watch either with anyone other than my wife).

Joan Collins looks superb (as usual) and gives an excellent, understated performance (hardly usual!) Rather than her typical shrew or strumpet (I'm trying hard to avoid adjectives that would violate the guidelines), she is a genuinely warm and sympathetic character. Aside from the voodoo that transports the protagonist into a parallel universe, the SF aspects are well constructed and don't overwhelm what is, at its core, a touching love story. The parallel universe plot is a much more effective metaphor in this case than the typical time travel gimmick common to most "what if" films such as this.

The pacing could be better and the script could have benefitted from one more revision, but it's still quite satisfying overall.

P.S. Apparently, like "Late For Dinner", "Quest For Love" is currently out of print on home video. I therefore feel fortunate to have both (QFL on Beta and LFD on VHS), so there are real official copies in existence which a diligent search might turn up.

"Quest for love" came on local late night TV in Chicago a couple times in about 1977 and I've been looking for it ever since. Science fiction is far down the list of what I normally like but this one was special, probably because it was a relationship story that used a nearly believable SF conceit (parallel worlds) to create an absorbing dilemma. No aliens or spaceships, just an ordinary life that turns increasingly odd: a friend whose missing limb suddenly returns, a newspaper headline that says, "Kennedy elected to second term", and so on. It was intriguing for at least two reasons. One was Joan Collins, who is, well, stunning. Why anyone would cheat on her character is perhaps the film's greatest mystery. The other was that the parallel worlds idea takes a while to develop fully, and it drew me into the puzzle. I've not seen a parallel realities film since that I've liked as much. (By the way, I could swear there's a scene in "Back to the Future 2" where Doc is using a blackboard to explain this very concept to Marty, which is a lift from QFL.) In the end it's a film about a decent guy and his relationship problems; only, in his case, he's inherited them from his drunken, loutish other self.

An English Physicist (Tom Bell), testing an experimental nuclear accelerator, is transported across a parallel universe into a more peaceful but less technically advanced world. The staid physicist discovers that, in this world, he is a morally decadent playwright; and, more importantly, the physicist meets the woman of his dreams: his wife! (Joan Collins) The physicist immediately sets out to win back the affections of his wife; and, when he returns to our universe, to locate her again.

The performances are uniformly excellent. Joan Collins is one of the few actresses who plays "saints" and "vixens" with equal aplomb. Special kudos to Tom Bell for being convincingly "smitten" without being sappy.

Ironically, the film is least convincing in "our universe." The initial exposition is hurried, as are the closing sequences of the film. Considering the largely excellent writing (story credited to John Wyndham), the most likely explanation is a rushed shooting schedule, due to budget constraints. This is also apparent with the music, which seems to belong in a different movie.

The lack of special effects actually embellishes the story, until the physicist's "return." This occurs with no forshadowing, and seems more a plot device than an integral part of the tale. Effects would have gone a long way toward covering the holes in the story. (i.e., Why is a scientist so convinced what happened to him was real? Since HE was so different in the parallel world, why doesn't he fear SHE will be different?)

Still, with the imaginative writing and excellent performances make this worthy viewing, IF you can find it.