Deciding to confront the husband of his longtime mistress after she reveals that she has let on about their affair, a British book publisher is surprised to learn that the husband has known of the extramarital affair for years in this quiet yet intense drama from the pen of Harold Pinter. The film intriguingly unfolds in reverse chronological order, beginning with the aforementioned confrontation and then flashing back further and further in the past to examine how the affair managed to develop to its current point. Some have criticised this narrative style as a gimmick, but on the contrary, it fits in incredibly well with the publisher's shock over the husband (also a longtime friend) knowing about the affair; it almost feels as if he is searching his memory for hints of the husband being clued into the affair that he may have missed at the time. Whatever the case, Jeremy Irons (as the man having the affair) and Ben Kingsley (as the knowledgeable husband) deliver pitch perfect performances throughout with Kinglsey subtly radiating animosity in the flashback scenes - particularly a restaurant luncheon - something all the more pronounced due to Irons being so ignorant of it and so conceited to believe that nobody knows of the affair. Patricia Hodge is less effective as the woman in the love triangle, never all that alluring; Dominic Muldowney's music is sometimes overbearing too. Generally speaking though, this is a handsome production as well as a testament to how much a film can achieve with minimal sets, lots of dialogue and an ending revealed at the beginning.
29 Reviews
Talky but absorbing, adult film
gridoon202411 June 2012
Warning: Spoilers
What a refreshing break from all the mindless noise of much of modern cinema this little-seen film is! You actually get to hear people TALK - perhaps too much, for some tastes, but when the dialogue is so expertly written (by Harold Pinter), why complain? The time-in-reverse gimmick puts an interesting spin on the usual love-triangle tale, plus it turns the movie into a great mathematical exercise (at each point you can calculate how many years Kingsley and Hodge have been married, at what stage the Irons-Hodge affair is, how old the kids are, etc.). In its frank and adult handling of marital infidelity and extra-marital affairs, "Betrayal" can be compared to a Claude Chabrol film. The direction is simple and naturalistic, never overshadowing the characters, who are excellently played by a fantastic trio of actors. However, if you're expecting a mind-blowing "revelation" at the end of the picture, you will not get it; the end is only the beginning of the story, after all. *** out of 4.
Toffs triangle
Lejink24 November 2012
An ingeniously constructed movie, adapted from his play, by celebrated writer Harold Pinter, directed by Sam Spiegel, "Betrayal" shows in reverse order, the end and beginning of an extra-marital affair between a gallery-owner and her publisher husband's best friend. In a reversal of convention, we see the ravelling as opposed to the unravelling of a relationship going wrong with the backtracking device keeping the viewer watching right to the last "genesis" moment.
The characterisation does betray a little chauvinism, you do lose a little sympathy for the cuckolded Ben Kingsley character after he admits to serial philandering of his own, but for me the film succeeds by not judging the characters at all, more they're put under the microscope like lab rats for the voyeuristic viewer to examine their behaviour and come to one's own moral judgement.
To stand up to this scrutiny without deadening proceedings requires good acting and that's unquestionably the case here with Jeremy Irons and Patricia Hodge as the stars-uncrossed lovers and Kingsley as the jilted husband. The acting is restrained and avoids for the most part ostentation although occasionally you can see the twitches and tics of Irons and Kingsley kick in a la the Dustin Hoffman method-acting manual. You get the impression sometimes of scenes requiring several takes as the actors strive for naturalism, at which points it's better to enjoy Pinter's way with rhythmic dialogue and dramatic pauses - as ever he's especially good at picking up on the mundaneness of everyday conversation, even if the world of galleries and authors is probably somewhat rarefied to the rest of us. The film seeks to avoid its theatrical beginning with occasional outdoor shots as well as often employing background noises as the world outside the three's own isolated but entwined worlds come apart. Otherwise the direction is smooth but never intrusive and avoids overtly sexual scenes which I might otherwise have anticipated from the plot.
Although not perfect, this was an engrossing and entertaining examination of human emotions when love goes wrong, right and finally wrong again.
The characterisation does betray a little chauvinism, you do lose a little sympathy for the cuckolded Ben Kingsley character after he admits to serial philandering of his own, but for me the film succeeds by not judging the characters at all, more they're put under the microscope like lab rats for the voyeuristic viewer to examine their behaviour and come to one's own moral judgement.
