How does the book end?


A couple of the comments above indicate the film ends differently form the book. Could someone let me know how the book ends cos I idn't like the end of the film and I wondered from what point the deviation occurred.

reply

Since the book was published in 1930, World War II (the conflict depicted in the film) had not yet happened. However, Waugh creates an imaginary war, and Adam meets the drunk major in battle. The major hands over the money he owes, but it is now worthless, as the British economy has collapsed. (This final irony would be impossible to reconcile with Fry's decision to use the real war, since the British economy actually perked up between 1939 and 1945, only slumping afterwards.) The two of them (Adam and the major) sit in the jeep with a couple of young women, and listen to the sounds of war. The end.

The sort-of happy ending, with Adam paying for Ginger to disappear, is not in the novel.

I don't know why Fry did this - I have deep suspicions that a "focus group" or "audience testing" may have been involved.

reply

[deleted]

Waugh wasn't "predicting" a war as such. It just seemed to flow naturally from the anarchic disaster area that his characters had made of Britain.

Two biographical aspects. 1) Waugh was born in 1903, and was thus slightly too young to have fought in WWI. This bred a sort of survivors guilt in him and his generation.

2) While writing Vile Bodies, he discovered his wife was having an affair. Some have argued that this threw him into a paroxysm of disgust at the collapse of morality, and he hurled his characters into a fictional war as a sort of punishment. The depsir into which he fell led to his conversion to Catholicism. See his novel A Handful of Dust, or the movie adaptation of same, for a fictionalised version of the affir and its aftermath (Waugh = Tony Last in the book).

reply

Why not read the book? I'm sure most reasonable libraries would stock it if you don't want to buy it.

reply

The film couldn't end with an apocalyptic war because it just didn't happen in reality; the rest of the film requires absolutely no acceptance of an alternate history. People like these characters actually existed. The war ending would require the viewer to sit back and accept this giant leap out of the reality of the film and the time in history.

reply

It's clearly in an alternate history. There's a fictional Prime Minister, and a fictional newspaper run by a fictional magnate. And if the readers of the novel could accept a fictional war, why can't the viewers of the film?

reply

If you guys re-read the latter part of the book, you'll know that they're was actually a good reason to put that ending in the film! Doesn't anyone remember who Nina took home to her father at the end? It wasn't in the film... If you like the movie you HAVE to read Vile Bodies as it's ten times funnier and better. But I do like the movie ending better since I'm a sap. Fry really did cook up a classy ending, despite all this nonsense about "test audiences"! I'm a romantic... sigh...

reply

Even though I was somewhat disappointed with the ending, I did think that it fit well for a movie adaptation and for those who haven't read the book.

reply

wait, sorry, I'm kind of confused. Who does she bring home to her father?

"Do you want to come back to my flat for some coke and sex?"

reply

After Ginger and Nina get married, Ginger gets called to his regiment. So Nina brings Adam to meet her father for Christmas and tells everyone that Adam is her husband. Since her father, as we've seen, is totally out of it, he believes that Adam is Ginger. It's pretty funny, actually. So Adam spends Christmas with the Blouts. That's why, when he's in war and he has that letter from Nina, she says that she's pregnant and "Ginger has quite made up his mind it's his," when really it's probably Adam's.

I think it's a nice ending. I wish they hadn't changed it.

reply

And I think it was a very well-done happy end; twisted and not too predictable.

Aspire to climb as high as you can dream

reply

It's clearly in an alternate history. There's a fictional Prime Minister, and a fictional newspaper run by a fictional magnate. And if the readers of the novel could accept a fictional war, why can't the viewers of the film?


To answer your second question first: the novel had a contemporary setting, so the war was a day-after-tomorrow occurrence. It's harder to suspend disbelief when dealing with the past.

As for the "alternate history" argument, you have to take into account popular knowledge. Most people couldn't name all the inter-war Prime Ministers, let alone tell you the order they were in office for and how long: but the basic facts of WWII are imprinted on the public consciousness, and tampering with them would be far harder for audiences to accept.

Fry made it clear that the timeline of his film is not meant to be taken literally - he condensed the period c. 1928-40 into a much shorter timespan.

Think about it: it clearly begins in the heyday of the BYTs, surely not later than about 1933; the day after the first time Adam and Nina sleep together, she refers to talkies as a novelty, which places this scene not later than 1930ish; the day after the November handicap we see Lord Monomark trying to avert the abdication crisis of 1936 (actually November 1936 would probably be too late to do anything - might Monomark be being very prescient in 1935?); but counting backwards from the outbreak of war in September 1939 the film has to start circa the summer of 1938! Similar problems occur counting forward: since several months clearly pass between the two sexual encounters, it must be on the second, the night before war breaks out, that Tommy is conceived - which makes him slightly premature if he's even born by Dunkirk; yet, a few days after the evacuation, he's clearly three or four years old. It's not meant to be put under the microscope, any more than the double-time in Othello is.

Having something like the original ending happen at Dunkirk would have more or less worked, although the worthlessness of the pound is a problem; but then, if the General were to die as he does in this film, it would solve the difficulty, as Adam wouldn't actually be able to pay the cheque in. (Maybe we're to assume that he got to the bank before they found out the General was dead.)

Personally, I don't much mind. I might if they'd called it Vile Bodies, but this film is Bright Young Things, and it's really not a bad ending.

____________________________
"An inglorious peace is better than a dishonourable war" ~ John Adams

reply

Correction - Adam and the Drunk Major aren't sitting in the car with "a couple of girls" at the end of the book. They are with one girl, who was formerly Chastity (or Charity?) with Mrs. Melrose Ape's act, who was then sent by Margot Metroland to South America as a whore (Margot was in the brothel business since "Decline and Fall"), and then had been shipped to other locales as a prostitute, of sorts. As the book closes, Adam shuts his eyes to doze off, as the Major and the girl begin to have sex and the battle begins to return to their vicinity, leaving the reader to wonder if they'll survive. The book is much, much better than the movie, which, although enjoyable, doesn't capture Waugh's detached tone at all.

reply

[deleted]