Was watching this for the first time last night on 4more and my phone went off right at the end of the film and I was distracted and missed the last two lines of the film! :-(
Can anyone tell me what they are please?
Thanks.
something along these lines..
Ursula: You can't have both..
Rupert: I don't believe that.
then Ursula shoots him this cryptic look and the credits roll.
[deleted]
It's not just Ken Russell; that line was verbotim from the book. I LOVE it when a movie ends suddenly after a nice closing line. It's like the audience is expecting a line that's a bit more final than that, but they don't get it. And then they realize... the line is the perfect way to end the movie!
The same happened in "Eyes Wide Shut":
ALICE: But I do love, and there's something very important that we need to do as soon as possible.
Bill: What's that?
ALICE: *beep*
And then there's the credits! It's like, whoa, that's a strange line to end it on! Lol, fantasticliciousness!
Alfonso-lover
We have got to live, no matter how many skies have fallen.
Extremely provocative. Now I want to watch "Eyes Wide Shut" again and give it a second chance. Like many people I was disappointed by it when it came out, but I think my eyes are open a bit wider now.
shareGood comparison between the two films! I liked "Women in Love" because I was young, a Hippie and really into the non-monagamy thing. Now it seems pretty melodramatic and naive to me. Actually, so did "Eyes Wide Shut" (You should watch Kubrick's "Lolita" if you liked this...it's much better). But the fantastic qualitiy of both films is a good poing...and the facing off with one's sexuality. Most films never do that.
She deserves her revenge, and we deserve to die.
Been a while since I've seen film/read book. However, I always thought the ending referred to Lawrence's (Rupert's) yearning for a type of relationship with men which was made unavailable by social mores and - more importantly - by women.
I think the film gets right under the skin of the book and DH Lawrence, and Glenda Jackson's performance as Gudrun would be difficult to rival. In fact, I think the film is better than the book!
Having said that, I also believe both of them and all of Lawrence's works are bitterly misogynistic.
I heartily second the view that Lawrence's work is misogynistic.
The last two lines of the film are a reprimand to women, not just to that particular woman. Men, Lawrence seems to say, do not commit adultery with other men, they find the loving comradeship necessary for life itself.
If the film is meant to represent all versions of women (the vapid, the shrill, the brutal), then the idea of homosexual bonding is a kind of emotional refuge for the men who lust after women, but are not fulfilled by them.
It's sad.
(Leads me to also wonder why he is not advocating a monogamous relationships between men.)
Well, I wouldn't say it's sad. I'd say it's true, for some men. And quite plausibly even for some who aren't aware of such need because they're so utterly repressed by the likes of you.
Not only was homosexuality criminalized (which is frankly outrageous) but homosexual men had to marry women. They had to put up the facade for society, and even for their wives. And women tend to be so self-absorbed, specially in matters of love. I imagine it had to be a daunting nightmare, really.
Women have always had it easier in these matters. Nobody ever cared if two women were close. Most women have intimacy with another female, intimacy men would never dream of having for fear of being called names, or having their masculinity questioned. Men were and still are persecuted, although to a lesser extent nowadays, thankfully.
So the fact that some men sought solace in male company -even if strictly platonic- was not sad in the slightest. It was quite understandable, really.
Utterly repressed by the likes of me?
And what, exactly, am I like? Tell me which part of my literary and film criticism you have used to divine my personal character.
Incidentally, your anecdotes about the genders are wrong. Women have never had it 'easier' in the ways of sexuality, love, or marriage. Biologically burdened with childbearing, their sexual interests have always been controlled by the interests of the clan, the family, or the kingdom. At times lesbianism was akin to witchcraft, and a woman's distaste for a man's touch was never grounds for preventing a marriage in Western or Eastern history. Forced marriages broke hearts in both genders.
If the book and film are implying that women can never emotionally fulfill a man (because -all- women are shallow, vapid, shrill, etc.), then the story is misogynistic. I find misogyny sad. I find the idea that men are pushed toward homosexual thought because women are inferior or are incapable of being an equal partner misogynistic, naive, and sad.
There is nothing wrong with different sexual preferences. There is nothing wrong with people having multiple or one partner, there is nothing wrong with heterosexual or homosexual partnering. All of these can be forms of true and real love between equal individuals. These are my views.
I, however, believe that Lawrence would say -only- homosexual (i.e. at least two men) relationships can be forms of real and lasting love. 'Women in Love' supports this thesis by making the ladies flighty, weak, and dull-witted. I do not believe homosexuality is 'caused' by women or woman's nature. Do you?
Incidentally, your anecdotes about the genders are wrong. Women have never had it 'easier' in the ways of sexuality, love, or marriage. Biologically burdened with childbearing, their sexual interests have always been controlled by the interests of the clan, the family, or the kingdom. At times lesbianism was akin to witchcraft, and a woman's distaste for a man's touch was never grounds for preventing a marriage in Western or Eastern history. Forced marriages broke hearts in both genders.
If the book and film are implying that women can never emotionally fulfill a man (because -all- women are shallow, vapid, shrill, etc.), then the story is misogynistic. I find misogyny sad. I find the idea that men are pushed toward homosexual thought because women are inferior or are incapable of being an equal partner misogynistic, naive, and sad.
Oh, God, "misogyny". Stop the discussion, there is a woman in the room.
shareHere's another. I always found Lawrence to be misogynistic and a bitter due to his inability to express his homosexuality openly. Both the previous arguers had good points but the one who said that woman had it "easy" is not living in the reality even Western, wealthy, well-educated women have known and still know!
As for the idea that Lesbians have it easier...I don't think so! Just read or watch "The Hours", with the stories of three Lesbian women from the 1920's, 50's and early 21st Century, including Virginia Woolf. Their inability to actualize their desires fully drove them to suicidal tendencies, depression and constant anger. I got totally depressed just watching it!
At least gay people have had things a bit easier in recent years but there's a long way to go. Still, a recent study found that gay men who were "out" were happier than straight men. I'm sure Lawrence would blame this too on the interference of women!
This argument also side-stepped what was, to me, the main question about how well monogamy really fits with our primate ancestry. I think it does not; we are non-monagamous at our core and only Civilization and its Discontents push us into accepting monagamy as "the norm" or "the right way" to conduct relationships.
She deserves her revenge, and we deserve to die.
skindili
Such good strong true posts, I can't add anything except 'yes indeed!'
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066579/board/nest/95354544