|
The
setting is 1930's England, and Laura (Celia Johnson)
often uses a train to travel recreationally or as part
of her duties as a housewife. While waiting at a station
she has a chance encounter with a man named Alec. This
meeting only lasts about a minute however and they go
their separate ways. Eventually they meet each other
again thanks to their regular use of the trains. They
talk for a few minutes and then depart, but not before
agreeing to meet again. Eventually romance begins to
take over, which is a significant problem for both of
them since they are married with children in a society
that is not permissive of adulterous relationships.
The
romance between Alec and Laura is compelling, which
is why the film works, but stark realism is not achieved.
Particularly problematic are their attempts at kissing,
which come off as stiff and unconvincing, although this
seems to be standard for films from this era. Instead
of slowly moving in for the kiss, Alec pounces on her
with a jerky forward motion of his head. It is like
he is trying prevent her from having time to turn her
head away, but I don't think that is what Lean was intending.
Not helping matters is her tendency to keep perfect
posture as she kisses. I guess I'd better stop now before
this review becomes Kissing 101.
Perhaps
I am overly optimistic, but this film must have broken
up several discontented marriages. Why should a woman
stay in a relationship when her husband is a dullard
who prefers crossword puzzles to her? Especially when
the forbidden fruit is a doctor who is so enamored by
her that he breaks out into a run at first sight of
her. Surely society mores are not more important than
one's happiness? But this was 1930s England, back when
social standing was everything. Perhaps it was so ingrained
in their culture that if the choice was being an outcast
in love and having a "right and proper" life,
the choice would invariably be the latter. Today the
English seem to have thrown the "right and proper"
standard right out the window, if the royal family is
any indication.
David
Lean (LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI)
wrote and directed BRIEF ENCOUNTER, but it is Noel Coward's
name that appears above the title, in addition to a
producer credit that appears after Lean's credit in
an unusual reversal of order. This seems like a slap
in the face, regardless of who is directing the film.
The fact that Lean would become one of the best known
directors makes it even more ridiculous. Coward obviously
had a lot to do with the success of the film, being
both producer and one of the writers. But it is Lean's
expert direction that elicits excellent performances
while keeping the film from suffering from the staginess
that often plagues films adapted from plays. He also
keeps the film from being overly burdened by pretentiousness
and sappiness. As is mentioned on the commentary track,
Lean had a bright future ahead, while Coward's best
work was behind him.
Surprisingly,
this un-Hollywood film garnered Academy Award nominations
for director, actress, and screenplay. Had 1946 not
been a big year for weepy films (THE BEST YEARS OF OUR
LIVES, IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE, etc.) BRIEF ENCOUNTER
might have actually won some awards. Had Coward and
Lean wanted to be even more ambitious they could have
mixed in Alec's viewpoint, thus enabling us to see his
relationship with his wife. We know what has gone wrong
between Laura and her husband, but Alec's relationship
with his wife is never revealed. I'm not sure if this
movie would have been as effective if they had shown
this other relationship, but nonetheless it must have
been a consideration as they were planning the film.
(By
the way, do not be fooled by the last scene. It does
not change anything, and it was probably included only
to appease the censors. Another Alec is bound to come
along eventually.)
Video: How Does The Disc Look?
Some
shimmer and a frequently flickering brightness level
are the only major defects in the image. Detail is excellent,
as are contrast and black level. This film was restored
and looks it. A restoration demonstration is provided
as a supplement, and it shows why specks and other clutter
are rare.
Audio: How Does the Disc Sound?
Background
noise is present, but rarely is it distracting. The
dialogue and music (Rachmaninoff) sound so full and
natural that the noise is negligible. In fact this is
one of the best mono tracks I have heard from a film
this old.
Supplements: What Goodies Are There? First
off, the included theatrical trailer tries to
attract the attention of mainstream audiences with adjectives
flashed across the screen while a narrator tries to
explain the film. It is not something I'll look at again.
More rewarding is a liner essay by Adrian Turner
that contains some interesting musings on the film.
The
one supplement you will not want to pass up is the Bruce
Eder screen-specific audio commentary. Eder has
done several other commentary tracks for Criterion,
all of which indicate he is well researched, as he should
be since he is a film historian. His discussion ranges
from Lean's use of diagetic music to summaries of the
biographies of Lean and Coward. The most striking observation
that Eder makes concerns a continuity error. It is a
glaring error, made all the more surprising since Lean
had previously served as editor on many films. If you
have not seen the film yet, then watch it before reading
any further, because there is a chance that you will
be unable to spot the error the first time you watch
the film. Eder argues that the scene is unnecessary,
although I think the scene is important because it helps
to establish that the adulterous relationship is not
acceptable in that society, not even to a male friend
of the doctor. Lean could have had Laura eavesdropping
outside the door during this discussion to make it fit
with the rest of the film, but for some reason he did
not.
Parting Thoughts
BRIEF
ENCOUNTER is one of the great love stories, and Criterion
has dutifully rewarded it with a quality DVD release.
Recommended.
|
