MovieChat Forums > A Room with a View (2008) Discussion > The ending (spoilers - be warned!)

The ending (spoilers - be warned!)


What was Andrew Davies thinking?! The novel ended on a note of such hope and optimism - yet from this new version we're left with a horrible image of George spreadeagled on a muddy battlefield! Why??

It totally ruined it for me - give me the 1985 version any day over this revisionist rubbish.

reply

I completely agree, why did they feel the need to change things. I would have much prefered the original ending.

reply

same here, disappointing ending.

reply

Actually, apparently the ending was in some notes that Forster made, so it wasn't just a complete overhaul of the original text. It was still rather abrupt and, in my opinion, unnecessary, though.

reply

In the original ending, (an essay titled "A View without a room") George is a concientious objector to the war, and works in the hospital side? Lucy is told to stop playing Beethoven because it is unpatriotic. They have children, live to a ripe old age, but I think Forster says that George was not entirely faithful! Mr Emerson dies during WWI I think.

Never Judge A Girl By Her Straitjacket

Bean Girl:Eimear Ald Isle

reply

I must have been misinformed, then! Thank you for the correction.

reply

Completely agree, what a ridiculous ending!

Despite the 1985 film being one of my all time favourite films I was actually quite enjoying this version (more than I thought I would) and then that stupid ending happened. Are we supposed to think she ended up with the coach driver???

As you say, what was Andrew Davis thinking?!!

reply

I completely agree! I had to do this last year for A levels and was really looking forward to this version, which ended up being a total disappointment. The characters throughout seemed very sketchy- Cecil in particular came across very strangely I thought, and Lucy as downright annoying...far too assertive. My friend even thought Miss Bartlett was mentally ill! But the ending was probably the worst thing overall- I cannot see the point in changing it?? It didn't add anything new to the plot, other than a sense of depression...I'm baffled!

Never Judge A Girl By Her Straitjacket

Bean Girl:Eimear Ald Isle

reply

the ending was hiddeous... NOT impressed with this in the slightest

reply

How does it end in the 1985 film? As I would like to know how it ends before I see the film - I guess just to make sure I will like it before I watch?

Thank you

reply

It did say in the paper that the ending was inspired by Forster. I didn't like the ending, i thought the whole thing was a little disjointed.

reply

If you go to the pbs.org website and watch an interview with Andrew Davies ( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/roomwithaview/synopsis.html ), you will find that the "inspiration" for this (travesty of an) ending is a comment that Forster made in a "postscript" (Davies' word) on the novel fifty years later. Davies says that Forster imagined George returning to Florence years after the events of the story proper; but Davies' thought was that it's really Lucy's story, so she's the one who should return. Davies then goes on to say that he himself wrote a twist at the end "that some people might like and some people might not like" (the death of George, I presume). So all this George dying in the war stuff has to be laid at Davies' feet.

On the other hand, having just read the novel (had to get the bad taste of this adaptation out of my mouth), I find that there is some small suggestion of Forster's wanting to off George. In the introduction to the Penguin 2000 edition, Malcolm Bradbury notes,

Forster himself was worried by the book, wondering if he had ended it correctly and whether it was anything more than 'tosh.' He was concerned that the Comic Muse had led him to the ancient 'happy ending' of marriage, in which for several reasons he did not believe. An earlier version had ended with a failed elopement and George killed by a falling tree.

However, had Forster ended the story with George's death, there would have been other changes in order to make that death make sense (e.g., a "failed elopement"), and Mr. Andrew Davies has no business changing what is a story in and of itself complete and whole.

reply

I hated the end of George so now when watching as soon as the 'nice' part is over i stop the dvd and pretend there never was the awful ending. Denial? Yes!

Say it again, it keeps me awake
I love you

reply

Hel_Kirkham,

The 85 film ends in the same way the book does - with an intimate scene showing George and Lucy in their room back in the pension in Florence reading a letter from Freddy and musing about Charlotte's role in bringing them together.

