Simply Perfect

Pretty Good

Memorable, crazy movie

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

During WW2, Deborah Kerr falls in love with a soldier. The only trouble is, she's already married to Peter Cushing, and her husband is friends with her lover, Van Johnson. As evident by the title, Deborah and Van's love affair ends, but the question remains as to why. This film was remade in 1999, but I prefer the original version, since I find Deborah Kerr more likable than Julianne Moore. Also, even though John Mills isn't the lead in the 1955 version, he classes up any movie he's in, so that's also a bonus to watching the original. I won't spoil the plot and tell you the reason behind The End of the Affair, but I will say the film focuses on a range of emotions that coincide with infidelity: guilt, resentment, hope, and fear. There's also a strong religious element to the film, one that really makes you think after the movie's over. In a way, it's more of a thoughtful film than a romance. While this isn't a very good choice to watch with your sweetie pie, feel free to watch it by yourself and think about what really matters in life.

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.

I noticed in this film Van Johnson's voice has started to obtain gravel. Previously he just had a kind of whiny snide voice (Best example of this is in the 1948? 49? film "Battleground") I will always love Deborah Kerr, from my POV she can never do any wrong. It is all the better when she was handed a good script and a good director.I would classify this as one of the better scripts. This film is almost like a comedy of errors, instead it is a tragedy of errors. Actually it is quite a sad movie, I would have to read the original book that this was based upon.What attracted me to this film, are the spiritual aspects. If this film were to be remade today, and I see it was remade in 1999, I wonder how much of the spirituality would remain? I have yet to see the newer version. This film is a quest into the reason behind Faith. I can't explain it, but this film makes a lot of sense. Mrs Miles questions to the priest, to the atheist, and to God are all valid.Most people will see this film and will only consider the "affair" between Johnson's character and Kerr's... But that is not what this film is about at all: The affair is just a device author Graham Greene used to tell a story about Faith: What it means to have, and what is expected of us who have it.Of course this film has its melodramatic aspects. Also it has Peter Cushing, who is not chasing vampire Christopher Lee for once.The only weak things in this film are the confrontations between Van Johnson and Cushing- If I were Cushing and I had a wife that looked like Kerr I would have punched Johnson in the nose. But maybe the weakness of the encounters were to display that Cushing really did not care about his wife, being more interested in becoming a Lord or some important personage.

Spoilers herein.I am particularly fond of films that have an `ordinary' incarnation and are then remade in an extraordinary way.The `Psycho' remake was nearly identical to the original but where the original was about fiction referencing life, the second could add another layer by referencing the first film's fiction.In this film, we have a more extraordinary phenomenon in the remake. This original is in the tradition of the time: a filmed stage play overlain with noir features. Those noir elements are humans trapped by fate and an intermediate position of the character (here both main characters) between audience and character as off screen narrator. In this original, the all-important diary is just part of that narration.The acting is also of the teapot variety, made obsolete several years before by `Streetcar.' Johnson and Kerr's careers would plummet as a result.The 1999 remake is an entirely different beast, one more like what Greene intended. This book was written during the filming of `Third Man.' That film's intent was changed by Orson Welles and how he approached it. The discussions between Welles and Graham on reflexive narrative were translated directly into this book.Where the first film is about people and issues of passion versus faith, the second is about the fabrication of fiction. It is a story about a writer writing itself. Within that story is a woman writing her own narrative (which Bendrix reads toward the end). Within THAT story is wonder about how much of both stories are being written by the grand narrator, here played by God... the well known narrative structure of the `rule of threes,' recreated best in film in `2001,' which borrows from this.Inserted are shifting observers beyond the 3 writers as observers, again by the rule of threes: the priest, husband and detective. The detective references the original of this type of literature with Lancelot, whose tale of the archetypical triangle is written -- and possibly fabricated -- by the god-writer Merlin.You can't get a better concentrated lesson in modern film than seeing these back to back.In the modern one, Julianne Moore supports the layering, just as she did in the `Psycho' remake, and the famous layered `Vanya.' The modern one wisely combines the priest and atheist and introduces the famous ashtray. Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.