Armand it is the beauty of inspired meeting. the novel , the director and the actors. the dialogs and something sad and graceful and melancholic. and almost unique. a film about love and about the search of sense for love in a manner who reflects great talent of actors and the precision of the work of director. a film who is not exactly great but beautiful at all. seductive scene by scene, fragile and mysterious in a special form. a film who reminds basic searches and desires. in the best style. the presence of Sagan 's words is one of its fundamental virtues. because it is adaptation of a good novel. who, in the Litvak's science of detail reflects new, fascinating nuances.

filmalamosa A triangle occurs in 1961 Paris when Bergman 45 is pursued by Anthony Perkins 29. Bergman allows things to happen only because her partner Yves Montand 40 is unfaithful.I was amused to see other reviewers reflect what I feel about Perkins. He was being groomed to be a leading man after his fame in Psycho. In 2 years he makes a film with first Bergman then Loren and finally the bottom of the barrel Mercouri. The problem with Perkins other than his Psycho association is he is sexless and looks like a scare crow. Plus his facial expressions are unappealing and he wears too much mascara----did I mention? he is also he is far far too skinny and waif like. In fact what is appealing about him? Almost zero.He is anything but a leading man and these sexy strong women make it all the more obvious that he is miscast. He is destined in life to make things like Psycho IV.One more thing why do the French love ugly actors (Depardieu Montand). I am sorry Yves Montand was not handsome he needed a chin implant to start. This movie is worth watching for Bergman's performance only that saved it for me.

PoeMonroe All three characters are distinct in their expression and pursuit of "being loved." We have all encountered a Roger - cool, indifferent, the free spirit that cannot be tamed, and furthermore, does not WANT to be tamed. Yet he cannot be alone. We all have personally experienced the terrifying moment in our lives of becoming a man/woman over night. Phillip is clearly not prepared to emerge from his childhood of security and entitlement, his choices always having been guided by a mother, or the underlying norms of his social circle. The daunting task of assuming his own identity leads him to attach his self to Paula, forming a classic example of codependency. His choice for an older woman is his way of prolonging the actuality of having to develop his own identity, his own path. For example, when Paula goes to work his day consists of nothing but finding things to do to kill time until she is back to entertain him. It is as if without her presence he is on the "pause button," and only resumes life on her cue. Paula, however, sees this as is not pleased. Paula is the most interesting character, because her feelings and behavior in this film are so diverse that just when we think it is apparent how she is feeling she does something that questions our previous assumption. Roger is the classic ladies' man, his stance staunch against the wind. Phillip is the typical tragedy that happens to a boy who has been given everything, yet has never asked for anything. These two men are simply unilateral characters framing the abstract piece that is Paula. Does she really want Roger to commit to her? We think the obvious answer is yes, but then we see her with young Phillip - we see her with this sexual energy and freedom that she cannot suppress, and we wonder whether Phillip is simply an outlet for her emotional frustrations with Roger or whether he is not actually a venue for her to express her own longings for excitement, trysts and desires. Yet we learn more from the scene in the bedroom, with the single shot of Paula lying in bed after (we assume) Paula and Phillip have shared an intimate moment. Her facial expression tells us she has reservations about leading this lifestyle; she knows it will not work. It is almost as if in that moment, watching Paula's facial expression, we are swept back to a time when we ourselves were caught in a relationship, or an act, that we knew were were going to regret later, but could not stop ourselves in the moment. Diane Lane's subway scene in "Unfaithful" draws many similarities to Ingrid Bergman's bedroom scene. Another scene where Paula bears her emotions, yet reluctantly, is when she is having lunch with Roger after he has just returned from his 10 day trip. She reveals to him that her friendship with Phillip has become more serious. She tells him this not for honesty, nor to inform him that she is moving on, yet she tells him this to see his reaction. This is a pitiful scene. When Paula complains that she always has to hear about his girls, he says something along the lines of that at least his is normal. In other words, he has called Paula a joke. There is a beat, and we feel the impact that she feels. As she stumbles away from the table we see exactly how vulnerable she is, how insecure she actually is about her age. We don't want to, but we feel sorry for her. We feel pity for her because there are moments when she is with Phillip when she appears truly happy, and yet the stigma attached to the relationship causes just as much misery. However, in the end, when we learn that she will never find that true happiness (with love), we are hesitant to feel that same sympathy for her. Is it because she pursued a love that she knew she would have to share? Or is it because she sacrificed the only love that ever really made her feel happy, and young?

arieliondotcom 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.