I believe, given the few films that truly gave her good roles that Margaret Johnston was one of the finest actors of the 20th C, and it is saddening that she left acting so soon, partly perhaps of the inferior roles she was often given. ' Portrait of Clare ' is certainly in the best category, and every time I see it, I enjoy it and along with the delightful ' Touch and Go ' I am impatient to see her and the films again. So why was she so excellent on the screen? Hard to define, but her timing is perfect, and she never faltered in giving a good performance even in material not worthy of her. She was beautiful, and one look of her eyes said more than pages of dialogue. A perfect example of acting with her eyes is in the last scene of ' Touch and Go. ' But to return to ' Portrait of Clare ' she is onscreen most of the time. The story is a little formulaic, examining the three loves in a woman's life and I will not relate the plot as it has been dealt with by other reviewers here quite adequately. The directing is good and so are the group of actors around her, and Jeremy Spenser is exceptionally good as her only child Stephen when he was a boy. It is a quiet film, and like ' Touch and Go ' does not depend on sensationalism that then and now feeds an audience's appetite. I believe we often cast our own needs upon what we see on film, rather than respecting what is actually there. A well-deserved ten.
