Goodbye Again
May. 23,1961Middle-aged businesswoman Paula Tessier resists the advances of Philip Van der Besh, the 24-year-old son of one of her clients. But when her longtime paramour, Roger Demarest, begins yet another casual affair with a younger woman, Paula decides that two can play that game. However, it seems that society looks differently at May-December romances when the woman is the older partner.
Similar titles
You May Also Like
Reviews
Good , But It Is Overrated By Some
Excellent but underrated film
Wow! What a bizarre film! Unfortunately the few funny moments there were were quite overshadowed by it's completely weird and random vibe throughout.
Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.
Part way through I found myself wondering why I was still watching the movie. It was nice to see Ingrid Bergman 20 years after making Casablanca, but I just couldn't care that much about her dilemma in this film.One major detraction is Anthony Perkins. He has no business being in this film. I know he belongs in 'Psycho', but I don't think he's a fit as Bergman's younger lover.What's great though is the many outdoor shots of Paris in the 60's. The automobiles. Wow! Really great street scenes, night shots of Paris, and again, those goofy looking cars.And then there's that knockout Jocelyn Lane. She's doesn't last the duration of the film however, and that's really too bad.So in essence I'm recommending the first third of this film.
I feel like I have split personality after watching this film. Usually I immediately know how I feel towards a film - sometimes early on as I'm watching, but definitely by the conclusion. But this one leaves me unsure of how I feel. One thing I know for sure is Ingrid's performance is stellar as usual. She is so believable and honest in her emotions.But Perkins is a little squirrelly to me. Like other viewers, I have a hard time seeing Ingrid's character falling for such a immature excuse for a man. Perhaps the only explanation is that her esteem is so wounded, and Perkins so lavish in his affection, admiration and even worship of her, that she can't help but turn to Perkins. I don't know.I hate that she goes back to that cad played by Yves Montand. Its so obvious that a tiger can't change its stripes.What I don't understand, is I read how many viewers were moved to tears. I will readily admit that I'm usually easily moved to tears with a good tear-jerker. But this movie didn't even come close. So I'm still left wondering - what did I miss?
Came in on this 30 minutes late yesterday, with no adolescent experience from yesteryear to back reference, I found it amazingly sappy, and inexplicably magnetic. I couldn't believe I would watch the rest, but did! Perhaps it's Paris, perhaps it's Bergman's effortless magnetism. It's not that she's so lovely or desirable--it's that she's so honest.An actress of this much grace is worthy of something more useful than the milksop of Anthony Perkins as Philip. Sure, he's supposed to be dense, naive and a mama's-boy. And at this point in time Perkins was being worked as a leading man he never became. For good reason. There's no substantive distinction between this role and his role in Psycho. Opaque. His smile/smirk frozen, false and inscrutable. In initial courting he really does come off more oppressive and menacing than lovelorn. The "light switch" scene: I'm not sure if he's going to kiss her or kill her.Oh, if only they had cast a believable actor. The scenes where he stops going to work have no veracity at all. He is a wooden marionette. Montand does his Montand thing but it's direct and simple anyway. No significant hopeful would have taken the second role of dumpee, but if Philip had been played by a young Redford-type this movie could have been much more.I've loved that Brahms piece for years so it was amazing to hear it singled out with such fury as a plot element, and the continual thematic variations in the background. A bit heavy- handed but appreciated.Many of the last few scenes are just delicious. The "viewed-from across the floor" scene during Philips resignation celebration was completely believable, despite it's melodrama. And that hang-dog look that Bergman gets--who could guess she could wear that kabuki mask believably!?The real gems are all in the last 15 minutes. The ending itself is stunningly modern for the tone of this movie. Honest and direct and unflinching. I had heard of the make-up removal scene before but it was beautiful to watch.
As I was watching the opening credits of this movie I was musing that I hate Yves Montand. I don't have any reason to hate him, really. I just do. He could be in a wonderful role like he had in "On a Clear Day", but I hate him just the same. And I love Ingrid Bergman. All of her past roles and just the way she is. She could just sit and stare at the camera for 2 hours and I would enjoy it. Same with Cary Grant. I hated Montand all the more when I thought how much better of a movie it would have been (for me anyway) if Grant had that role. I say all that because that's what the movie is really about.Montand's character should be perfect for Bergman's character, and appreciate her. Instead (happily for me) he plays a hateful, two-timing, immature ass. Bergman's 40-year-old character has no business with the 25-year-old Perkins character (which is wonderful acting on both their parts) but (at least for his sake) you want them to be together. "C'est la vie!" It would be nice if this film were in color. It would be nice if Life had that clarity, too: Love this one, this person's the one for you, no doubts, no shadows. But neither are like that. So it's somehow appropriate to examine the subject of attraction in shades of gray. Goodbye again...A challenge to examine your own attractions, the masks in your life that may slip from time to time as Montand's mask slips on the wall at one point. (There's even some subtle, though perhaps unintended humor, as the mother asks Montand's character his astrological sign and exclaims, "Taurus, the bull! I should have known!") You don't watch this movie because it's fun. And it's no fun to find yourself wishing Montand's character and Bergman's character were back together when Bergman's character becomes Perkins' character's mother figure. And you realize that it's Bergman's character that's the dishonest one...She goes with the status quo and what's safe and easiest for herself. No it's no fun to watch. But it's all so well crafted that you can't turn away. Maybe like those relationships that you somehow need to have, even though you don't know why.I recommend this film but only if you're ready to be affected in ways you didn't expect to be...like the chill you will feel in your stomach at the end.You know...I hate Ingrid Bergman...And that Montand is quite an actor.