La fine dell'avventura

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.