I agree with the previous posters about the Davies ending. It was all going rather well until he chose to take such a broad license from the source text. First he ruined Middlemarch's ending for me and now this one too... what a shame!

http://monomaniadiaries.blogspot.com

reply

I didn't understand the point of it really. Not because I do not like an ending that brings us all down to reality, but because this is such a light and fun story not a heavy story, so ending it so tragically didn't lend it gravitas, because the story isn't grave to begin with. It felt tagged on. Maybe they did it because it wasn't really straying all too far from the 1985 version enough to warrant it being made. I mean to say, it didn't add anything new to the story, so maybe by adding a shocking ending they were trying to make it different. I thought it seemed awkward and not at all right. Even just the juxtaposition of them humping to him rotting seemed ridiculous editing to me anyway. But I can easily forget the end since the wonderful 1985 version and the novel end happily. As far as I'm concerned it ended right there in Florence when they are in love and happy...and living!

reply

I'm not sure if i liked the ending Davies introduced but i did find it quiet poignant and it made the whole story more resonant and it was obviously quiet different from the original,In saying that i would have preferred the traditional happy ending. i don't think the last scene was implying she ended up with the coach driver i think it was just comfort and him comforting a war widow.But leading up till the ending, i loved every moment.

reply

I didn't like the ending. I found this version interesting, but I preferred the Merchant-Ivory one. The Merchant-Ivory one was more vibrant (not least because of the Puccini music as well as the stunning cinematography). The ending seemed tacked on (it was only some thoughts rather than the finished novel).

reply

I completely agree with this.

reply

The ending in the 1985 film has them returning to Florence to honeymoon and being very happy and passionate.

The only difference to the book is that in the book, they are rejected/shunned by her family and Mr Beebe for lying about her true feelings.. but she is left hopeful that they will come round eventually and be happy for her.

This 2007 ending was ludicrous.

reply

It ends with them back in Florence married (or at least they have eloped) and they are happy- its lovely. If you don't love it i'd be shocked and maybe appalled
I love that film but i also enjoyed this version (loved George!!) but the ending made me scream at the TV

reply

They're in Italy on their honeymoon kissing.

reply

Well, I can see your comment is from November but anyway, the 1985 film has a very happy ending. You won't be disappointed.

reply

It ends really well, in a Hollywood sense, but at least with happiness. George and Lucy are kissing on a window sill, with the view of Italy beneath them. It's very sweet and happy. I don't understand why Davies needed to take such a dramatic turn - maybe to do things differently? Regardless, I highly suggest the 1985 version. It's not incredibly well acted, but I think it gets all the pieces right and is very sweet. It's definitely a better watch.

reply

I agree, I hated the ending. I've never read the novel but, according to posts here, it did not end this way. What a terrible idea to end this wonderful love story so tragically. I much prefer the 1985 version.

reply

I hadn't read the book, or seen the earlier film, but I do have some knowledge of history. I was watching it and it struck me about an hour in that these young men would be somehow caught up in the war and there was a high chance that they would not come back. This thought shocked me enough, I didn't nned the ending but know I know that's not how it really ends angers me, why can't classic novels just be left as they are?

reply

I had no idea that there was a remake of this movie. I dislike remakes of good work in general, and there are only a few exceptions that are better than the original. After reading these comments I am definitely won't even try to see the remake.

reply

Ugh, the ending irritated me too. Just because WW1 was looming doesn't mean George was predestined to die. Tacky. In fact, he didn't according Forster's previously mentioned essay. I don't think Davies portrayed George's deep, thoughtful side and existential despair at all. None of his philosophical leanings, ("hello, george reads German")which would help us understand his journey to becoming a conscientious objector. I generally like stuff that considers ww1 but thats not the point of Lucy and George's relationship. Oh, and i think George was too cockerney sparra. Sure he was no polished gentleman like Cecil but he wasn't that blatant.

reply

I spose if you think realistically, both he and Freddy (and probably Cycil, though you can see him getting out of it somehow) would have fought in the war...but that's a DIFFERENT story! Why not just leave it with them all happy and in love in Florence? Not only that, but to crowbar it in so clumsily! I wasn't altogether sure what I was watching at that point. Why wrap us in the cosy glow of a happy ending, only to rip it away leaving us wondering what we did wrong?