To stand up to this scrutiny without deadening proceedings requires good acting and that's unquestionably the case here with Jeremy Irons and Patricia Hodge as the stars-uncrossed lovers and Kingsley as the jilted husband. The acting is restrained and avoids for the most part ostentation although occasionally you can see the twitches and tics of Irons and Kingsley kick in a la the Dustin Hoffman method-acting manual. You get the impression sometimes of scenes requiring several takes as the actors strive for naturalism, at which points it's better to enjoy Pinter's way with rhythmic dialogue and dramatic pauses - as ever he's especially good at picking up on the mundaneness of everyday conversation, even if the world of galleries and authors is probably somewhat rarefied to the rest of us. The film seeks to avoid its theatrical beginning with occasional outdoor shots as well as often employing background noises as the world outside the three's own isolated but entwined worlds come apart. Otherwise the direction is smooth but never intrusive and avoids overtly sexual scenes which I might otherwise have anticipated from the plot.
Although not perfect, this was an engrossing and entertaining examination of human emotions when love goes wrong, right and finally wrong again.
The Seduction of Betrayal
Maelstro1 October 1998
The great master of Theatre, Harold Pinter, brings us the seduction of one of his (in my opinion) best plays. With stunningly clued performances by Irons, Kingsley and Hodge, the play seduces as it unfolds, and every scene is charged with a sexual tension. A daring step for film and writing, the plot is shown backwards and both the end and beginning are so beautifully touching because you know what will happen, as well as what has already. A triumph of the cinema.
Well-acted and well-written but still gimmicky
herbqedi27 April 2002
Kingsley is masterful as Robert, the successful publisher, who puts in delectable perspective the fact that he is also a feckless and cuckolded husband. Patricia Hodge, a beautiful and talented British actress whose impressive body of works rarely make it to this side of the pond, is utterly perfect as the embodiment of Emma. Jeremy Irons is fine as well, although not quite as outstanding -- and that may say it all right there.
The dialogue is pithy, ironic, sardonic, dry, brittle, and pointed -- vintage Pinter. But, the central plot device of starting at the latest point in time and have successive scenes show what came earlier, seems a bit forced and gimmicky -- although the excellence of Patricia Hodge's eyes in the final scene makes all of it worthwhile.
Altogether, I'd rate it 7 of 10 -- certainly worth seeing.
The dialogue is pithy, ironic, sardonic, dry, brittle, and pointed -- vintage Pinter. But, the central plot device of starting at the latest point in time and have successive scenes show what came earlier, seems a bit forced and gimmicky -- although the excellence of Patricia Hodge's eyes in the final scene makes all of it worthwhile.
Altogether, I'd rate it 7 of 10 -- certainly worth seeing.
A Theatrical Triangle of Love
claudio_carvalho7 December 2003
Emma (Patricia Hodges) is married with Robert (Ben Kingsley), who is the best friend of Jerry (Jeremy Irons), who is the lover of Emma. The originality of this romance is the way it is told to the viewer, backwards, from the present to the past. Although being theatrical, it is supported by an outstanding cast and is a good entertainment. Basically there is no soundtrack along this drama. My vote is seven.
One of My Very Favorites
stabnik111 November 2004
This movie is brilliant. All the actors, especially Ben Kingsley, were superb. When Ben Kingsley is in the scene, you are riveted to his every expression. Especially when you watch it for the 2nd time, and know what they know at every given point. Also, thinking about the actual betrayals. I loved the dialogue, references from scene to scene, relationships between the characters, and the backward progress of it all. Pinter's work is incredible. Because of what you know at various points in the plot, you can see what's going on inside the characters. Patricia Hodge and Jeremy Irons give truly amazing performances - and Mr. Kingsley is just mind-blowing.
I sure hope it comes out on DVD one day - my VHS copy is running down.
I sure hope it comes out on DVD one day - my VHS copy is running down.
Great screen-writing plus great acting = great movie
swensonb24 October 2000
I watched this movie because I heard that the screen-writer had used a unique structure--the story is told backwards in time. Every succeeding scene occurs chronologically before the previous one. I wanted to see if the screen-writer was just using a gimmick, or if the structure actually added to the telling of the story. I was overjoyed to find out it was the latter! The magic of this movie is that Pinter makes the time sequence seem natural. By the end of the movie, the viewer is convinced this is the only way the story could have been told effectively. I highly recommend this movie to all who love cinema.
An underwhelming experience
nomorefog30 April 2011
Warning: Spoilers
In 'Betrayal' the narrative is presented backwards, a gimmick employed later by Christopher Nolan in his breakthrough film Memento (2001). Here, we have the breakup of a relationship presented at the beginning and we come to learn later (unfortunately much later) what it was that got the couple together in the first place. (Please don't ask me what that was, because I've already forgotten.) To me, this bizarre form of narration is as pointless as it is exasperating. As 'Betrayal' unfolded, I felt bereft of any kind of causational narrative to cling to. The question being: why should the audience be making notes when it's only a movie and not a university lecture in semantics. The plot becomes so incomprehensible, that the point of the film is totally lost and the entire exercise becomes a pointless waste of time. I sit there in my living room and wonder: will an Edward Van Sloan character stroll on-stage as the proscenium arch is revealed and ask me questions about what I've just seen? And, worse still, expect me to have the answers? I think this is a relevant objection on behalf of the audience who are within their rights to question the methodology which 'Betrayal' employs to tell its so-called 'story': to me there is no story. Instead the film is a collection of fragments cobbled together. It just pretends to be a story, and this does not bode well as the correct method on which to present an entire movie.
