Goodbye Again (1961) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
39 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Ingrid's Performance Adorns Landmark Feminist Soap
Pem-312 September 1998
For better or worse, the book on which this film is based, Francoise Sagan's highly-touted French best seller, "Aimez-vous Brahms?" was a key document in the early 60's feminist awakening, depicting as it does a horrendous case study of gallic male chauvinism toward an intelligent and faithful woman. Despite the obvious soapiness of the plot, Bergman makes the movie version credible. Her soulful eyes and sad little smile enhance a lovable portrayal of the heroine Paula. Few other actresses of the time had the presence and skill to bring this off -- allowing us to fathom the almost tragic depth of the jejeune Phillip's fascination with a gorgeous "older woman" while avoiding the appearance of silliness which might have, but does not, taint Paula's irrational loyalty to Roger. In short, Ingrid probably set the standard for the many subsequent portrayals of more successful independent yet loving women. The rest of the cast helps too -- Montand's magnetism makes Paula's continuing love for the cad almost believable and, for once, Anthony Perkins' stereotypical "spoiled rich boy " portrayal is right on target and his infatuation convincing.
50 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I love this film!
mary-13527 September 2003
I've only just read the other comments on this beautiful film. I first saw it on its release in 1961 - and nearly spent a whole week of evenings at the cinema.I was 16 I'd become a fan of Ingrid Bergman two years before this, on seeing her in "The Inn of the Sixth Happiness, which was her best film [in my opinion!]. Also then saw and loved "Indiscreet", but was bowled over by her next film -"Goodbye Again". I wish they had kept the original French title: "Aimez-Vous Brahms?". It evokes the atmosphere and meaning of the film and you don't have to be fluent in French to understand it - so why change it? Once again, Ingrid hardly seemed to be acting - she just swept you along with her character, Paula. Some people said that the film didn't work because Ingrid was 45 at the time, supposed to be 40 and looked younger. True! Her make-up artist, John O'Gorman, had to put in a suggestion of dark circles under her eyes and lines on her neck, in order to make her seem 40! All through the film I felt so much for the character of Philip [Tony Perkins], because you could understand why he fell totally in love with Ingrid . You also wondered if Roger [Yves Montand] was out of his mind, drifting around from girl to girl, when he had the most beautiful woman in the world. This was another reason why some people thought the story didn't work. But I don't care - I'll always love it! Ingrid never acts, she just IS her characters, and she always cries "for real". That's why there has never been anyone like her and there never will be. This film should be issued on DVD [as I have already suggested for "A Walk in the Spring Rain" ]. Owning the video is all right, but it deserves to be preserved for future generations on DVD, so that they can see what a GOOD film really is!!!! Mary
44 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Should Be Mandatory Viewing For Girls Coming of Age
amplexuslotus9 March 2007
Wow! what a film! I cannot believe I never saw this movie until this evening.

Great performances by all. The script is perfect in my opinion. The cinematography by Armand Thirard is simply beautiful; giving a real Parisian early 60's Be-Bop nuance. Auric's film score is great. Ingrid is in excellent acting form & stunning. Yves plays his character very close to the vest which is exactly how this kind of personality needs to be played. Diahann Carroll is so beautiful & cool as the nightclub singer. Jessie Royce Landis is wonderful as Perkins' mother. I've only seen Anthony Perkins in 3 other films & he in my opinion is always excellent. He was obviously a very intuitive actor & so very gorgeous & I think his incredible looks may have hampered others from seeing his incredible acting talents.