And I'm no prude, but the shagging at the end, was that really necessary? I got the idea of their passion all the way through the film - I didn't need it so graphically spelled out for me. It looked like a "ooo let's cram some sex in so people will watch it" type move. The Merchant Ivory version was much sexier, and I don't believe we were treated to rampant humping at any point in that.

The whole thing's put a dark stain on my day, actually. I only watched it out of curiosity and in the spirit of open-mindedness. I wouldn't want to watch it again.

reply

While Forster’s epilogue: 'a room without a view'(extremely funny and well worth a read, for those that haven't) had a different conclusion to the story, than the one in this adaptation. Forster did mention in letters/notes, before this epilogue was written, that George would probably have been a causality of WW1, like so many of his generation. He obviously, fifty years later, changed his mind.

As for Cecil, he was recruited into the Secret Service (according to the epilogue), and did not fight. Freddy became a doctor, but there is no mention of whether, or not, he fought in WW1. The epilogue doesn’t provide a sickly sweet future for George/Lucy, albeit it is a hilarious read: George looses his government job after being a conscientious objector in WW1, they were always a bit strapped for cash, Freddy likewise did not have monetary success and Windy Corner had to be sold, by him, and was torn down, George was unfaithful during WWII, when he was away from Lucy, Lucy’s apartment was bombed during the blitz.

The message of the book is really that people should live by love and truth, evidently something Forster believed (if he did not practice), I thought the ending was fine; after all it’s an adaptation, and was on near to remembrance day, and I thought that it succinctly captured what did indeed happen to many of Lucy/George generation.

reply

Am in agreement wondering what overtook Andrew Davies unless he just didn't think this E.M. Forster book should have a happy ending, since none of the others did.

I guess you could ponder that age old question of 'what if?' with any beloved work of literature. Maybe Davies is asking that question about one of the central themes of the novel. That is, does Lucy Honeychurch really embrace living life with sensual abandon. 'What if' George were killed, would Lucy be true to their ideals or would she wander off looking for Cecil, who would have stayed as far away from the front as possible? Or would she leave her grief behind, and continue to live a full life?

So, here's Andrew's answer. We have a scene where Lucy returns to Italy 5 years later, and becomes attracted to their handsome, if slightly rough around the edges, Florentine tourista guide - no class issues there. I can't argue with Davies interpretation which seems consistent with the novel's themes. But a part of me wonders 'why bother?' My only answer is to add a little extra buzz to get folks to watch, i.e. - We hear Davies has written a different ending;how WILL he do it?

reply

[deleted]

I liked a lot of things about this adaptation, but definitely not the end!!! I thought it was interesting to have George with a less posh accent and Lucy a little bit angrier, but I wish the dialogue had been more true to the book, especially at the end.

reply

grrr.... what was Davis thinking when he did this? How dare he do this! I was enjoying this ending, Lucy running into the lake to save George was a nice touch. But seeing George dead in a field with blood caked on his mouth just killed it, i mean just slaughtered the uplifting mood.

Give me the 85 ending any day!

reply

Oh my God! When I learned that this version had Mr. Beebe going after Venetian rent boys, I thought, "Well, I don't want to see that, any more than I want to see George and Lucy humping." That was my exact thought! And whaddya know - that actually happens in this remake! My disgust knows no bounds.

I think I'll stick with the 1986 version, which to my mind was pretty much perfect. The cast in this version seems pretty weak, with the possible exceptions of Timothy Spall and Sinead Cusack, who are probably great as Mr. Emerson and Miss Lavish.

reply

I agree with wizz-5 that the passionate ending was a bit too graphic. Unnecessary, and out-of-place in a tasteful presentation of this kind. Isn't the point, with these 18th / 19th century stories, that there was passion and romance brewing under those cumbersome outfits -- but it was a private matter, reserved for the wedding night? (--: at least, that's what I glean from watching, for instance, the Jane Austen screenplays.

