I understand what this movie tries to depict: ill-fated love. Two people meet by chance. They find passion. They must part (invitus invita, to take a Latin phrase from Suetonius). The movie almost succeeds. Almost. It leaves one aspect blank, one question unanswered. Why? Why does any of this happen? What is there in either of these characters to attract the other? The story provides no answer. She, Laura, is a bored housewife. The oomph has gone out of her marriage. I get it. Her husband is placid. He spends his evenings doing newspaper puzzles. Her kids annoy her; they are quarrelsome and, appropriately, immature. What she needs is a new man, a lover, someone exotic, someone full of excitement and, well, someone with oomph. In walks Alec Harvey. Is that what she sees in him? I sure don't. In fact, I don't see anything much at all in him. He's not terribly exotic. He's not terribly handsome. He's not terribly exciting. Now, if a darkly brooding Heathcliff or dashingly elegant Rhett Butler had walked into that railway restaurant ... that would be different. But he isn't Olivier and he isn't Gable. Animal magnetism, that isn't it. Maybe it's his mind, his scintillating conversation. He makes her think of faraway places and romantic adventures. Is that what sparkles irresistibly? Not that I can see. Altogether, he's a pretty dull dog, so far as their dialogue suggests, not much of an upgrade from the model she has at home. He talks about preventive medicine. She's mildly interested. They watch some B movies. Physically he's a reasonable but not an extraordinary specimen. (Can she really be so sex-starved?) Spiritually they don't seem to have much of anything in common. (They do share an enthusiasm for Donald Duck.) She reads novels. (He doesn't.) Otherwise, she's interested in - not much. I guess she likes Rachmaninoff. (Does he?)
So, what accounts for their infatuation? What is there that makes their hearts beat as one? What attracts her to him, and not just as a casual fling, but so desperately - after only four platonic Thursdays together - so desperately that she wants to commit suicide Anna Karenina style when he walks away? I don't know. What attracts him to her? I don't know. Well, yes. It's Celia Johnson. She had an arresting beauty. Is that it? Is he a wolf on the prowl? He walks away not so desperate. He's the one, notice, who initiates the liaison. He aggressively pursues a carnal consummation, appropriating a friend's apartment to facilitate the assignation. He walks away after that assignation fails. It would be nice to know why Alec is dissatisfied with his life and wife. Laura asks him about his domestic situation. All we learn is that his unseen wife is named Madeline, that she's petite and dark haired. What has Madeline done wrong? Has she done anything wrong? What incites him to cast his roving eye on attractive women in railway stations? He keeps his backstory obscure.
Two lonely people fall in love (let's give Alec the benefit of the doubt). We don't understand why their loneliness is so crushingly profound. How can we understand their love? I feel more deeply the yearning of Ernie Borgnine and Betsy Blair in "Marty;" they both are repressed, closeted people. Or Ronald Colman and Greer Garson in "Random Harvest;" memory-less, he is friendless; she feels for the lonely lost lamb. Or take another brief encounter, a truly heartbreaking brief encounter, Joan Fontaine and Louis Jourdan in "Letter from and Unknown Woman." There we understand the emotions. We understand her passion and his callowness. Here characters are barely sketched out. Motivations are unfathomable. Without character and understanding, the depth, the chemistry just isn't there. And that is the whole movie. There is no more. Still, despite all this, "Brief Encounter" is a memorable film. It does stick with you. It did leave me with an emotional tug. Why? For that there is only one answer: Celia Johnson. She is luminous, the expressiveness of her eyes, the sublimity of her smile, mesmerizing as the image dissolves at the end and the camera moves in on her face lost in reverie. She must have been tremendous on the stage. It's a shame she wasn't filmed more often. "Brief Encounter" is worth watching, for her. Her performance makes you overlook the weakness of the story. Almost.
So, what accounts for their infatuation? What is there that makes their hearts beat as one? What attracts her to him, and not just as a casual fling, but so desperately - after only four platonic Thursdays together - so desperately that she wants to commit suicide Anna Karenina style when he walks away? I don't know. What attracts him to her? I don't know. Well, yes. It's Celia Johnson. She had an arresting beauty. Is that it? Is he a wolf on the prowl? He walks away not so desperate. He's the one, notice, who initiates the liaison. He aggressively pursues a carnal consummation, appropriating a friend's apartment to facilitate the assignation. He walks away after that assignation fails. It would be nice to know why Alec is dissatisfied with his life and wife. Laura asks him about his domestic situation. All we learn is that his unseen wife is named Madeline, that she's petite and dark haired. What has Madeline done wrong? Has she done anything wrong? What incites him to cast his roving eye on attractive women in railway stations? He keeps his backstory obscure.
Two lonely people fall in love (let's give Alec the benefit of the doubt). We don't understand why their loneliness is so crushingly profound. How can we understand their love? I feel more deeply the yearning of Ernie Borgnine and Betsy Blair in "Marty;" they both are repressed, closeted people. Or Ronald Colman and Greer Garson in "Random Harvest;" memory-less, he is friendless; she feels for the lonely lost lamb. Or take another brief encounter, a truly heartbreaking brief encounter, Joan Fontaine and Louis Jourdan in "Letter from and Unknown Woman." There we understand the emotions. We understand her passion and his callowness. Here characters are barely sketched out. Motivations are unfathomable. Without character and understanding, the depth, the chemistry just isn't there. And that is the whole movie. There is no more. Still, despite all this, "Brief Encounter" is a memorable film. It does stick with you. It did leave me with an emotional tug. Why? For that there is only one answer: Celia Johnson. She is luminous, the expressiveness of her eyes, the sublimity of her smile, mesmerizing as the image dissolves at the end and the camera moves in on her face lost in reverie. She must have been tremendous on the stage. It's a shame she wasn't filmed more often. "Brief Encounter" is worth watching, for her. Her performance makes you overlook the weakness of the story. Almost.