Written by Harold Pinter, 'Betrayal' stars Patricia Hodges as the woman whom Jeremy Irons is having a secret affair with over a number of years. Naturally they are best friends with the spouse of the other, both who seem to be (at least initially), blissfully unaware of the situation. Hodges and Irons continue their affair secretly in a very sad and dingy-looking apartment. The conversation between them is terribly tedious as we get to hear about the children and the jobs and the cloth-eared spouses who are foolish enough to keep on living with this pair's adulterous behaviour instead of throwing them both out on the street where they belong. Both Hodges and Irons come across as too grasping and selfish for the audience to have any connection with and the entire enterprise has at its core a very dead heart. The only thing in this film that makes any sense is that over a period of time their relationship is finally, if not found out, then at least suspected. I disliked the pair of them so much, I was almost glad. Ben Kingsley has a featured role as Hodge's creepy husband who correctly suspects the worst about what is going on, but it is left to the audience's imagination as to what he is may, or may not, do about it.
Personally I sat there in my living room, wondering why 'Betrayal' got made in the first place as it is scarcely entertaining and not nearly as deep as it would like us to think it is. Instead it's nasty, incoherent and an extreme example of movie making at its worst. When a group of ambitious artistes like David Jones and Harold Pinter attempt to make false claims about the medium being a form of high art and attempting to hijack it from the mass audience, this to me is a warning sign of redundant intentions and questionable outcomes. As you may be aware by this review, I was extremely disappointed by 'Betrayal' and the effort fell on deaf ears since I was disengaged, disturbed by its portrayal of men as hypocritical misogynists, (which they probably are, but I don't want to watch it) and turned off by its loopy narrative that honestly, drove me completely up the wall. Not recommended.
Written by Harold Pinter, 'Betrayal' stars Patricia Hodges as the woman whom Jeremy Irons is having a secret affair with over a number of years. Naturally they are best friends with the spouse of the other, both who seem to be (at least initially), blissfully unaware of the situation. Hodges and Irons continue their affair secretly in a very sad and dingy-looking apartment. The conversation between them is terribly tedious as we get to hear about the children and the jobs and the cloth-eared spouses who are foolish enough to keep on living with this pair's adulterous behaviour instead of throwing them both out on the street where they belong. Both Hodges and Irons come across as too grasping and selfish for the audience to have any connection with and the entire enterprise has at its core a very dead heart. The only thing in this film that makes any sense is that over a period of time their relationship is finally, if not found out, then at least suspected. I disliked the pair of them so much, I was almost glad. Ben Kingsley has a featured role as Hodge's creepy husband who correctly suspects the worst about what is going on, but it is left to the audience's imagination as to what he is may, or may not, do about it.
Personally I sat there in my living room, wondering why 'Betrayal' got made in the first place as it is scarcely entertaining and not nearly as deep as it would like us to think it is. Instead it's nasty, incoherent and an extreme example of movie making at its worst. When a group of ambitious artistes like David Jones and Harold Pinter attempt to make false claims about the medium being a form of high art and attempting to hijack it from the mass audience, this to me is a warning sign of redundant intentions and questionable outcomes. As you may be aware by this review, I was extremely disappointed by 'Betrayal' and the effort fell on deaf ears since I was disengaged, disturbed by its portrayal of men as hypocritical misogynists, (which they probably are, but I don't want to watch it) and turned off by its loopy narrative that honestly, drove me completely up the wall. Not recommended.
Beautifully done.
suzy q12325 September 2001
One of Pinters best plays, this one is filmed with just a superb cast. Jeremy Irons looks like he's about to steal the film, then Ben Kingsley sneaks up on you with an odd stiff but wounded performance that takes your breath away. I loved the woman too. A masterfully told story of love and desire, and pain within relationships. Not easy to watch, not very 'flash', but worth it indeed.
Meaningless as a film.
Alex_Hor24 September 2020
This film has no sense,no conclusion,no interesting plot or whatsoever. I believe that people usually overvalue old films, as though they are supirior to new ones and they overlook clear flaws, which for instance can obliterate a new film in a matter of seconds. For example this story doesn't seem real at all, the betrayed husband behaves like he's mentally ill or something, very unnatural and so does his friend. Combine this with a boring storyline and a bad drama and thus you get the picture.