What else can I say without giving away this magnificent story? A must see for all young girls. The ending scene is so moving I couldn't even cry although I understand why so many other viewers wrote that this is a movie where you need to have plenty of tissues handy. It was a shocking film for me to watch on so many levels because it offered exactly what you expected & then it didn't - too true to life in a most poignant way. Heart wrenching - a definite must see.
33 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I love it and hate it!?
PudgyPandaMan5 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
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?
8 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
nycgrl728 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I absolutely loved Anthony Perkins in this film! To see him smile and be so charismatic and sneaky none of the eerie, psychotic Norman Bates and I welcomed this departure. Some have posted that Anthony Perkins was too skinny to play the role. What the hell does that even mean? We can all relate to having fallen for someone who was "not what we want" and there is noting wrong with that! By the way it is completely believable that Ingrid's character would be intrigued by him. His youth, his brazen attitude, openness and desire for this older woman. Oh and what of the lovely Ingrid Bergman. Need I say more? The woman is fantastic. Yves Montand is sexy and awful at the same time. A great performance. There were some lovely supporting roles throughout the film. And the back drop of France makes this a beautiful film visually. I feel this is a great film to see.
15 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not your typical romance
solojones13 December 2002
I do agree that the film was a little too long, but I still loved it. I had fully expected this film to end happily. I was heartbroken when it didn't come out the way I had pictured it. But, that's a good thing. The point of this movie isn't to show a picturesque life, it's to give a glimpse at what one could be like.

I liked some of the running themes in the movie. The "mask" theme was pretty easy to pick up on, yet it worked. The full circle the movie does from the beginning to the very end is great, too. But still, so sad. Worthy of a good cry.

The cast is all fine, but I believe Tony Perkins steals all his scenes. As Phillip, he does play many different parts. But he manages to be sincere in all of them. He did a splendid job, and I laughed heartily at many of his little "play-acting" bits. Tony proved in several movies that he is not Norman Bates; it's just a shame too few people realized it during his lifetime.
29 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Fine Production
adamshl25 August 2008
Francoise Sagan apparently wrote about people and personalities with whom she was familiar and had a talent for depicting them very well. It always seemed to be about upper class, shallow, and confused types, revolving on a no-win merry-go-round.

There are certainly are such people, and their relationships are as much worthy of consideration, empathy and sympathy as anyone's. The main trio in "Goodbye Again" are very much these prototypes: confused, bored and trapped. Is it any wonder they just can't seem to get their lives together?

For me, this is a sad film, given superlative treatment in all departments. Brahms' rich melodies are embroidered by George Auric's sensitive original score. Armond Thirard's black and white photography is beautifully atmospheric. Samuel Taylor's screenplay is true to Sagan's original novel, and Anatol Litvak's direction wraps everything up neatly.

The cast can't be bettered: the combined star-power trio of Ingrid Bergman, Anthony Perkins and Yves Montand is perfect, and these three bring great pathos to the proceedings. The level of significance of these characters may be rather inconsequential in the long run--but the emotions they themselves feel are genuine. This fine acting trio embodies these roles and the result is a most engrossing two hours.
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Psychett13 September 1999
The most sobworthy romantic film I've ever seen. I would've cried, except my brother was present. Perkins was the only fun thing in it, with his "play-acting". In one part, he single-handedly did an impression of an entire U.S. law court, speeded up. I will take that sequence with me to the grave. And of course, the other brilliant bit when Perkins, COMPLETELY drunk, decides to join Bergman and Montand in the club. It ends up with him being driven home with his head knocking against the car window... But the end was the most distressing part - well, I won't spoil that for you. Not a classic, but I highly recommend it if you want a good old cry. A Maud rating of 4 out of 5.
22 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A beautiful touching romance. Ingrid Bergman is superb.
philiponel21 November 2000
Ingrid Bergman's excellent performance is what makes this film. She sincerely deals with the problem of September love; I've never seen her more beautiful or more committed. Anthony Perkins as the young spoiled mama's boy is excellent, and the scenes with the two of them are very believable. (It's called acting) Yves Montand is terrible---he's longing to be speaking in French. The scene at the end between Bergman & Perkins from the top of the stairs could move a stone to tears. Only Bergman could convincingly pull off a perfect soap opera--there will never be anyone like her.
26 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A flawless, disturbing drama and melodrama...gorgeous and moving
secondtake5 April 2011
Good Bye Again (1961)

Wow, such a beautiful and poignant look at fidelity and sacrifice in a relationship, just as the world is teetering from mid-20th Century stability to the 1960s and the free-for-all that meant for many. And the movie itself is one of the last, like "The Apartment" on this side of the Atlantic, to be made in the old Hollywood style, with invisible editing, gorgeous black and white photography, tight story construction, and a full, rounded sensibility that might, without being derogatory, be called "classic." I could watch it again today just for its perfect blending of acting, writing, filming, and tragic themes, which struck me hard.