Actually, on the USA's PBS 'Masterpiece Theater', recently 'Sense & Sensibility' started with an explicit soft lens seduction by Willoughby (of Colonel Brandon's younger sister?). I thought we'd tuned in the wrong show. *sigh*

Anyway, yes, the ending was a clunker. No coincidence that Davies chose that, plus the 'tee-hee' scene above, to brand his version. Sadly, it detracts from what is really a very simple story: with the coming gradual breakdown in Victorian-era England of the entrenched class system, couples should marry for love, attraction and happiness - NOT to comply with some stodgy code based on class, wealth and status.

Well, after one viewing, that's what I got!! - guess I'll rent the 1985 version and see how they did - (forgot all about that flick!).



:-) canuckteach (--:

reply

I agree.
And besides - if anyone felt he had to give the audience an idea as to what happened to Lucy and George, he should have read Forster's "A View without a Room" which he wrote in 1958:

"A Room with a View" was published in 1908. Here we are in 1958 and it occurs to me to wonder what the characters have been doing during the interval. They were created even earlier than 1908. The Italian half of the novel was almost the first piece of fiction I attempted. I laid it aside to write and publish two other novels, and then returned to it and added the English half. It is not my preferred novel – The Longest Journey is that – but it may fairly be called the nicest. It contains a hero and heroine who are supposed to be good, good-looking and in love – and who are promised happiness. Have they achieve it?

Let me think.

Lucy (Mrs George Emerson) must now be in her late sixties, George in his early seventies – a ripe age, though not as ripe as my own. They are still a personable couple, and fond of each other and of their children and grandchildren. But where do they live? Ah, that is the difficulty, and that is why I have entitled this article „A View without a Room“. I cannot think where George and Lucy live.

After their Florentine honeymoon they probably settled down in Hampstead. No – in Highgate. That is pretty clear, and the next six years were from the point of view of amenity the best they ever experienced. George cleared out of the railway and got a better-paid clerkship in a government office, Lucy brought a nice little dowry along with her, which they were too sensible not too enjoy, and Miss Bartlett left them what she termed her little all. (Who would have thought it of Cousin Charlotte? I should never have thought anything else.) They had a servant who slept in, and were becoming comfortable capitalists when World War I exploded – the war that was to end war – and spoiled everything.

George instantly became a conscientious objector. He accepted alternative service, so did not go to prison, but he lost his government job and was out of the running for Homes for Heroes when peace came. Mrs Honeychurch was terribly upset by her son-in-law’s conduct.
Lucy now got on her high horse and declared herself a conscientious objector too, and ran a more immediate risk by continuing to play Beethoven. Hun music! She was overheard and reported, and the police called. Old Mr Emerson, who lived with the young couple, addressed the police at length. They told him he had better look out. Shortly afterwards he died, still looking out and confident that Love and Truth would see humanity through in the end.

They saw the family through, which is something. No government authorised or ever will authorise either Love or Truth, but they worked privately in this case and helped the squalid move from Highgate to Carshalton. The George Emersons now had two girls and a boy and were beginning to want a real home – somewhere in the country where they could take root and unobtrusively found a dynasty. But civilisation was not moving that way. The characters in my other novels were experiencing similar troubles. Howards End is a hunt for a home. India is a Passage for Indians as well as English. No resting-place.
For a time Windy Corner dangled illusively. After Mrs Honeychurch’s death there was a chance of moving into that much loved house. But Freddy, who had inherited it, was obliged to sell and realise the capital for the upbringing of his family. An unsuccessful yet prolific doctor, Freddy could not do other than sell. Windy Corner disappeared, its garden was built over, and the name of Honeychurch resounded in Surrey no more.

