La fine dell'avventura

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.

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 . . .

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.

Van Johnson is good as the brooding Maurice Bendrix, and Deborah Kerr is marvelous in the challenging, nuanced role of Sarah Miles. Realistic flavor of WWII London, haunting music, excellent direction and performances combine to make this a memorable, mature film that invites multiple viewings.

I am indebted to Turner Classic Movies for televising this film today. I had not seen it. I am a great admirer of both the novel and the 1999 film version by Neil Jordan. I count it as one of the greatest love stories in literature.

Yes, Van Johnson is miscast as Maurice Bendrix. Still, he is a sincere actor and his work is good considering that Maurice has been "Americanized." I wasn't prepared for the devastating performance by Deborah Kerr. Sarah Miles is one of literature's greatest creations. The "saint" as "whore." Or is it the "whore" as "saint?" I found myself engrossed and deeply moved watching her. It only confirmed my belief that she was with Vivian Leigh one of the two best English actresses in cinema. I love Julianne Moore in the 1999 version and equally love Deborah Kerr in the 1954 version. Sarah Miles is such a great creation that it would be wonderful to see another filmed version and compare the work of three actresses.

Incidentally, "The End of the Affair" is one of those notable works of literature that went from the page to the screen to the opera house (Jake Heggie, composer -- commission by The Houston Grand Opera -- 2004.) I do like the treatment given to the other characters in the 1954 film version. We get to meet Smythe and the priest and Sarah's mother. In the Neil Jordan screenplay, Smythe and the priest are combined into one character, a Catholic priest named Smythe. Sarah's mother is omitted in that version. If I was disappointed in the 1954 version it has to do with the character of Smythe. His character has a horrible facial birthmark that Sarah kisses when she parts from him. In the novel we are told that the birthmark disappeared upon her death. We have no idea that this happens in the 1954 film version. In the 1999 film version, the birthmark is given to Lance, Parkis's son. Also, in the novel, Lance suffers from stomach disorders. We learn that he is cured of that upon Sarah's death. No mention is made of this disorder in the 1954 film version.

Henry Miles, the cuckold, is more tragically portrayed in the 1999 film version. I tip the scales in favor to Stephen Rea whose performance is so true to the gravity of Graham Greene's creation.

A great story of human and Divine love with Maurice and Henry fighting for possession of Sarah's soul and only God receives it.