Problem with the ending? ***SPOILERS*** - Glorious 39 (2009) Discussion

[–] zombequin 13 years ago

I don't know what the actual criticisms of the end are, but I personally disliked it because it didn't seem to have any particular point to it... I kept waiting for some last vital connection to be made, and it never happened. The DVD cover quote really didn't help either - "This year's Atonement" said Company, so I was really expecting an ending like that of Atonement, where it all just kind of hits you. I felt that Glorious 39 fell a bit flat really.

I only just finished my first watch about 30 seconds ago, so perhaps it needs time to stew in my mind, though!

reply

[–] DazeYaVoo 13 years ago

Yes, I agree with OP's first responder.

I wanted to like the movie. Loved the cinematography, the period elements and so forth. And a terrific cast. I was with Anne all the way: this can't be true, her whole family against her? There must be something else going on. Wait, they're all appeasers and pacifists in the face of true evil? No, that can't be. Is she dreaming some of this? Are we adopting her unbalanced view of what is normal and easily explained?

Then, in the final reel, hey, it was all true. She wasn't unbalanced. Her family (except maybe Mums) was boosting the wrong team. And then, she gets away from them all in the end. Back to modern. "Oh, she died in Canada some 10 or so years later." (That's not verbatim.)

That's it? No, wait. There's a final spectacular bit. Who's that coming up the walk in a wheelchair? OMG, no, it's Anne. (Or is it? That's part of the confusion. I didn't check the credits and the DVD's gone now. Was it some entirely different older actress? Or Romola, so badly made up old, that she didn't resemble her younger character?)

Whatever. So, we're told that it's Anne. She didn't die after we saw her clearly run away from her captors/family (which, at that point, is all of two minutes or so of movie time. Not long to mourn our heroine). What a reveal? It must MEAN something. I'm wracking my brain at the end to figure out what the significance is that she survived. I've got nothing. That's a big surprise? I don't get it.

And I don't get, how someone who was at least born in 1921 (to be an ingenue actress in 1939) can have 16-year-old Michael as a son? Is that the big surprise? In spite of all, she was both romantic and fertile in her 60s or 70s?

But, BUT! I do know why she had a smirk on her face! Because the director told her what this big final scene means! If only he (or she) had revealed it to us!

reply

[–] jillywood 13 years ago

Michael is not Anne's son. Michael is Celia's grandson. The woman pushing the wheelchair was Celia's daughter/Michael's mother. The woman in the wheelchair was Anne.

reply

[–] DazeYaVoo 13 years ago

Okay, I missed that it's Celia's daughter pushing Anne. Forget that part. (And that, apparently, Celia's daughter [and maybe Celia?] knew Anne was alive, but the two, now old, boys didn't. Guess there was no communicating there. Or that they were out of touch, shut up in the dark town house listening to Glenn Miller on the radio.)

So, the big deal is that Anne was still alive? The big deal was that the two boys were shocked, I say shocked, to find that Anne was alive instead of dead in Canada 30 or 40 years earlier? Now if they'd both had heart attacks, simultaneously, and croaked on the spot, that'd be something, at least.

Unless I'm still missing something, that's it. And though I appreciate the cinematography, and the 1939 atmospherics and acting and locations, I still feel disappointed at how it all wound down to an almost non-event ending.

reply

[–] jillywood 13 years ago

Yeah I definitely agree. Even if they had ended it with Anne running off in '39, I still wouldn't have liked it very much, but that would have at least been better than the present day stuff, which was totally unnecessary and felt very contrived. It's so sad, I loved so much about this movie, and when it ended I just said "what"?

reply

[–] GaelicLass 12 years ago

The point for her to come back and show them that she was still alive is that now she would be a danger to them if she talked about what happened back then, I think. I knew who Walter was, but who was Christopher Lee supposed to be back in 1939? Missed his name while watching.

"Sometimes you have to know when to put a cork in it."
~Frasier

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Flossieandflo 11 years ago

A long while since your post but Christopher Lee was Walter (the older child in 1939), Corin Redgrave was Oliver (the baby).

reply

[–] Unknownian 12 years ago

Reply to: "I felt that Glorious 39 fell a bit flat really".