In due course World War II broke out – the one that was to end with a durable peace. George instantly insisted. Being both intelligent and passionate, he could distinguish between a Germany that was not much worse than England and a Germany that was devilish. At the age of fifty he could recognise in Hitlerism an enemy of the heart as well as of the head and the arts. He discovered that he loved fighting and had been starved by its absence, and also discovered that away from his wife he did not remain chaste.
For Lucy the war was less varied. She gave some music lessons and broadcast some Beethoven, who was quite all right this time, but the little flat at Watford, where she was trying to keep things together against George’s return, was bombed, the loss of her possessions and momentos was complete, and the same thing happened to their married daughter, away at Nuneaton.
At the front George rose to the rank of corporal, was wounded and taken prisoner in Africa, and imprisoned in Mussolini’s Italy, where he found the Italians sometimes as sympathetic as they had been in his tourist days, and sometimes less sympathetic.
When Italy collapsed he moved northward through the chaos towards Florence. The beloved city had changed, but not unrecognisably. The Trinità Bridge had been destroyed, both ends of the Ponte Vecchio were in a mess, but the Piazza Signoria, where once a trifling murder had occurred, still survived. So did the district where the Pension Bertolini had once flourished – nothing damaged at all.

And George set out – as I did myself a few years later – to locate the particular building. He failed. For though nothing is damaged all is changed. The houses on that stretch of the Lungarno have been renumbered and remodeled and, as it were, remelted, some of the façades have been extended, others have shrunk, so that it is impossible to decide which room was romantic half a century ago. George had therefore to report to Lucy that the View was still there and that the Room must be there, too, but could not be found. She was glad of the news, although at that moment she was homeless. It was something to have retained a View, and, secure in it and in their love as long as they have one another to love, George and Lucy await World War III – the one that would end war and everything else, too.

Cecily Vyse must not be omitted from this prophetic retrospect. He moved out of the Emersons‘ circle but not altogether out of mine. With his integrity and intelligence he was destined for confidential work, and in 1914 he was seconded to Information or whatever the withholding of information was then entitled. I had an example of his propaganda, and a very welcome one, at Alexandria. A quiet little party was held on the outskirts of that city, and someone wanted a little Beethoven. The hostess demurred. Hun music might compromise us. But a young officer spoke up. "No, it’s all right", he said, "a chap who knows about those things from the inside told me Beethoven’s definitely Belgian."
The chap in question must have been Cecil. That mixture of mischief and culture is unmistakeable. Our hostess was reassured, the ban was lifted, and the Moonlight Sonata shimmered into the desert.
(E.M. Forster, 1958)



The ending in Davies' horrible butchery of Forster's novel doesn't go AT ALL with the spirit of the book. I can't help the feeling that the people who worked on this film didn't capture the spirit of the book to start with. In my opinion, only people who truly love a book should care to adapt it into a movie. If somebody just thinks "oh, that looks like interesting material, let's make this into a movie", the work is doomed to fail.
The ending is just one of the most obvious signs that Davies and consorts clearly belong into the latter category.



Aspire to climb as high as you can dream

reply


What the heck? I just watched this and I was confused/ really pissed off. If he wanted to make a warped version of "Room With a View" based off some essay, why didn't they just do a version of the heavy, dramatic, confusing essay that nobody's heard of? I ve read the book, which doesn't end this way, and the characters and plot have so much more subtlety than what you see in this movie.

reply

Thanks for posting EM Forster's delightful article! Love the spirit!

reply

thanks so much sirinjulia, for posting the whole alternate ending written by forster.

how can davies just write up another ending and not be totally ashamed of himself, for turning the whole story and idea of the book upside down.
how does someone like him get financed is another good question isn't it?

my point is that if davies had included forster's ending. it would have been interesting to see it on film but rewriting it on a whim to his liking without giving credit to the story .. no way

it's good to see that everybody else seem to be hating the ending too.

i hated the new george, his character never convinced me why lucy should care about him. we love each other.. don't we lucy? whatever
lucy's behaviour was annoying most of the time, the way she played the piano did only make sense if you knew the book or the '85 film.
the story telling in general was too hasty and fast. at every minute i was comparing it to the '85 version. which is a really bad sign.


grr

reply