The End of the Affair

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 . . .

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 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.

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.

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.