But, here it comes - a merit of this film, very good english pronunciation of old times, as a prefer it, the only thing that kept me going through this "work".
Brilliant movie.
philiponel15 November 2000
This brilliant movie starts with a meeting between Jerry and Emma two years after their relationship has ended; then proceeds backward, thereby ending eight years earlier, with the moment when Jerry first declares his attraction to Emma at a party. The idea that the viewer can know this information at the beginning of the movie and then is never bored is an amazing feat for this movie. All three of the actors are amazing in their roles.
direction, acting, screenplay all worth watching
trwillett18 November 2010
Warning: Spoilers
A top reason I come to IMDb is to learn how other folks experienced and interpreted a movie I just watched. It is my belief that art takes place between a person and the movie/painting/dance/book. Without a viewer, the piece isn't seen and so doesn't exist as art. Without a piece, the viewer doesn't see anything and again there isn't art. I really enjoy reading the different views/the different pieces of art.
And now back to the film...
I didn't experience this movie as being told from Robert's POV, nor did I feel Ben Kingsley's Robert "as sweet and innocent as a new-born babe." Robert was tightly wound and rather frightening. At times, his eyes held quiet menace--and indeed we do learn he was capable of violence--and he played cruel mind games with Emma and Jeremy.
I was quite surprised by Jeremy Irons performance. His face is relaxed and his eyes guileless; emotions clearly expressed in the movement of an eyebrow. When Jerry declares his love for Emma he holds nothing back. He's passionate, charming, clumsy as a schoolboy and real...oh so very real.
No one is without fault or blame. There isn't a paragon of virtue or an innocent bystander. They're just people, regular people, like the rest of us.
The film woke up memories of passion--the heart-pounding gazes, skin flushing red and hot, bones melting to butter with just the touch of hand, the wild hunger, the frisson caused by clandestine meetings.....sigh....I'm an old, broken-down dying woman, and I thank the writer, director and actors for making the movie and reminding me of my salad days. I shall now walk my dog under colorful oak and maple, bundled up against the cold and wearing a slight smile.
And now back to the film...
I didn't experience this movie as being told from Robert's POV, nor did I feel Ben Kingsley's Robert "as sweet and innocent as a new-born babe." Robert was tightly wound and rather frightening. At times, his eyes held quiet menace--and indeed we do learn he was capable of violence--and he played cruel mind games with Emma and Jeremy.
I was quite surprised by Jeremy Irons performance. His face is relaxed and his eyes guileless; emotions clearly expressed in the movement of an eyebrow. When Jerry declares his love for Emma he holds nothing back. He's passionate, charming, clumsy as a schoolboy and real...oh so very real.
No one is without fault or blame. There isn't a paragon of virtue or an innocent bystander. They're just people, regular people, like the rest of us.
The film woke up memories of passion--the heart-pounding gazes, skin flushing red and hot, bones melting to butter with just the touch of hand, the wild hunger, the frisson caused by clandestine meetings.....sigh....I'm an old, broken-down dying woman, and I thank the writer, director and actors for making the movie and reminding me of my salad days. I shall now walk my dog under colorful oak and maple, bundled up against the cold and wearing a slight smile.
Excellent Psychological Drama
howardross20 May 2000
This is a really fine movie with excellent characterizations. I've never seen Patricia Hodge in anything else but in this movie she's the equal of Irons and Kingsley. It's interesting how the movie starts with the very emotional end works it's way back to the innocuous beginnings.
First movie I ever walked out of
cubear29 January 2003
This was a horrible movie. It seemed to have nothing but head shots of two people talking about their relationship, which I found incredibly boring. The bizarre moving backwards in time made it incomprehensible as well - Memento made moving backwards a key part of the movie, whereas here it seemed to be something purely aimed at giving the art house crowd something to talk about. I saw it in the theater, and was so bored and confused that I walked out (with my date) half an hour in.
Berayal
Kiss-of-Death-17 August 2007
It has often been said that great books can not be made into great movies, that is not the case here. This is a story by one of the greatest writers in the English language since Shakespeare and screen play by the one man who truly understood the agony behind the story. Mix that with three of the best English actors of the modern age and you have a mesmerizing story in cinematic form. Do not miss this movie if you are a fan of great literature and great movie making. At first the reverse chronology may seem a bit confusing, but ultimately it proves the genius of the director's ability to plumb the depths of the friendship and the relationship of all the characters in this sad, sad story. You will not be disappointed.
Dictionary Definition of Bad Dialogue
mlktrout20 May 2023
I saw this movie in the late 1980s. I loved Ben Kingsley, Patricia Hodge, and Jeremy Irons in so many movies, I couldn't see how in the world this could be anything but a beautifully done piece. I was wrong.
