Vivre un grand amour

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.

This is an astonishing artifact from 1955 -- astonishing because it is so grownup and sophisticated in its outlook, and because it grapples with moral complexities and ambiguities that English language films of this period never went near. An adulterous affair begun with a certain amount of cynicism on both sides grows into a true and passionate love affair, which in turn raises issues of guilt, trust, duty, self-denial and religious belief. As a story, it holds our interest and causes us to wonder where it will end. As a parable and philosophical meditation on belief and its role in love and contemporary life, it is both stimulating and unexpectedly moving.

That a novel as layered and difficult was attempted with major stars at this time is surprising enough. That THE END OF THE AFFAIR succeeds on so many levels seems miraculous, especially in the context of most mainstream film product of the mid-'50s.

Van Johnson is not as expressive or deep an actor as the excellent Deborah Kerr and Peter Cushing (and John Mills, Michael Goodliffe and Nora Swinburne) yet his character's relaxed masculinity, reluctant anguish and saturnine, rather malicious jealousy are well-conveyed, and he manages to be a presence you remain interested in. As Greene's Mary Magdalene character, the woman in whom the sacred and profane are mingled, Kerr is terrific in a complex role that is an interesting inversion of her promiscuous, childless woman in the far more famous and popular FROM HERE TO ETERNITY of just two years before. ETERNITY, done for Columbia, the same studio that released this, was far more shallow and conventional in the way it dealt with Kerr's Karen Holmes and her redemption. Just as shallow (and evasive) was TEA AND SYMPATHY, which Kerr did after this, and which received far more fame and attention than was merited.

This 1955 version of THE END OF THE AFFAIR deserves to be much better known and remembered, and all concerned deserve belated kudos for attempting such a provocative film in the midst of Hollywood's synthetic movies of the period. I saw this after recording it on TCM, and would like to see it scheduled in prime time, to perhaps begin to get the wider audience it deserves and to hear commentary from moderator Robert Osborn (for that matter, he ought to do one hour interviews with both Kerr and Johnson while they are still around).

Let the rediscovery and rehabilitation of this good film begin . . .

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.

This is the first version of the movie Neil Jordan remade in the late nineties.Based on a Graham Greene novel,it looks like a melodrama ( the chandelier scene is pure poetic melodrama) but with a strong metaphysical side.

The construction of the film is complex,showing the same events from two points of view.Sometimes you may lose the vital lead ,for a lot of important things are not necessarily on the screen.

If the movie is successful ,it's because of Deborah Kerr's extraordinary skills.She is sensational in her part of an unhappy woman,in search of something really worthwhile.Whereas Maurice (Van Johnson) is all passion and jealousy,her quest is much more demanding.

A lot of us have ,at least once in our lives,asked God for something.And if this wish comes true,is it proof positive that God exists?And if the person who prayed Him is an atheist?Does it mean that she has got to change her way of thinking? That she is indebted to Him?That's Sarah's moral dilemma ,lost between her love for Maurice and her moral concern,and trying to find her way ,helped by two men Father Crompton and Smythe.

Deborah Kerr's fans should watch this .

At the time,Edward Dmytryk had probably moral concern too.

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.