It's hard to believe this kind of movie didn't fly at the time, and hasn't made an impression since. Anthony Perkins is at his charming, disarming best here (he had just finished filming "Psycho"), and in some ways steals the show from the much bigger headliner, an amazing (as always) Ingrid Bergman. They make an unlikely screen couple, but a great one. The tensions between them are not only reasonable, their inevitable, or so the writing has made it seem. Which is perfect. The third star is a paradigm of old school suave European manliness, Yves Montand, quite wonderfully appealing and disgusting at the same time. Everyone is dressed great, thanks to costume design by Christian Dior. (There's even a comment by a rich older woman who says she's going shopping "to Dior's.")

This is a very European feeling film, though it is of course an "American" movie in that it's in English, but it was officially made by the small production company, Argus, which otherwise made only French films. This was the era of the declining and disappearing studios, and one way a movie got made was exactly like this, patching together talents and money and location shooting. Making it a European film had the advantage of pushing some adult issues, which is what helps the film have relevance today. The director, Anatole Litvak, though an immigrant to the U.S., was thoroughly a Hollywood director, and overall this has the feel of the best of the great Golden Age movies, though updated of course by the realities of 1960s Paris. Along those lines, there is a great appearance of club jazz singer Diahann Carroll.

For a really nice detailing of the film see the TCM article here: or just google the title and TCM.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Paula's Emotions - Not Easily Deciphered
PoeMonroe27 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
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?
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Imagine a Perkins-Free World
Gerry Scott-Moore21 September 2007
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.
13 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Bergman & Co. at Their Best
JLRMovieReviews31 August 2010
As a reviewer said here, when we praise a movie, we overdo it, and when we diss one, we're really down on it.

But, this has to be one of the best movies Ingrid Bergman ever made. The casting in this movie was inspired. Ingrid loves Yves Montand, but he won't commit to the married life, and Montand is perfect as the man who wants both his freedom and Ingrid, who also has her freedom to date other men, but doesn't want to. "Some freedom," her maid says. Her maid is like the french equivalent of a Thelma Ritter character.

Ingrid is an interior decorator. Enter Jessie Royce Landis, who is just great as an exacting and demanding (and cheap) client of Ingrid's, who's also very rich. Enter Anthony Perkins, soon after making "Psycho," as Landis' son. He obviously falls for Ingrid, and she loves the attention, since she's unhappy with her situation.

The rest you have to see for yourself. The viewer is on a roller-coaster ride of emotions, as we feel everything Ingrid feels and even Tony, too. Miss this and you miss true actors at their best. By the way, do you like Brahms?
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Wonderful film made by adults for adults!
Carl Ian Schwartz16 February 2009
Warning: Spoilers
A literate script and excellent acting and direction elevate this love triangle to art.

One of the best scenes, late in the picture, takes place on the dance floor of Maxim's and has NO dialog--just facial expressions culminating in a touching of hands.

The original French title, "Aimez-vous Brahms?", is reflected here in the use of Brahms's Third Symphony. Again, the feeling is conveyed by the music and the facial expressions of the actors. This music, long familiar to me, took on a new meaning.

This is a film made by adults for an adult audience--a 40-year-old audience will appreciate it, a younger audience will not.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Ingrid suffers in high class melodrama
jjnxn-113 October 2013
High class soap opera with Ingrid, stylishly dressed and becomingly coiffured, looking wonderful. She of course gives the best performance with Anthony Perkins a close second. The main problem is that her longing for Yves Montand, a stolid lout, is puzzling. In a sign of how the times have changed the enchanting beautiful Ingrid, who states that she is forty, considers herself old and seems desperately afraid of being alone and is willing to settle for crumbs from a man whom she is clearly to good for. Still as these sort of pictures go this is a fine diversion, competently directed with handsome black and white photography. Jessie Royce Landis is fun in a small part as Tony's mother.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Ingrid Bergman carries the show with 2 unappealing leading men
filmalamosa28 May 2012
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.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Lacking Chemistry for Anatole Litvak
wes-connors6 April 2015
In Paris, matronly interior decorator Ingrid Bergman (as Paula Tessier) fears, at 40, she's getting old. Playboy businessman Yves Montand (as Roger Demarest) cancels a dinner date with Ms. Bergman. After their next engagement, Mr. Montand doesn't stay for sex with Bergman. Instead, he goes out to pick up a younger woman. Obviously, their five year affair has lost its luster. Later, Bergman meets a wealthy client's son, bubbly law student Anthony Perkins (as Philip Van der Besh). He's 25-years-old. Immediately attracted to his mom's decorator, Mr. Perkins takes Bergman for a ride in his fast sports car and invites her to lunch...