I was about five minutes in when I started gagging on the dialogue. It was atrocious! This is an actual dialogue sample, near as I can recall it:
Hodge: "I'm going to tell him." Irons: "You're ... going to ... tell him?" Hodge: "About us." Irons: "About ... us?" Hodge: "Yes. I'm going to tell him about us." Irons: "You're going to tell him about us."
I mean, was there screenwriter strike I didn't know about and they called in a plumber to write that? Or were the filmmakers deliberately trying to destroy the actors' careers and give the audience a lobotomy at the same time?
It just got worse from there. IMDB shows the long (intensely long) quote when Irons declared himself to Hodge. It's disgusting. Something about how she wore white at her wedding and he was the best man, but he should have "HAD" her so it would've been a black wedding. I interpret this as, "I love you, therefore I must pollute you." If only women got as much respect as our planet. We fine people for polluting the planet, and nobody ever says "let me pollute the planet because I love it." What's even funnier is there are people who think that's a great declaration of love. How is declaring that you want to spoil someone and make them impure equal to love on any level? It just sounds selfish and vile. And most of the movie is about these two selfish and vile characters deliberately hurting everyone.
Okay, I can't comment on the "artistry" of the project--most of it was set in a cheap, tacky looking apartment, suitable for a cheap, tacky affair.
I guess it's like the artistry of "Saturn Devouring His Son" by Goya. Yep, that's artistry all right.
I was about five minutes in when I started gagging on the dialogue. It was atrocious! This is an actual dialogue sample, near as I can recall it:
Hodge: "I'm going to tell him." Irons: "You're ... going to ... tell him?" Hodge: "About us." Irons: "About ... us?" Hodge: "Yes. I'm going to tell him about us." Irons: "You're going to tell him about us."
I mean, was there screenwriter strike I didn't know about and they called in a plumber to write that? Or were the filmmakers deliberately trying to destroy the actors' careers and give the audience a lobotomy at the same time?
It just got worse from there. IMDB shows the long (intensely long) quote when Irons declared himself to Hodge. It's disgusting. Something about how she wore white at her wedding and he was the best man, but he should have "HAD" her so it would've been a black wedding. I interpret this as, "I love you, therefore I must pollute you." If only women got as much respect as our planet. We fine people for polluting the planet, and nobody ever says "let me pollute the planet because I love it." What's even funnier is there are people who think that's a great declaration of love. How is declaring that you want to spoil someone and make them impure equal to love on any level? It just sounds selfish and vile. And most of the movie is about these two selfish and vile characters deliberately hurting everyone.
Okay, I can't comment on the "artistry" of the project--most of it was set in a cheap, tacky looking apartment, suitable for a cheap, tacky affair.
I guess it's like the artistry of "Saturn Devouring His Son" by Goya. Yep, that's artistry all right.
One of the Most Brilliant Ever
stabnik123 September 2006
Exquisite play by Pinter, and screenplay has fantastic dialog. Acting by three main characters - played by Ben Kingsley, Jeremy Irons, and Patricia Hodge - is brilliant. You get pulled into watching each expression, each word. As the movie unfolds, and the deeper you get into it, you can see what is "behind" those expressions. Ben Kingsley's performance is truly phenomenal !! Since the plot moves backwards in this movie/play, you see the backward evolution of the relationships here. And the various ways of betrayal within those relationships. It is fascinating and mind-blowing - not in any outlandish special effects way, but in the subtleties and interactions of the 3 characters.
This is one of my all-time favorite movies. HOWEVER, I've been looking for a copy of it in DVD or even VHS - but can never find one. Does anyone have any ideas??
This is one of my all-time favorite movies. HOWEVER, I've been looking for a copy of it in DVD or even VHS - but can never find one. Does anyone have any ideas??
Real life documented in a touching way
weingartena-819-1426615 August 2016
I will not read any of the reviews for this movie (yet): I want to write my own. I saw this movie in my mid 20's (I paid to see it in a dark dingy theater): back then, it was somewhat wasted on me. Now, in my mid 50's, I suddenly recalled it, and realized what a chord it strikes (which is why I am giving it a rather high score). I won't be saying anything new here: it documents the disintegration of a wonderful relationship between a couple, but documenting it from present day, and going gradually backwards in time, up to the moment of the very first touch and kiss. If I can find this movie - I will see it again. PS: I was surprised that when I did a search of "Betrayal" on the IMDb database this movie did not show up: I had to find it indirectly by searching for "Patricia Hodge".
cubear said EXACTLY what I would have said.
LigiaMontoya29 September 2006
It was the first movie I ever walked out of, too; in fact, I might have been cubear's date. I was with my girlfriend at the time, and we walked out about a half hour in. Horrible. A lot of hyper-dramatic dialogue presented out of chronological sequence so it was almost impossible to follow, and I just didn't care enough about any of the characters to make it worth the work of following the incredibly confusing sceenplay.
Is Ben Kingsley always a great actor? Sure. But he has to have to have something resembling decent material to work with. Honestly, people were just discussing what was the worst movie ever, and - excepting truly laughable turkeys like Plan 9 from Outer Space - this was the movie I thought of.
Is Ben Kingsley always a great actor? Sure. But he has to have to have something resembling decent material to work with. Honestly, people were just discussing what was the worst movie ever, and - excepting truly laughable turkeys like Plan 9 from Outer Space - this was the movie I thought of.
"Unfaithful from the first night of marriage..."
gillies2 December 2000
Ben Kingsley, in his finest film, plays "Jerry", a sweet likable guy married to "Emma", played by the famous British actress Patricia Hodge. Jeremy Irons plays "Robert" who is Jerry's best friend, and who is also sleeping with Emma.
This innovative movie plays backwards in time, starting at a cafe meeting of old friends, Jerry and Robert, long after the divorce is final. This is such a clever film, you know it must be based on a play, and it could only be a British play because Hollywood just cannot write with anywhere near the wittiness of this film.
Even though the movie is about adultery, we all know that adulterous affairs usually end sadly, and so the movie starts out very sad and moves to much more happy times. Kingsley is outstanding when he throws a fit about "Why you'd never want to have a woman come to watch you play tennis!" Irons and Hodge do a thorough job of betraying Kingsley, and Kingsley with his acting talent drives the knife into the viewer, by being just as sweet and innocent as a new-born babe.
The movie plays backwards in time; every scene occurs months or years before the next, sort of like "Same Time Next Year", a famous Alan Alda movie, but much, much better. The writers show their strength by deriving witty and ironic connections between each of the scenes. The movie unfolds like a piece of fine origami paper.
This is a movie for single people to see. It does not have a sad ending, but I sure cannot forget the movie, 17 years after I saw it. Now that I'm married, it would probably tear my heart out to see it again. See this movie while you're young, before someone BETRAYS you!
This innovative movie plays backwards in time, starting at a cafe meeting of old friends, Jerry and Robert, long after the divorce is final. This is such a clever film, you know it must be based on a play, and it could only be a British play because Hollywood just cannot write with anywhere near the wittiness of this film.
Even though the movie is about adultery, we all know that adulterous affairs usually end sadly, and so the movie starts out very sad and moves to much more happy times. Kingsley is outstanding when he throws a fit about "Why you'd never want to have a woman come to watch you play tennis!" Irons and Hodge do a thorough job of betraying Kingsley, and Kingsley with his acting talent drives the knife into the viewer, by being just as sweet and innocent as a new-born babe.
The movie plays backwards in time; every scene occurs months or years before the next, sort of like "Same Time Next Year", a famous Alan Alda movie, but much, much better. The writers show their strength by deriving witty and ironic connections between each of the scenes. The movie unfolds like a piece of fine origami paper.
This is a movie for single people to see. It does not have a sad ending, but I sure cannot forget the movie, 17 years after I saw it. Now that I'm married, it would probably tear my heart out to see it again. See this movie while you're young, before someone BETRAYS you!
A Jumped-Up Soap Opera with Pointlessly Elaborate Structure and Fine Acting
MogwaiMovieReviews16 December 2020
The extramarital affair of the wife of a publisher with his best friend is followed over several years and told in reverse.
This film has a considerably greater reputation than it deserves: it's a very cheap-looking production that looks more like some 1970s made-for-television BBC play. I would have a lot of questions if I were to find out the cast were paid in anything more than sandwiches.
The conceit of the film, that each scene chronologically occurs before the previous one, has been done a number of other times, most successfully in Christopher Nolan's near-faultless Memento. There, each scene leads to the next (i.e. last) one seamlessly, filling in more and more of the mystery as it goes back. Here there is none of that: the scenes could easily just be a series of flashbacks that somehow forget to go back to the present day, with very little progression of any kind. There are no surprises to be found out, and by the end, we haven't found out anything new about the markedly unsympathetic characters that we didn't know 5 minutes in, so it's hard not to come to the conclusion that the film was stuctured this way simply to dress up a mediocre plot in the hopes of making it seem a little less like a routine soap opera.
Where it succeeds is in at least some of the dialogue and most of the acting: Jeremy Irons and Patricia Hodge are excellent (if unlikeable), conveying an awful lot of detail with their pauses and looks. Ben Kingsley less so, appearing less prepared or invested, but maybe the part just didn't give him enough to work with.
