MovieChat Forums > The Jane Austen Book Club (2007) Discussion > Daniel and Sylvia- did anyone not like h...

Daniel and Sylvia- did anyone not like how their storyline ended?

posted 11 years ago by littlemann001
21 replies | jump to latest

Fixed for spoilers - sorry if I bothers people
Daniel and Sylvia- did anyone not like that they got back together?

I get the idea, everyone happy in the end, and I did like it the first time - but whenever I watch it again he is such an ass when he breaks it off with her. First he is cheating on her- I hate cheating, I think if you are going to make that step then end it with the person you are with. To play both sides until you make up your mind is wrong and cowardly.
Then he tells her in a romantic restaurant- that sets the tone for a break-up. Again a cowardly move to try and keep her from making a scene and forces her to sit in the car with him after or find a way home on her own.
He seems only interested in her again when he sees that she might have another younger guy in her life.
He had no trouble using a sledge hammer to break them apart - but then he tries to worm his way in to her life again.
The more I watch this show the more I dislike him, I see no reason why she would want him back.
But that is just me, I was wondering what other people thought.

[–] tallard 11 years ago

Since the film came out, I had decided I would not watch it. For though I mostly like Jane Austin stories, they are fundamentally chick flicks/novels. Yes the quality of the wording is nice, but the end is always about the female submitting to the male domination.
So I found myself without a good movie option tonight and decided to give in to watching this. And I found myself surprisingly mostly liking it, as it's about human drama/trauma, getting over *beep* and moving on.

But at the end, I felt like you, cheated by the cheap "happy ending", each female choosing the status quo of a monogamous relationship, whether it's the first marriage or the sixth.

So I agree with you about them getting back together, but for me that's what sickens me about the entire last 15 minutes of the film. Good writing gone bad.

This is 2013, are there no other options for females other than getting married? is that how far we've come???? (ok, so there's a token, incredibly sexy young lesbian... but the story's not so much about her).

***So I've seen 4 movies/wk in theatre for a 1/4 century, call me crazy?**

[–] lamont-hard 11 years ago

You are adding things that makes no difference, She loved him and he loved her, she chose to stick it out, because she did not bail does not make her all the negative things you are claiming.

By the way no one says women has to marry, where did you come up with this. Marriage is so much more than you seem to understand.

[–] tallard 11 years ago

Sure, it is your prerogative to choose to ignore historical reality. But the thing is the institution of marriage is a tool to accomplish an end. Love has only entered into the equation in the last half century, and barely, and that depends on geographic/cultural realities, in many places it's still not about love. And frankly, the more "love" plays a role in the marriage, the shorter than marriages last.

***So I've seen 4 movies/wk in theatre for a 1/4 century, call me crazy?**

[–] coolbluegreen 10 years ago

Jane Austen books are not "fundamentally chick flicks/novels." She has been dead nearly 200 years. Her book are still studied in universities. Academic papers are written about them. Courses about them are taught. People get their Ph.D.s in various studies of Jane Austen. How many novelists can you mention, easily, who wrote 200 years ago? Not many. That is NOT because it is "chick lit." It is because Jane Austen is GREAT. Have you read her books? Have you read any of the the hundreds -- probably thousands -- books written ABOUT her books? Here -- here is some recent literary criticism about Jane Austen. The essay is called,

"Jane Austen’s Conversational Pragmatics: Rational Evaluation and Strategic Action in Sense and Sensibility"

Chick Lit does not get this this kind of academic attention. Jane Austen does. She is much more than you think she is.

Here is a link to the essay -- http://www.jasna.org/persuasions/on-line/vol32no2/hughes.html

Read it -- know that stuff like this is published ALL THE TIME about Jane Austen and realize that there are many people out there who are highly educated and they are NOT dismissing her the way you do -- that's for a good reason. You need to reevaluate your own opinions and how you reach them.

[–] tallard 10 years ago

I "need" to re-evaluate my opinions!?! sheesh, thanks mate! I read a few of her books a long time ago and have given up. I hate that period of history... it was the worst for us women. It's the same way I intensely dislike Game of Thrones and Woody Allen, not because 1000s of critics like to ponder on them, but because I simply despise how us females are presented in them.

***So I've seen 4 movies/wk in theatre for a 1/4 century, call me crazy?**

[–] coolbluegreen 10 years ago

Yes, you should re-evaluate your opinion. Jane Austen is not "chick lit." That should be obvious. "Chick lit" does not survive for 200 years, is not the focus of multiple college courses, the topic of countless Ph.D.s -- clearly, Jane Austen is a lot more than you think it is. You should re-evaluate it.

I don't know what you despise about how Austen portrayed women.

You can dislike Game of Thrones and Woody Allen all you like. That has nothing to do with Jane Austen. Why do you reduce Jane Austen to "chick lit"? It's clearly NOT, as I pointed out above. And your saying that is dismissive and misogynistic and insulting -- and unclear. What IS chick lit? How do you define it? Why DO you call her books "chick lit"? How are her topics any different from the topics Shakespeare wrote about? Or Fielding? Or Defoe?

You say you dislike how females are portrayed by Jane Austen. People are usually impressed and delighted by her heroines. Look, I'll be honest with you. I really don't think you are all that familiar with Jane Austen's works. If I were you, I would read them again and I most certainly would not dismiss a body of work that has lasted hundreds of years and is still revered.