"A bit flat" is a very generous statement. "Fell flat on it's Face" is probably more accurate. The movie had the potential to be "Great"; however, it got lost.
It played like a TV movie, and it didn't deserve that. Wrong Director.
It should have relied more on the "appeasement" aspect which was so interesting in the beginning. It's actually a part of history I wasn't aware of; and was enjoying the education and terrific acting. Then it becomes "Rosemary's Baby" half way through, and ends with an absolutely HORRID seen from a bad Hitchcock movie. Too Bad......

reply

[–] Chops-4 13 years ago

At the end young Michael identified himself as Anne's son. Supposedly the cousins, Walter and Oliver, never saw Anne again. So if Michael was Anne's son why did Walter, Anne's cousin, claim at the beginning to have not seen Michael since he was a baby? If he had never seen Anne again how would he have seen her offspring?

That is the only distraction from the logic of the story that I am aware of. I enjoyed the movie even though the logic of the story didn't make sense. By that, I mean that the War preventers and appeasers were ruthlessly killing off the opposition, the war promoters. I believe that there were elements in the government of Britain that contrived that War unnecessarily and set up the Nazi situation deliberately. So I believe that if anyone was bumping off opposition it would have been the warmongers bumping off the appeasers.

reply

[–] jillywood 13 years ago

Michael said "this is my mother, and this is Anne Keyes"... the woman pushing the wheelchair was Michael's mother (which would be Celia's daughter), and the woman IN the wheelchair was Anne. He never says he's Anne's son.

reply

[–] Michael-Farrell-639-147639 13 years ago

Yes that makes sense but doesn't explain why she kept in touch with Celia and not the boys. And also the actress playing her is nowhere near as old as Christopher Lee !

reply

[–] austendw 13 years ago

And also the actress playing her is nowhere near as old as Christopher Lee !

Actually,Muriel Pavlow, who played old Anne, was born in 1921, one year before Christopher Lee, and probably the perfect age for that role. It's actually Lee who is a good ten years too old for the part. Corin Redgrave, born in 1939 was about the right age.

But none of that has much bearing on the ridiculousness of the whole modern framing device; it's clumsy, hardly makes sense, and ends absurdly.

Call me Ishmael...

reply

[–] Michael-Farrell-639-147639 13 years ago

Thanks for the correction - I'll have to amend my blog on that point.
You're right on the other points too.

reply

[–] lordosmo 13 years ago

I agree that the film ended abruptly and with no great dramatic style, However I think maybe the idea was to make some sort of point about how the past (in this case war crimes) will eventually catch up with you, though they could have made that clearer if so.

I think that the film has a good cast and a nice set up with no real pay-off, so it's a little disappointing, but still a good watch up to that point. Maybe there was a bit of conflict between making it an exciting thriller or a sensitive drama - Poliakoff works better on TV.

[minor spoilers ahead:]

Ultimately it was a little hard to believe that the family murdered all those people but they stopped at doing away with their own adopted daughter as well - if they were so wicked surely they would have just got it over with.

I totally thought that Lawrence was going to turn out to be a betrayer as well, so what happened to him at the end was a curve ball.