Produced and directed by Anatole Litvak, "Goodbye Again" features a trio of stars who certainly looked better on paper. We don't see much for Bergman to find attractive in either Perkins or Montand. Frankly, Bergman isn't especially attractive to either man, either. There is little passion in either pairing. Bergman is morbid. Perkins too silly. Montand seems disinterested even in the sexpots that appear in his bed. Other than having the younger heads popping in front of the camera, Mr. Litvak's dance scene near the end looks good. He uses automobiles to parallel his characters; at one point, Bergman's tears cover her car's windshield.

**** Goodbye Again (5/61) Anatole Litvak ~ Ingrid Bergman, Anthony Perkins, Yves Montand, Jessie Royce Landis
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Stuck on an unavailable man
maryszd18 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Ingrid Bergman plays Paula Tessier, a 40ish interior decorator with a long-running relationship with a chronically unfaithful man, Roger Demarest (Yves Montand). The twenty-something son of one of her clients, Phillip (Anthony Perkins), falls in love with her and she turns the tables on Roger by having an affair of her own. Bergman gives a solid, heartfelt performance and Montand is so attractively world-weary, it's easy to see why she can't fall out of love with him. Perkins' Phillip is a spoiled mama's boy and it's hard to understand the Bergman character's attraction to him, outside of the fact that she feels so hurt and neglected. The film's cinematography is beautiful and Paris looks gorgeous and, by today's standards, remarkably free of traffic.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Thick, thick tears
oliver-17725 March 2007
Not much to add to what others have already written. Except that Anatol Litvak often tries something weirdly expressionistic in his films (see the wild "Five Miles to Midnight", made immediately following Goodbye Again, also with Tony Perkins).

Here, it's at the end of a scene at the elegant Pre Catelan restaurant. Ingrid and Yves' relationship is floundering. Ingrid rushes away in her little car. Finally alone, she can allow herself to cry. And there follows a long, odd subjective shot, with tears as thick as honey dripping ever so slowly down the lens. Confused, Ingrid turns on the windshield wipers repeatedly until she realizes that she's crying, it's not rain. (The way it is shot, if it had been rain, each drop would have been as large as a pint).

I haven't had the pleasure to read "Aimez Vous Brahms?" but even if the heroine does turn on windshield wipers because she doesn't realize that she is crying, it doesn't translate to film. It has to be seen to be believed.
9 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Too Long for it's own good
gergtj27 June 2002
This film has alot of good qualities, but the length and the miscasting of Anthony Perkins really drag the film down from a great rating. I think the film would've been much more effective at about 100 minutes. So much of the second half of the film should've been edited out, because of redundancy and because the scenes don't add much to the story. And about Anthony Perkins, he's just so unbelievable as Ingrid's lover. He's too skinny and just doesn't have the magnitism required to realistically draw her away from Montand, no matter how disenchanted Ingrid is. One wonderful surprise is Miss Carroll's performance. She simply shines in her one scene as a nightclub singer. What a great voice! Bergman is still so gorgeous, and Yves is perfectly cast as the straying boyfriend. 6 out of 10.
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Imperfect Relationships Explored with Gallic Ruefulness But Hamstrung by Perkins
Ed Uyeshima7 April 2008
It amazes me to find out that Anthony Perkins won the Cannes Film Festival Best Actor award for his skittish, petulant performance as Philip, the aimless, lovestruck "younger man" in this 1961 Paris-set soap opera about a May-September romance with Paula, a successful, fortyish interior decorator ensnared in a going-nowhere relationship with Roget, an age-appropriate transportation businessman who has casual affairs with young women he dubs impersonally as "Maisie". Naturally, Roget takes Paula for granted, which leaves her vulnerable to Philip's flirtatious advances. However, Perkins is an actor intractably tethered to his definitive role as Norman Bates in Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho", and unfortunately in his first follow-up film, he emits such a creepy, obsessive tone that makes you fear more for Paula's life than her heart.

