Let's talk about the ending. Specifically the feel-good Christmas sequence where gifts are exchanged and Lillian Gish breaks the fourth wall to address the viewer about the strength and endurance of children, etc.
Personally, I hated it; but I'd rather hear from the rest of you instead of launching into some overzealous tirade about why it didn't work for me.
So, the ending. Did you enjoy it? Did you not enjoy it? Are you indifferent? Why?
I liked it. In the beginning Rachel comes off as very cross and mean but then you find out that she really and truly cares about the children.
shareYeah, they should have ended it after John fainted.
______________________
The brothers gunna work it out
[deleted]
I agree. It was hokey, cheesy. Nothing against religious people, I just think it didn't work for the film. But it didn't detract from the overall film. Great movie.
share[deleted]
It made me cry, which means I loved it. Miss Gish was wonderful.
Yes, sir, I'm going to do nothing like she's never been done before!
I think the ending was absolutely necessary.
First off, the main characters were, contrary to popular belief, the children. Though Rev. Powell was certainly the most interesting and fleshed-out character, you can't throw John and Pearl to the wind. And being as this is essentially a children's nightmare (complete with an epic battle between the surrogate mother and the surrogate father), it only seems fit that it would end with the children and their struggles having been resolved, in a comfortable home, complete with yuletide cheer.
Second off, the film needed to end on a life-affirming note, taking into account the religious aspects of the film. Throughout the film, religion has been depicted through its primary antagonist, Rev. Powell, as manipulative of other's weak minds, "a wolf in sheep's clothing". To end it like that, with Rev. Powell being hunted down by a lynch mob, without affirming the positives of religion, would've sent the wrong message, in my opinion (for the record, I have no religious denomination; I'm essentially atheist).
Without that ending, the film would've resulted in a dreary study of religious fanaticism in the Depression-era South. Instead, while keeping the former as an assured theme, it was a simple morality fairy tale, seen from the eyes of children, without destroying all hope in religious belief. Because, in my opinion, religion isn't a bad thing; the Bible teaches good morals, and all people really want is something to believe in. It's the fanaticism that starts the wars.
Life-affirming endings can often be schlocky and tacked on, and they leave the distinct taste of cheese in one's mouth; this is not one of those cases.
< ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >
Philosophers ask why; I ask what.
I find myself agreeing with you on all of your points save the last. Really, it comes down to the scene's execution, not its necessity. For me, this is absolutely one of those cases.
shareThat's fair. It probably could've been executed with a little more tact, and I might just be making excuses because it's one of my favorite movies, but the ending's grown on me, and I felt the desired effect, in any case.
< ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >
Philosophers ask why; I ask what.
^This, my thoughts exacly, but I am catholic.
share....I especially like the variation of "finality" with the four musical "notes of menace" at the film's conclusion.
I wonder what John and Pearl grew up to be? Everyone who idolatrizes children and their innocence seems to miss a crucial point--that it's just a larval stage for what's to come. I haven't read the novel, just lots of Agee, and he has a habit of that. Turning children into holy innocents. Guardians of something beautifully primal that is beaten away by life in the adult world. Southern Gothic. I love it; it seems the closest to my own life and growing up times, and yet there lurks something disingenous and terrifying about ehout the creatures, even the children, lurking in the shadows.
Romanticism and realism. Beauty and disintegration. What do you think, all of you who have read James Agee's film criticism? Why does he expect justice and humanity and nobility in the world? Or even if you haven't. Lord knows I don't know what to say. This movie disturbs me like no other. I feel like an amputated leg.
The ending is folksy and naive, and of course a little absurd to modern sensibilities. But the greatness of this film isn't its subtlty. The greatness is in the power of its childlike perceptions. The evil is pitch black and the goodness is bright and saccharin sweet. A sophisticated, 'grey' ending wouldn't have been appropriate. This film is built on dreamlike archetypes, not complex psychological realism.
share