reply

[–] Squeeth2 13 years ago

~~~~~none of that has much bearing on the ridiculousness of the whole modern framing device; it's clumsy, hardly makes sense, and ends absurdly.~~~~~

That's the purpose it serves.

Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.

reply

[–] austendw 13 years ago

That's the purpose it serves.

I don't follow....

Call me Ishmael...

reply

[–] mlle_polkadots 13 years ago

It's possible that she didn't keep in touch with Celia. Perhaps Celia's daughter/daughter-in-law - or even Michael himself - tracked Anne down after Celia died (Celia is presumably dead as Walter and Oliver say they are the only ones left from that time).

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jcafcwbb 13 years ago

He was Anne's grandson not Celia's that was the reveal.

That was the point of the last scene.

reply

[–] mlle_polkadots 13 years ago

No, he wasn't.

Anne is his great-aunt. At no point does he - or anyone - say Anne is his grandmother. Just because she is in a wheelchair pushed by his mother, does not mean she is his grandmother. Clearly Celia's daughter/daughter-in-law is a nicer person than Celia and has reached out to her mysterious aunt Anne.

Walter and Oliver remember seeing Michael as a baby, and know that he is Celia's grandson. The only way he could possibly be Anne's grandson is if Anne also had a grandson of the same age who went to the brothers impersonating Michael, and I don't think that was in any way implied.

(this is in reply to jcafcwbb or however it is spelt! Still can't get the hang of this layout!)

reply

[–] allmappedout 13 years ago

I doubt it was anything like that. The baby that the brothers remember was probably a grandson of celia's who is approximately the same age. Memories get fuzzy and you dont actually know how old michael is. It's entirely possible that it was a different baby.

-

ignore these four words

reply

[–] mlle_polkadots 13 years ago

But you are working on the assumption that Michael is Anne's grandson.

Is this purely based on the fact that he and his mother are the ones who present her to Walter and Oliver? Or is there some other hint in the film?

reply

[–] my_beamish_boy 13 years ago

Michael is identified as Celia's grandson at the start of the film as well - when he opens the photo album and points to Celia and they all reflect that she's his grandmother...

reply

[–] jcafcwbb 13 years ago

It wasn't explicitly stated either way and is open to interpretation. I take it as he is Anne's grandson. There is no proof he is her's nor Celia's.

reply

[–] Freedom_Spark 13 years ago

It was explicitly stated at the beginning of the film! He's Celia's grandson, this was probably to ensure there was no indication that Anne survived her ordeal.

I thought the ending was a little flat as well but I just saw the old Anne's stoic look and then the flash back to her younger self as a kind of means of saying 'they (those darn Nazi appeasers) didn't break me, I survived.'

Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail-R.W Emerson

reply

[–] badblokebob 13 years ago

Just because it was explicitly stated doesn't make it true. The old men explicitly state that Anne died years ago in Canada, which isn't true, and Michael knows it isn't true and doesn't bother to correct them.

I'm not saying the ending is any good, or that Michael isn't Celia's grandson, but I think it's open to a bit of interpretation. I'd left the film presuming he'd lied and was actually Anne's grandson, for instance.

reply

[–] daisygirlie 13 years ago

To back up mlle_polkadots (love the username btw)

Three points:

1. In the beginning Michael identifies himself as Celia's grandson. The elder cousins say that they remember him as a child.

2. On the point of "where/what/when" about Anne in the beginning, the older brother states *offhand* not *explicitly* that they thought she had died in Canada some 20 years earlier.

3. At the end, they see the wheelchair and the woman pushing it and Michael says this is my mother (pointing to the woman pushing the chair) and this (in the chair) is Anne Keyes.

I think this should straighten things out. I just finished watching the movie 10 mins ago so ALL of it is very fresh in my mind *and* I watched the important snippets again before I replied!

reply

[–] andriastanley 13 years ago

When Michael says, "This is my Mother", the woman (we perceive to be Celia's daughter) gives a slight nod, as if acknowledging the connection. She did not do the same when Michael then introduces Anne Keyes.

I think Anne kept up with the family over the years and reached out to Celia's daughter and Michael after the passing of her parents, brother, and sister.

reply

[–] wolflair-1 13 years ago

I think he is Anne's grandson. He said he was Celia's so they would be free to talk about Anne. He was there to get verification of the story that Anne told her daughter and him. Walter was the only one left alive that really knew what happened. When he said, "This is Anne Keyes", he wanted them to realize that the old woman his mom was pushing and they thought was dead, was indeed alive and now had verification of what happened to not only her but Lawrance, Hector and the actor friend all those years ago.

reply

[–] elcarnageo 12 years ago

My take on this is that Michael's story can be taken at face value: he is Celia's grandson. The ending was about Anne's victory over the family that had cast her out. She first chooses to leave them rather than allow herself to be brought back into the fold, then forges relationships with Celia's daughter and grandson, and finally seeks to do so with Walter and Oliver - arguably the only innocent members of the family in '39. By doing so she triumphs over those members of the family involved in the pro-appeasement activities, who have all since died. History has made them the outcasts, and she has restored her place within the family.

reply

[–] waterlilys 13 years ago

If Michael and called and said he was Anne's grandson they might not have let him come up as the brothers felt guilty and afraid of being judged as thier questions to Michael proved after they told thier story. So Michael lied and said he Celia's grandson.

