The End of the Affair

Ralph Fiennes stars as Maurice Bendrix, a British writer living in 1940's London, who has an affair with Sarah Miles (Julianne Moore), the wife of Maurice's friend, Henry (Stephen Rea). Based on a Graham Greene novel, the film achieves far greater intellectual and emotional depth than this skeletal outline would indicate. Part of the success rests in the fact that both the original author and the adapter, writer/director Neil Jordan, have devised a multi-level scenario that utilizes a number of narrative techniques as the means of revealing crucial information to the audience regarding both the plot and the characters. For instance, the film travels fluidly back and forth in time, spanning the decade of the 1940's, from the initial meeting between Bendrix and Sarah in 1939, through the horrendous bombings of London during World War II to the "present" time of the post-war British world. This allows the authors to reveal the details of the affair slowly, enhanced by the even more striking technique of having the events viewed from the entirely different viewpoints of the two main characters involved. "Rashomon" - like, we first see the affair through the prism of Bendrix's limited perspective, only to discover, after he has confiscated Sarah's diary, that he (and consequently we) have been utterly mistaken as to the personal attributes and moral quality of Sarah all along. Thus, as an added irony, Bendrix discovers that he has been obsessing over a woman he "loves" but, in reality, knows little about.

The authors also enhance the depth of the story through their examination of TWO men struggling with their overwhelming jealousy for the same woman and the complex interrelationships that are set up as a result. In fact, the chief distinction of this film is the way it manages to lay bare the souls of all three of these fascinating characters, making them complex, enigmatic and three-dimensional human beings with which, in their universality, we can all identify. Bendrix struggles with his raging romantic passions, his obsessive jealousy for the woman he can't possess and his lack of belief in God, the last of which faces its ultimate challenge at the end. Sarah struggles with the lack of passion she finds in the man she has married but cannot love as more than a friend, juxtaposed to the intense love she feels for this man she knows she can never fully have. In addition, she finds herself strangely faithful, if not to the two men in her life, at least to two crucial commitments (one to her wedding vows and one to God) yet unable to fully understand why. Henry struggles with his inadequacies as a lover and the strange possessiveness that nevertheless holds sway over him. Even the minor characters are fascinating. Particularly intriguing is the private investigator who becomes strangely enmeshed in the entire business as both Bendrix and Henry set him out to record Sarah's activities and whereabouts, a man full of compassion for the people whom he is, by the nature of his profession, supposed to view from a position of coldhearted objectivity. (One plot flaw does, however, show up here: why would this man, whose job it is to spy on unsuspecting people for his clients, employ a boy to help him who sports a very distinctive birthmark on one side of his face?).

"The End of the Affair" would not be the noteworthy triumph it is without the stellar, subtly nuanced performances of its three main stars. In addition, as director, Jordan, especially in the second half, achieves a lyricism rare in modern filmmaking. Through a fluidly gliding camera and a mesmerizing musical score, Jordan lifts the film almost to the level of cinematic poetry; we sit transfixed by the emotional richness and romantic purity of the experience. "The End of the Affair" takes its place alongside "Brief Encounter" and "Two For the Road" as one of the very best studies of a romantic relationship ever put on film.


Dilution of the Miraculous   May 20, 2000
Joel M Sax (Trabuco Canyon, CA USA)
28 out of 37 found this review helpful

Graham Greene's The End of the Affair has been for many years one of my very favorite books, so I was excited when I heard that it had been made into a movie. Hollywood, however, in recent years despises anti-heroes and could not bring itself to make a villain out of Morris, played by Ralph Fiennes, as had Greene. It also diminished the impact of the miraculous that the book brought to the reader, that obvious sense of God's presence and love that Morris so firmly rejected even when it saved his life.

This is not to say that this isn't a watchable film: it is only in the last minutes that the film destroys the beauty of Greene's original vision. Fiennes, Moore, and Stephen Lea play their parts very capably: Lea, in particular, acts very capably as the dull, but kind Henry Miles.

But as I noted before, the film removes Greene's ironic ending by making Morris too good. In the novel, Morris (who is also the narrator) is the Seducer who can see only evil in the world. Sarah Miles, on the other hand, often sees selflessness when Morris believes himself to be selfish. When his own life is saved by apparent divine intervention, Morris will not see the miracle nor does he appreciate the sacrifice that Sarah has made on his behalf. Following Sarah's death, Morris is faced with what is for him a very frustrating manifestation of God's presence in the reappearance of the once sinful Sarah as a saint who cures the sick! He continues to reject God, however. In the end, frustrated and alone, he admits that God exists and declares his hatred. "Leave me alone forever." The reader is left with the clear feeling that the joke is on Morris.

