hard to swallow


a very unpalatable ending to what was an otherwise good story! What a let-down from Cissy!

reply

I agree but I blame the creative team behind this miniseries for poor choices. First and foremost, casting. It takes a very special actor to play a redeemed rapist - very special. Someone like Damian Lewis can pull it off. Edward Rawle-Hicks was a poor choice. Also, the two leads have to have not only palpable chemistry but the kind of chemistry that can make an unorthodox and complicated love story palatable. That was not the case here. Secondly, what they attempted to accomplish in one episode could NOT possibly be accomplished in that time frame. The entire movie needed to be re-imagined. The events of episodes one and two should have occurred in a condensed time frame so that they took half an episode at most. They should have then fast-forwarded and spent 3 1/2 episodes (at least) redeeming him if they wanted this coupling to be believable. Finally, where this miniseries really failed was in portraying the karmic subtext. This is very much a story about justice - not the kind that the law dishes out, but the kind that comes when we have to live with the consequence of our decisions. I think the end is supposed to be less romantic than it is to be a statement about a man who will have to suffer the consequences of his misdeeds, even after achieving redemption, by literally living with those consequences.

reply

[deleted]

I think you must be young. When one is young everything is about 'fairness' and 'karma'.
Before I say more, I do agree that the first two parts should have been condensed and the third part should have been expanded, because the third part tied up all the loose ends, but far too fast.
So Cissy makes pragmatic decisions for the good of her family. True. But that was also for HER own good too, which seems quite obvious to me as someone whose own life began in the 1940s.
At the time that young lord, Clive, who raped Cissie, was a self-indulgent narcissist 'almost' incestuously involved with his sister. Four years later when Clive returned from the seas he was an adult MAN. A man who had been shaken free of his narcissism by his brutal experiences on the seas. A man who was genuinely repentant for his earlier behavior. Cissie recognized that in him and because of his consistently mature response to and concern for her and Richard, their son, she was attracted to him.
(Also, don't forget that the first time that Clive seems Cissie he is so smitten with her he paints her portrait from memory.)

There is no 'fairness' in life, there is also seldom any 'karmic payback'. Life IS only a chaotic stormy journey, a personal journey towards maturity and increasing wisdom. You seldom get 100% back for your efforts, but you are seldom 100% perfect in anything you do. You break your own rules, fail to meet your goals, and often bite off more than you can chew. Fact.

I liked this movie, I liked how Clive was portrayed when he was an unfocused foolish boy, and later as the man he became. In the beginning he looked like a 'dandy', when he returned from the seas, he looked like an adult man (at least they got rid of the silly pompadour). It was evident that his father had done the right thing by sending his son off to sea, even if he did it for the wrong reasons. Moreover, Matthew, the baker/carpenter, was shown to be much less of the authentic man we thought he was when he first showed up.

As for Clive's sister, there was nothing to like. She was just one of those characters the author (or at least the screenwriter) didn't fully flesh out, because she's only there to cause or ascerbate the problems. She died, good riddance.

In the first two episodes, I felt a little sorry for Rose, because she didn't have Matthew's love or even his body and she was deliberately made to look physically unattractive. But she was a generous-natured, kindhearted young woman, which is frankly far more important than 'looks' over a lifetime. Towards the end when Matthew is proclaiming he is going to leave, one assumes, to be with his 'love' and live his 'authentic life', Rose calls his bluff. She gambles that he is living his 'authentic life', the life he CHOSE. Rose was right. Matthew puts on his apron and goes back to work. Eventually since he only has Rose to turn to for comfort, and she is an eminently comforting, loving wife, we can confidently assume that they do fully bond as a married couple. (C'est la vie! said the old folks, it goes to show you never can tell... as the song goes.) The 1800s were not the days of 'easy divorce', remember?

Cissie takes the house Clive gave her because she has forgiven him AND herself and she has come to the realization that a cave is not a home. No doubt her son will soon be back living with her, and eventually, with both his parents. The grandfather will reluctantly acknowledge (if only to himself -- and without words -- to his butler) that the 'little people' are no worse and no better than 'the upper class'. He'll get over any embarrassment created by the 'scandal' when Clive marries Cissie. He will relax and enjoy his grandchildren in his declining years.

I have added an imaginary prologue (which anyone could assume): it is 30 years later (1860) on a warm summer day. Clive and Matthew are deceased, their children are grown (three more for Cissie and Clive, and two for Matthew and Rose), Cissie and Rose, now best friends, are sitting in lawn chairs surrounded by their grandchildren. Everyone is laughing and smiling. The birds are singing and life is good.
The end.
If you think that a happy ending isn't possible, then you ARE young.


Life is a journey not a destination. Fear nothing.

reply

If you haven't read the book, I would advise you do to so. I enjoyed the series, but they left out so much. The ending seemed very rushed. I won't give it away here, in case anyone wants to read the book. But I will say this: She and Clive didn't get together until eighteen years later. Everything that happened in the interim was left out

reply

The lack of chemistry between the two was problematic for me. Also, I thought that Cissy was poorly cast; the actress was rather wooden at times, "delivering lines" as if she were in a school play. It was unclear to me as to why two men had fallen in love with her, for she had little vibrancy, charm, beauty, sensuality or charisma. Yes, she was loyal and hard-working but it takes more than that to attract the opposite sex and the actress brought nothing to the role in that context. Frankly, it was unclear to me why Matthew preferred Cissy to his wife.

reply