Yes the woman pushing the wheelchair nodded when Michael said this is my mother, then said and this is Anne Keyes when they focused on the lady in the wheel chair.

I thought though the big reveal was when Michael responded to the brothers saying "you knew".... Michael said yes but we wanted to hear it from your lips.

My problem with the ending wasnt Michael, his mother or wheel chair Anne.... it was when young Anne just let out for escape by her mother is escorted by Walter past the wraught iron fence to her family playing on the lawn....

why were they so inviting/welcoming at that point?

why were they not surprised that she was out? if they knew ahead of time why did the mother urgently tell her to go? If they knew she was going to be let out why didnt they give her clothes and womans shoes? WHY WERENT THEY ALARMED?

what were they all doing there... were they on some kind of house arest (gated area) and now all was forgiven?

Loved the movie up until the last 10 min!

reply

[–] ant_sushi 13 years ago

My problem with the ending wasn't Michael, his mother or wheel chair Anne.... it was when young Anne just let out for escape by her mother is escorted by Walter past the wrought iron fence to her family playing on the lawn....

why were they so inviting/welcoming at that point?

By that time, the war had started for England (air raid sirens when Anne was locked up) so further attempts at appeasement were pointless. But they could still be tried for conspiracy and murder. The father didn't want her killed, just sidelined. A distraught woman wandering around in a nightgown and mens shoes would not be taken seriously. I suppose there was also a presumption that she'd come back into the family fold now that the war had started. With no money, where else would she go? that would be their thinking.

A disappointing ending to be sure.

reply

[–] Torian06 11 years ago

Saw this movie only today and I'm with the OP.
Didn't have any problem with how it ended, it's all quite plausible to me that Anne had her personal triumph over the majority of her family - except for Walter and Oliver - over the issue of appeasement and the sordidness with how they carry out their part in the conspiracy.

I've seen only a few of Hitchcock films, so without comparing this movie with AH's, I still find this Glorious 39 very interesting. Enjoyed the film thoroughly, for the engaging performances, the beautiful cinematography, and the intriguing storyline.

Truth inexorably,inscrutably seeks and reveals Itself into the Light.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] idcook 11 years ago

Finally got a chance to watch this.

I was fairly enthralled up to the final scene.

It left me wondering “So, what now?”

- She reports them for crimes she may not be able to prove?
- She managed to keep hold of a recording she can use to expose them?
- She, or her son, collect a cut, or all of the family fortune? If so, for what? (She appears to be well off.)
- All is forgiven as she understands they’d been malleable and were influenced to commit heinous crimes?

WHAT does her coming out of hiding really mean for all concerned? The family, the state, herself?

I also wondered why, after containing her for so long they, essentially, allowed her to just walk away. She certainly didn’t appear to be strong enough to elude being chased by well-fed, clear-headed pursuers with terrible crimes to keep hidden.

Are we supposed to accept that after all the outrage she expressed against her family, and her efforts to escape, she simply went into hiding and kept her mouth shut regarding treason and murder?

Are we supposed to think “Gosh, wealthy people in powerful government positions did horrible things that we didn’t know about”?

Are we supposed to take a light-brained point of view — “How sad; they made her suffer through so much but she managed to survive after all; YAY! … ???

OR … are we to assume that after all these years the truth will come out and they will be made to answer for their complicity in these acts … or won’t because “We’re family” — An entire waste of her efforts up to that point?

It’s a very engaging film but seems to leave itself wide open to a ridiculous lack of moral reason and clarity at the close.

“Your thinking is untidy, like most so-called thinking today.” (Murder, My Sweet)

reply

[–] mdcordova-1 11 years ago

Michael, the old lady's grand nephew, after hearing the story, now has confirmation of the families ugly acts that were done before the war. And so the meaningful smile from Anne at the end shows us "Now I'm finally going to tell the truth about those hypocrites" or maybe it is just "I survived their cruelty and lived a long happy life, which is the best kind of revenge."

I agree, the last time she sees her father and family, it was not clear why they seemed so welcoming, as far as they knew, she was still dying of hunger and thirst in the locked room. Perhaps they were trying to coax her in closer, inside the iron gates, to nab her-but she bolts instead.

Note; Locking up a female family member to starve them to death seems to be a popular "upper-class" execution for woman, from ancient Rome on.

reply

[–] Flossieandflo 11 years ago

Thanks, I was confused by the fact they were welcoming in that scene - your suggestion that they were trying to coax her in sounds sensible. They didn't even seem surprised to see her however, which also seems strange - it would indicate they knew/or were behind the plot to allow her escape. That was the puzzling bit of the story for me, not that I'm criticising, Poliakov stuff often leaves details to the viewer to decide, which I like.

Finding it surprising how many have drawn the conclusion that the young man was Anne's grandson and so lying when he said he was Celia's. When he introduces the lady pushing the chair as his mother and the lady in the chair as Anne Keys personally I think he would have then added she was his grandmother if that was so. As a above I agree the 'reveal' was that she had survived.

reply