The movie softens the case against Morris. It has him bringing glasses of warm milk to the bedside of the cuckolded husband. He prays that Henry and Sarah be taken care of by God "but leave me alone forever". One gets the feeling that the producers/directors/actors had some of the following motives in mind:

* To not make Ralph Fiennes into a villain

* To avoid making a film which would be critical of people who fell in love with married people

* To avoid making a film which in any way might make Catholic teachings palatable. (For the record, I am agnostic.)

* To have a happier Hollywood ending than the book had had.

I ended my viewing of the film feeling that I had just seen a remake of The English Patient with a kinder husband and a slightly less sluttish wife. If I could change the last ten minutes of the film and return to it the sense of Greene's irony, I could give it a full five stars. I had to ask "How truly did this represent Greene?" And the answer was "Not very well." Perhaps those who have not read and loved Greene will feel better about this film. It is, without that comparison, an ably acted and filmed love story, if conventional in its treatment of adulterous lovers.

To quote Greene speaking through Morris: "That's not what I wrote!"


A Bibilical Love Triangle   April 13, 2000
Mostafa Hefny (Cairo, Egypt)
18 out of 22 found this review helpful

The End of The Affair is not a love triangle of lovers and jealous husband but one where the third participant is God. For the husband in this movie is not in need of a lover as much as a companion to ease the loneliness of his life.

Throughout this film God will court Sarah(Julianne Moore) as vigoursly, cruely and unrelentingly as any lover might. In fact you could argue that its the idea of God, and not the Almighty himself that fuels the Catholic guilt of these lover and particularly Sarah who unlike Bendrix still believes in him.

This is Neil Jordans best film since the great The Crying Game 1992. It is a masterpiece of structure where some scenes are played over again after we have learned new information, and while we may have shared the cynical viewpoint of Muarice Bendrix the first time we see these scenes played out, when we see them again, we like the Bendrix share in the guilt. Indeed this film is first and foremost about guilt. All the colors in the film are variations on green and brown, creating a mood as morose as our lead characers.

There are scenes of deeply erotic lovemaking. All the more erotic because of the guilt the lovers feel. I've always felt there was somehow a link between sex and religion beyond the fact that most religions consider it a sin. Sex is simaltanously filthy and the purest of things, and that I think is why most Religions adhere to a rigid stance on it, so that they can maintain a clear black and white standard of right and wrong, to attract simpltons into the fold.

I have not been so moved by a film since Terrance Malicks The Thin Red Line and although I thought I'd never use this word in one of these Amazon reviews, but at times this film is simply "devestating".

A cynic looking at this film might find it completely contrived, as events flow almost mercilessly to the film's shattering end. But anyone who can resist the site of a limping Ralph Fiennes chasing the carriage of Julianne Moore in the rain to Michael Nymann's magnifecent score must indeed have a cold heart.

I wouldn't dare spoil the ending except to say that I don't agree with the faith regained at the end of this film. I would never have been so forgiving.


my review   May 22, 2000
Ana Maria Barrenechea (Westboro, Ma United States)
15 out of 16 found this review helpful

This movie is about a love story, told to the audience through the eyes of the lover, Maurice Bendrix (played by Ralph Fiennes). Sarah, (played by Julianne Moore) is the loved one and Henri (played by Stephen Rea) is the husband.

It is true that for the first 40 minutes of this movie you sense that his is nothing else but a jealous's lovers account of their affair, and you start to wonder how it ended. The movie takes shape when you finally understand the reason for the breakup, and how Maurice reacts.

It is finally a great love story in all sense.

The movie tends to be dark but it is never slow. It moves along at a good speed so you can understand the different emotions all characters are feeling and why they act in a special way.

I tryly loved this movie. The sets and costumes and colors used all blend together to maket a very beautiful story. The actors are exceptional and not for one minute do you think they are not right for their roles.

Very good movie, excelent.


Disappointing!   August 24, 2004
Juanita Raman (Chicago)
13 out of 18 found this review helpful

Prepared as I was to adore the remake of the 1955 version (in which the lover is, for some unfathomable reason, an American reporter rather than an English government functionary), I was crushingly disappointed with the remake. Grahame Greene's whole premise was distorted by having the Julianne Moore character meet secretly with a priest to help her resist the temptation to return to her lover.

Greene's story is of a woman, baptized but not a practicing Roman Catholic, who seeks counsel from an atheist in order to convince herself that her vow (to end her affair if her lover's life is spared) is of no worth. Her eventual loss of the will to live is directly related to her inability to divest herself of her conviction that she must never again see the man she loves. The implication is that her baptism "took." Despite her not consciously adhering to Christian tenets and her wishing to justify ignoring her vow, she is somehow compelled against her will to keep it.

Disrespecting the author's intent insults the intelligence of the audience. Did the producers see viewers as incapable of comprehending how convoluted such rationalization can become? Or did they themselves fail to understand what it is to have a deep conflict of conscience? The irony of the story is utterly lost in translation! Tsk. Tsk.

O Deborah Kerr and Van Johnson, come back. All is forgiven.