On the upside is Ingrid Bergman's textured performance as Paula, and her mature beauty seems to reflect perfectly her saturnine situation. She is believably matched with Yves Montand as Roget in a performance that seems to echo his real-life situation with wife Simone Signoret when he embarked on a well-publicized affair with Marilyn Monroe the year before. Jesse Royce Landis shows up in her typical role as a pompous society matron, this time Philip's cheapskate mother, while Diahann Carroll shows up in a disposable cameo as a world-weary jazz chanteuse. Director Anatole Litvak paces the film a bit too leisurely and adds some silly but amusing touches like Paula's delusion of rain as she drives during a crying jag, but he creatively uses a circular structure to his plot by beginning and ending the film with almost the same scene. Adapting Francoise Sagan's "Aimez-vous Brahms?", screenwriter Samuel Taylor lends the sort of wry observations he contributed to his scripts for "Sabrina" and "Vertigo". As of March 2008, this film is not available on DVD.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Goodbye Again
anjiknut21 August 2006
I really enjoyed this film, set in Paris in 1961 and based on a book by French writer Francoise Sagan. Ingrid Bergman was excellent as the leading lady torn between her unfaithful partner and a much younger man who falls head over heels in love with her. I wanted to see how French actor Yves Montand faired speaking in English. I must confess that Anthony Perkins name rang a bell when I read it in the newspaper, but it wasn't till I saw him on the screen I realized who he was. I couldn't help wondering how and if this film was accepted in the United States at the time. If you choose to see this film have some Kleenex ready.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Charming Ingrid opposite miscast Perkins...slow but touching...
Neil Doyle25 March 2007
Given the fact that GOODBYE AGAIN (based on a novel by Francoise Sagan) is very thin material indeed, it's a wonder that INGRID BERGMAN fits so comfortably in the role of a mature (but still lovely) woman who has a young man adoring her (ANTHONY PERKINS) despite the obvious age difference.

Perkins gives a rather skittish performance as the rich and admittedly spoiled playboy who casts loving looks at Bergman from the moment they meet. YVES MONTAND is charming as the heavily accented Frenchman who also has romantic designs on Bergman and their scenes together have a bit more conviction than those involving Bergman and Perkins.

If this had been filmed in the '40s, it would have been labeled a "woman's film", the sort of weepie that kept devotees of Barbara Stanwyck and Joan Crawford happy. It's a silky smooth "weeper", a bittersweet tale of an ill-fated affair between a much older, more experienced woman and a playful young man. As such, it no doubt appealed to the fantasies of many women, but it does seem a strange choice of material for director Anatole Litvak to pursue, given his reputation for filming some grim melodramas in his time.

The one note theme of the film--falling in love with the wrong person at the wrong time--becomes a bit tiresome before the first hour is over. In short, the story drags rather than moves forward despite the quality of the acting.

Highly recommended for fans of Ingrid Bergman who want to see her looking beautiful in her mid-forties wearing a number of flattering Christian Dior outfits. Otherwise, it tends to try the patience of the average male viewer with its appeal largely directed at women.
6 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Miscast, uncomfortable "woman's picture"
moonspinner5516 March 2006
Slickly-made, but entirely empty and somewhat uncomfortable melodrama played out in Paris. Forty-ish interior decorator Ingrid Bergman, tired of her on-again/off-again affair with indifferent playboy Yves Montand, takes up with a mercurial young man nearly half her age. Bergman is chic and dignified (if a bit dull), but Anthony Perkins, as the junior-suitor, is way over-the-top in his role, wild-eyed and hyperbolic (perhaps reverberations of "Psycho" and Norman Bates from the previous year were still resounding within him?). Nevertheless, a distressing soaper, wasting some good actors including Diahann Carroll in a small role. *1/2 from ****
9 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Spoilers: Goodbye Again -- An Attractive Analysis of Attraction
arieliondotcom20 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
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 the chill you will feel in your stomach at the end.

You know...I hate Ingrid Bergman...And that Montand is quite an actor.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed