In contrast to the comments Tresdodge's featured on these pages, I found Enduring Love compelling viewing. I saw it at the cinema and was blown away; subsequent viewings on DVD have continued to move me. While The Lawyer finds the lack of detail, background and explanation frustrating, it seemed to me a perfect study of miscommunication between adults, especially the well-educated, and a comment on the pretensions creative types have for apparent perceptiveness in others; Samantha Morton's character is the most prone to misread her partner's behaviour, and an up and coming artist, no less.<br /><br />Surrounding Craig's scientifically-minded character are similarly well-read arty north Londoners all either completely oblivious to Joe's distress or the cause of it, preferring a rather British 'take no notice' view of Jed's stalking, which I found entirely believable. Jed's protestations of love in the Tate Modern was a classic example to me of the irony present throughout the film: a man declares his love in an art gallery, a hallowed place where fierce emotion is channelled into high art. But he is merely rendered a nuisance and shooed away. How very English! The film is remarkable for what it does not discuss openly; the lingering silences and awkward pauses as Joe's mind starts to unravel at dinner parties illustrate how ill-at-ease these Guardian-reading, latte-drinking middle classes are discussing unpleasant aspects of life in general. Which is a cliché but not altogether untrue. No, there isn't apparently an inquest, nor any police involvement, but it's not a documentary, it's a study of how people react the fallout of a violent event; it brings to mind Peter Weir's Fearless (1993), which examined the extent to which people withdraw when coping with severe stress. A rational mind such as Tresdodge's would perhaps enjoy Joe's sessions with a counsellor but the point is Joe's identity is fundamentally in crisis here; he is unable to explain Jed's attentions, nor Mr Logan's motivations for hanging onto the balloon, nor his perverse sense of guilt that he could somehow have stopped the whole thing from happening. What good is science in the face of such overwhelmingly human behaviour? To put Tresdodge's mind at rest, I read the book after seeing the film and didn't find much in the way of explanation there, either, except more elaboration on Joe's rigid belief there is a rational explanation for everything. Which would also explain the tension between Joe and Claire, who as an artist is presumably of the opposite view. On the surface, Claire has more in common with Jed's character; while obviously disturbed, Jed wholly embraces his emotions, regardless of how inappropriate they are.<br /><br />The score and cinematography is as integral to the success of the film as the script, which I found perfectly satisfactory, although Tresdodge is right when he says the opening sequence of the ballooning accident is the best moment of the film. The tension begins right there, before the balloon has even appeared, as you can see a proposal is about to take place, and it never leaves the screen. This film is complex and uncomfortable to watch, but deeply satisfying; I get something new out of it every time. Even the title can be read in two ways - think about it.