It's still a passable watch with some good moments but Betrayal has absolutely nothing to say you haven't heard five hundred times before.
This film has a considerably greater reputation than it deserves: it's a very cheap-looking production that looks more like some 1970s made-for-television BBC play. I would have a lot of questions if I were to find out the cast were paid in anything more than sandwiches.
The conceit of the film, that each scene chronologically occurs before the previous one, has been done a number of other times, most successfully in Christopher Nolan's near-faultless Memento. There, each scene leads to the next (i.e. last) one seamlessly, filling in more and more of the mystery as it goes back. Here there is none of that: the scenes could easily just be a series of flashbacks that somehow forget to go back to the present day, with very little progression of any kind. There are no surprises to be found out, and by the end, we haven't found out anything new about the markedly unsympathetic characters that we didn't know 5 minutes in, so it's hard not to come to the conclusion that the film was stuctured this way simply to dress up a mediocre plot in the hopes of making it seem a little less like a routine soap opera.
Where it succeeds is in at least some of the dialogue and most of the acting: Jeremy Irons and Patricia Hodge are excellent (if unlikeable), conveying an awful lot of detail with their pauses and looks. Ben Kingsley less so, appearing less prepared or invested, but maybe the part just didn't give him enough to work with.
It's still a passable watch with some good moments but Betrayal has absolutely nothing to say you haven't heard five hundred times before.
Great Premise and Great Acting
maxren1723 February 2020
LOVE LOVE LOVE this film! Huge fan of Harold Pinter. Patricia Hodges is excellent. What terrific actress. They're all good. Both Jeremy Irons and Ben Kingsley are perfect. The story told in reverse makes sense and adds to tension of storyline. The ending is so beautifully crafted the very last scene stayed with me.
Betrayal in reverse
TheLittleSongbird22 July 2019
Harold Pinter's 1978 play is a fascinating one, namely for the story structure. Written by a master playwright/writer, in my opinion one of the best of the twentieth century, on top form. The cast were another reason for seeing 'Betrayal', do (as some may have gathered reading some of my other reviews) have a thing about great/talented casts and they have nearly always been an interest into seeing anything.
Felt exactly the same about this film adaptation of 'Betrayal' as with the play. It is not just a great adaptation that does justice to the play, it stands on its own more than excellently as well. The latter of which actually is much more important for me watching adaptations and consider, and always have considered, it a fairer way to judge something (as there are films, shows, dramas etc, that disappoint as an adaptation but are good on their own merits).
'Betrayal' is attractively produced, with a nostalgic British television (at the time that is) look to the photography, that didn't feel too much like a filmed play or too stage bound. It was interesting seeing the different fashions, hairstyles back then and being reminded of how things have changed so drastically over-time.
The script is vintage Pinter, very intelligent, sharp as a razor and did make me contemplate over what happened after watching the film. The film, as is the case with film adaptations of plays, is very talk-heavy, but to me it didn't come over as overly so and made interesting by the character interactions and performances. The reverse/backwards structure, so starting from the end is adeptly handled, and contrary to a few others it was not hard to follow from personal opinion. Have actually been far more confused by films etc with more "conventional" story structures, or ones more familiar to many.
When it comes to standout scenes, Ben Kingsley's restaurant scene is unforgettable. Also loved the sexual tension in each of the relationships, developed beautifully. It's all astutely directed while letting the drama unfold at a non-rapid fire pace. All three of the lead performances see three fine actors on equally fine form. There are times where Kingsley is quite frightening and not in a way that's overt, namely the restaurant scene. Jeremy Irons is one of my favourites and the understated yet authoritative quality of his acting makes one remember how brilliant a lot of his early roles are and sad that with exceptions he's been deserving of far better projects for a long time now. Patricia Hodge is not very well known now today, and she deserves to be better known judging by the allure and class she brings to Emma so one can see what Jerry and Robert see in her.
My one complaint is the music, actually think 'Betrayal' would have worked better without music and never felt the music here gelled properly.
Other than that, excellent. 9/10
Felt exactly the same about this film adaptation of 'Betrayal' as with the play. It is not just a great adaptation that does justice to the play, it stands on its own more than excellently as well. The latter of which actually is much more important for me watching adaptations and consider, and always have considered, it a fairer way to judge something (as there are films, shows, dramas etc, that disappoint as an adaptation but are good on their own merits).
'Betrayal' is attractively produced, with a nostalgic British television (at the time that is) look to the photography, that didn't feel too much like a filmed play or too stage bound. It was interesting seeing the different fashions, hairstyles back then and being reminded of how things have changed so drastically over-time.
