*Spolier* Why did they change the ending?

Screw what you people think would have been terrible about a sappy ending; it couldn't have been any worse than the sheer misery of the chosen ending. This movie reminded me of the French film Mouchette. 2 hours (in this case, 2 1/2 long hours) invested in some character just to watch her suffer and die. OP, if this film is comfort food for you, you must be a pretty strong and admirable person. Charity's personal resilience doesn't give me much hope in a world where people can be so callous and vile, and luck can be so dumb and blind. I wouldn't call it bittersweet, just bitter, and I wouldn't call it inspiring, just depressing. (And hippies are plain dated!)

For a musical, what is the point of this mess? Come on, I liked this movie, and really enjoyed the first half, but it all fell flat from too much ambition.

This movie tries to be too many things, and just like Charity at the end, it doesn't know what it's all about and where it's going. That doesn't teach us an authentic, inspiring lesson; that just wastes a valuable platform to get an easy emotional response (not to take anything away from MacLaine's bravura performance, which makes us care and makes the film work right through the end).

"And she lived hopefully ever after." Except she had nothing to hope for. No skills, no man, and she couldn't even face her friends and return to the comfortable job she had. Alone and no money or prospects. In New York City. She was hopeless. I like Fosse a lot more (though I know he didn't write the story) when he confronts his demons head on and is more honest about his sarcastic, pessimistic worldview.

I saw this movie in 1969 during its roadshow engagement at Cinema 1 in Milwaukee, which is no longer there. I didn't know that there was an alternative ending either, until I saw it almost 30 years later on AMC. I am pleased that they don't show the ending very often, because the story remains faithful to Fellini's Nights of Cabiria if the original ending is used.

I, too, saw this upon its initial release in 1969 and never imagined a "happy ending" with Oscar. I liked the somewhat downbeat but somewhat hopeful ending because one sees that Charity has not been sullied or embittered beyond all hope because of what happened with Oscar. She has a resilience. I also never doubted that she would return to her job and still be welcomed back.

Thank you, thank you--you're most kind. In fact you're every kind.

The original film Nights of the Cabaria had a unhappy ending too. Maybe Fosse wanted to follow that example.

Probably an unpopular opinion, but I find the alternate, happy ending much more apropos.

1. The movie has been so much about the bridge that artistic unity requires that it be about the bridge at the end.
2. The guy has played too large a role in the film for it not to work out. When it doesn't work out, it begs the question "why did we bother spending so much time telling the sub-story about his part of her life?".
3. The whole story is too bleak to have such a bleak ending as well. It's not well balanced.

That they even thought the bleak ending is the right one is entirely contextual. If the world hadn't been so miserable in 1969 they never would have reached that conclusion.

There is at least one big problem with the alternate ending though. That he could believe anyone would try to commit suicide by jumping from *that* bridge into that nearby water is difficult to credit.