[–] coolbluegreen 10 years ago

Hmmmm. You call me "mate" then say you are female? That's weird. I thought mate was something men called one another. And, yes, I think you should re-evaluate your opinion. What do you know about "that period of history"? Do you know when "that period of history" was? If the answers are "not a lot" and "no" then I suggest you learn more before ignoring a great author. Also, if you like to see women well-presented -- you definitely should read Jane Austen. You'll see real presentations of real women. You will see the woman considered the best female character ever if you read Pride and Prejudice. I find it off that someone who is so concerned about how women are presented should reject the books that have the best presentations of them.

[–] MissAngelCakes 11 years ago

I was hoping Sylvia could go against the odds and "start over" much like she said in the film, that men can do it but a woman of her age can't.

I found it sad that instead of realising she was a beautiful woman and becoming confident, she, like the other user said, gave in to the status quo and the man who cheated on her.

[–] coolbluegreen 10 years ago

Men can but women can't? Snort. That would be news to my grandmother, who married her last rich husband when she was in her seventies.

My aunt, well, she only married three times, but she she was last proposed to a few years ago, actually, when she was in her 70s, too.

I have heard of that crazy belief. Nothing in my life has ever led me to believe it. I have never seen it to be true.

[–] MissAngelCakes 11 years ago

Also, she had no progression. The scene where she was criticising her daughter telling her to "patch up and repair" a bad relationship, it was very sad to watch.

And that's what she ended up doing.

[–] maybe730 10 years ago

I agree with OP. I really disliked it because he was such an unpleasant human being about the affair and she just got to be a train wreck for most of the movie ranging from sobbing frump to hating Daniel.. until he came back of course.

[–] purpleblows 10 years ago

Actually that part of the story is what ruined the film for me :(
They were divorced, he was continually unfaithful for 6 months, cold in the breakup, "Pam deserves better", then when he sees that she didn't die from sadness but instead found herself again he comes back and you know what? He didn't have to do much at all! Such a stupid ending

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] shirinf333 9 years ago

I agree with everything you and the last post said.

[–] Lucky-Dollar 10 years ago

They were married for over 20 years. The guy messed up. All men cheat anyway. It doesn't mean we stopped loving you. He loved her like crazy and it would've been ridiculous to end it.

[–] shirinf333 9 years ago

I completely agree with what most of you have said. I mean it is really ridiculous! The way he treated her when he told her about the affair. He just acted like he deserved better or something. And may I say, Sylvia was a great character when the film started. She seemed very interesting and there seemed to be a lot of passion between the two before that dinner. I can't understand why he'd every cheat on her in the first place. But anyhow, he "reveal" was completely heartless and selfish in every way. Just as another poster said, he was being a complete coward! Telling her inn a romantic restaurant, and on top of that knowing full well his intentions he drove there with one car. He absolutely knew that she'd be put in the vulnerable position of riding home with him or getting home on her own. He wanted to show how much more dependent she'd be. Then the absolutely horrible things he said. He didn't apologize, he had only compassion for the mistress and none for her, "she deserves better than that". As if.
The way he was when at Whole Foods was cruel as well. He shielded his "poor love" from Sylvia. He hid her from Sylvia as if she did wrong and not him and the other woman. It was clear later in the film, when he showed up at her house to mow the lawn, that she had dumped him. He started to miss Sylvia and sneaked his way back into her life once he saw Sylvia and Grigg having dinner. And after everything, after he professes his unending love for the other woman, all he hast fo do is write some idiotic letter to get her back? All happily ever after for him? She could have very well started her life over, it seemed like she already was. Honestly, that was the only part of the film/ending that really bothered me. My rant is over haha

[–] teatat 9 years ago

I take those scenes differently:

Yes he handled things badly during the breakup but many people do. Possibly he thought taking her to a nice place would help soften the blow –which would be foolish but not intentionally cruel. I know people who think this is a good way to deliver bad news. To be fair I believe he said, “She deserves better than that and so do you.” None of this is to excuse him. To me the worst part is that Sylvia was so clearly blindsided – which means he let things go this long and waited until he had formed a relationship with someone else before letting her know he was unhappy.

At the whole foods my impression was that he felt badly that Sylvia had to see him and Pam together, especially when they look like they are having a fun day and she looks a hot mess.

When he comes to mow the lawn I think part of that is he still feels responsible for maintenance. I know that is inappropriate but I’ve known other men who react this way. Also, even when they are signing the legal papers the woman is saying they will own the house together & split the bills –but only Sylvia can live there. So it’s not a clean break for either of them regarding the house. I don’t think it’s clear Pam dumped him at this point. From the timing it could be either just before or just after they break up. It may be that he’s missing his family because things are no longer so great with Pam. It could also be that he’s beginning to realize he made a mistake and he’s no longer happy with Pam now that it’s a real relationship rather than an escape from his marriage.

As to Sylvia taking him back: We really only see him at his worst. She’s been with him since high school so she can see his mistakes in a much larger context of who he is than we can. We also don’t know what has happened between the time of his letter and their being together at the next library dinner. Also, IMO Sylvia is stronger at the point when she takes him back then she was in the beginning so she’s taking him back from a place of strength rather than because she’s miserable without him and Daniel seems to me to be at a point where he now appreciates what he gave up and will feel he’s lucky to be back with her rather than taking her for granted.

[–] Rpdsf 9 years ago

When he told her that he wanted to come back she should have told him no and it was "non-negotiable".

[–] lauraly 9 years ago

I was actually disappointed that Sylvia took Daniel back so easily. He put his wife and his whole family through hell. Especially when he said to Sylvia.."She deserves better" and as an afterthought "and so do you". No way--even if Sylvia still did love him. No way. He could read every Jane Austen book...all of the Bronte's. F him. Sylvia should have moved on from Daniel.