The script is vintage Pinter, very intelligent, sharp as a razor and did make me contemplate over what happened after watching the film. The film, as is the case with film adaptations of plays, is very talk-heavy, but to me it didn't come over as overly so and made interesting by the character interactions and performances. The reverse/backwards structure, so starting from the end is adeptly handled, and contrary to a few others it was not hard to follow from personal opinion. Have actually been far more confused by films etc with more "conventional" story structures, or ones more familiar to many.
When it comes to standout scenes, Ben Kingsley's restaurant scene is unforgettable. Also loved the sexual tension in each of the relationships, developed beautifully. It's all astutely directed while letting the drama unfold at a non-rapid fire pace. All three of the lead performances see three fine actors on equally fine form. There are times where Kingsley is quite frightening and not in a way that's overt, namely the restaurant scene. Jeremy Irons is one of my favourites and the understated yet authoritative quality of his acting makes one remember how brilliant a lot of his early roles are and sad that with exceptions he's been deserving of far better projects for a long time now. Patricia Hodge is not very well known now today, and she deserves to be better known judging by the allure and class she brings to Emma so one can see what Jerry and Robert see in her.
My one complaint is the music, actually think 'Betrayal' would have worked better without music and never felt the music here gelled properly.
Other than that, excellent. 9/10
Two stars for
Skylightmovies29 August 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Bringing us back to the drab posh early 80's with a bump.
However this is set in the 70's with appropriate clothes and hair but shockingly limited unemotional dialogue that was probably the norm for British TV, pre watershed.
I don't think I ever met anyone who spoke like that and it was extremely hard to imagine such people displaying passion or love of any kind. Which is why, here, the subject of adultery came off as meaningless and as practical as going to the toilet.
It is hard to understand why Pinter was considered a playwright of substance when in real life he was despicable and his work was just as depressing and dull.
Yes, he managed to stretch an idea to 90 -120 mins of bitterness and maybe if you weren't a fan of Shakespeare , his was your go to for theatre at the time. Predictably his characters often feel like various versions of Only Fools and Horses - Dell boy. Desperate, devious and dirty.
But back to this movie. Irons comes across as soft and weak, Hodge is as stiff and flat as an ironing board and the too tanned Kingsley's psycho stare acting makes you hope this tale will have a texas chainsaw massacre ending to redeem itself. Unfortunately we are short changed. The closest we get to imagine lust existing in this uptight clipped accented world is Irons' 'drunken' witterings at the end and Hodge giving him a kiss and a smile a short while before that.
If someone could re write this today with actors who were able to convey emotion , it would be worth seeing, even if they chose to stick to the 70's background. But with people divorcing at the drop of a hat there would be nothing much to work against.
Pinter's trio deserve the misery and hopelessness they leave as the credits roll.
Major flaw - Hodge choosing to marry the fey Kingsley is incredulous and trading him in for a fling with the married family man Irons seems like a red herring fantasy.
Guess back then, as long as Pinter, the lady killer,could sell his alter ego to the BBC masses, the nihilistic view of marriage with a confused wife, kept the post war agenda intact.
However this is set in the 70's with appropriate clothes and hair but shockingly limited unemotional dialogue that was probably the norm for British TV, pre watershed.
I don't think I ever met anyone who spoke like that and it was extremely hard to imagine such people displaying passion or love of any kind. Which is why, here, the subject of adultery came off as meaningless and as practical as going to the toilet.
It is hard to understand why Pinter was considered a playwright of substance when in real life he was despicable and his work was just as depressing and dull.
Yes, he managed to stretch an idea to 90 -120 mins of bitterness and maybe if you weren't a fan of Shakespeare , his was your go to for theatre at the time. Predictably his characters often feel like various versions of Only Fools and Horses - Dell boy. Desperate, devious and dirty.
But back to this movie. Irons comes across as soft and weak, Hodge is as stiff and flat as an ironing board and the too tanned Kingsley's psycho stare acting makes you hope this tale will have a texas chainsaw massacre ending to redeem itself. Unfortunately we are short changed. The closest we get to imagine lust existing in this uptight clipped accented world is Irons' 'drunken' witterings at the end and Hodge giving him a kiss and a smile a short while before that.
If someone could re write this today with actors who were able to convey emotion , it would be worth seeing, even if they chose to stick to the 70's background. But with people divorcing at the drop of a hat there would be nothing much to work against.
Pinter's trio deserve the misery and hopelessness they leave as the credits roll.
Major flaw - Hodge choosing to marry the fey Kingsley is incredulous and trading him in for a fling with the married family man Irons seems like a red herring fantasy.
Guess back then, as long as Pinter, the lady killer,could sell his alter ego to the BBC masses, the nihilistic view of marriage with a confused wife, kept the post war agenda intact.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
