MovieChat Forums > Oscar and Lucinda (1997) Discussion > Anyone else LOVE the ending compared to ...

Anyone else LOVE the ending compared to the book?


It was still sorrowful, but I think it was SO much more satisfying and uplifting without being cheap. The books ending at first floored me and I just couldn't bear that it was so sad at first and regretted reading the book at all, but then I slowly realized that there was some satisfaction in knowing Lucinda had a "full and satisfying life" and did the whole Australian labor thing.

BUT both the book and movie establish that Lucinda's ties and dreams and heart are linked to the countryside and to family. The books ending with Lucinda just felt too much like she was living her mothers dream and not her own. Like she said, she wanted a loud house with 10 sisters in the kitchen, and whenever she daydreamed it was of the countryside and her parents. In the movie, with Oscar's son, she kind of gets what she always wanted. And it's more faithful to that idea of Lucinda being a part of the three people responsible for the narrator's ancestry; in the book, Lucinda was just incidental and technically a LOT of people led Oscar to Miriam.

I vastly preferred this ending to the books ending. I can't stop thinking how happy it's made me!

Anyway, yeah I just watched this and it's quite late in this discussion boards life so I doubt anyone gonna respond lol.

reply

Since it's a sort-of big budget movie, I was expecting a happier ending (eg. Oscar actually refusing to drown!). I'm of two minds about the ending.

On one hand, I liked finding out Lucinda's response to Oscar's death. The book abruptly tells us Lucinda went on to a long and satisfying life and had some fame in the Australian labor movement. We don't know if she ever falls in love again, marries, or has children. Presumably she's lonely for at least a little while. It's good that the movie left the line where she tells Oscar she wish she had 10 sisters to laugh with. She gets Oscar's son as a sort of compensation for his death so she doesn't have to be alone anymore.

However... I did think adopting the kid robbed Lucinda of some of her independence as a character. In the movie, her future without Oscar is defined as motherhood. She raises the narrator's grandfather and passes the story down the line, glorified for taking this kid in. It seems a little....unfeminist that her identity is shaped by the child she raises rather than her political achievements. (It just irritates me when movies end with a happily-ever-after in the symbolism of a baby!)

I also wonder if she feels betrayed that Oscar has sex with Miriam but never her. Maybe Reverend Hassett informs her about Miriam's seductive ways. Then again, Oscar's relationship with Miriam is defined by sex, and Oscar's bond with Lucinda goes beyond that, in their similarities as individuals.

Anyway, to summarize that, I wish I liked the movie's ending more. The book's ending was so shocking to me I couldn't imagine anything else. I'm glad it seems to have made a bunch of viewers satisfied though.

reply

Have to admit, as a woman, I certainly don't like feminism in my fiction- I know the dictionary definition but in my experience in actual practice the ideology doesn't hew close to it at all - and don't expect, or want, what i consider a "feminist" ending or stories to adhere to that ideology at all. To me that would mean a whole lot of theories and generalizations about my life and the lives of the men I know that don't really work or apply to reality, and are quite alienating, and bringing real life ideology into a story just dilutes the interpretation of the story imo, makes it 2-dimensional, how "good" it is when it's not propaganda in the first place. And a personal pet peeve of mine is immediately dismissing something based on political correctness as opposed to mining it deeper for a radical interpretation, though I don't mean to say you're doing that.

I think it's important to look at stories on their own terms, and in this case, in my opinion, Lucinda as a character, in both the book and the movie, ultimately wanted a laughing home and to be happy and at peace and finally feel like she belonged, and I can't think of anything more independent or more inspirational than a person, who just happens to be a woman, making that life for herself, raising a child that isn't their own, a potentially scandalous thing to do in that society, and doing it anyway, because it's what she wanted, because it was right according to her own morals, because it belonged to her friend. Her friend, not even a lover. Her future without Oscar isn't defined as anything; it just is, it's played out on screen, and it's only our individual interpretations that define it in our own minds. Her identity isn't shaped by that one scene; it was shaped by her passion, by her morals, by her belief building your own life and eschewing society, and she held steadfast to that. She didn't do what her stupid lawyer wanted her to, or what her mother wanted. She did what she wanted. I think it's far less meaningful to get a couple scant lines that she kind of had some impact on the Australian labor movement, something throughout the book she showed very little interest in imo. I always thought it was her inability to match up to her mother's ideology that partly led to her loneliness; she just wanted the warmth of a farm and people and friends, to experience life, not be tied to ideology. I don't like the idea of peoples worths being defined by how political they are. Good can come in many forms; she did a wonderful, compassionate thing, and a very independent thing.

Also want to point out, Oscar didn't have sex with Miriam. She raped him. He wasn't seduced either. According the dictionary definition of feminism, as opposed to the ideology in practice today, to me describing it any other way is unfeminist. Lucinda couldn't have known that of course, but I doubt she felt betrayed because they never really went that far; the whole point of the book and movie was that they were a love that never got to be. Although there was some scant line I remember in the book which I thought meant that they did have sex, but in the end it was described as a love that wasn't consummated or something.

reply

can you tell me how the book ends

reply

can you tell me how the book ends

reply