I haven't watched this movie in awhile, so if I mess anything up, sorry.
Ok, so I saw this movie for the first time during this two week Martin Scorsese fest my local classic cinema was having. I absolutely loved it, except for the ending. Maybe I'm missing something, but I didn't want her to stay with Kris Kristofferson in the end. He was a jerk, and she didn't need him. I don't think he really appreciated her. I think she should have kept going until she reached Monteray or someplace or someone that would make her truly happy. I really don't think that she would have been content being a housewife again after she changed so much during her travels. Does the ending bother anyone else? Does anyone else think the movie should have ended a bit more open-ended? Just a thought.
I love the ending. She was a child in Monterey. And her memories are of simple, carefree days. Reality is a tad different. She's not the best mom, her swearing and hanging out with the Keitel character while her kid is holed up in a motel room, are FAR WORSE than the little spanking the kid gets.....and needed. The kid is spoiled rotten and has no concept of discipline...not unlike most children today. No doubt, due to "time outs" instead of a little swat on the ass.
Ellen talks about the ending in her autobiography. The original script had Alice marrying David. Ellen thought that was to conventional and wanted to change it so that Alice pursues her dream. The studio told her that if Alice didn't end up with the man, they weren't going to make the movie. She writes this: "So Marty and I agreed that that was our big problem. How do we have her move out of her husband's house (the very meaning of the title), hit the road, encounter an even more violent masculine figure, learn something about herself - who she is, what she wants - and end up in another man's house, without compromising the integrity of our work and what we were trying to say about a woman's search for independence? The scene got rewritten and rewritten and we just couldn't get it. Finally it was the day before it was scheduled to be shot and we still had no scene. We rehearsed the next day's shooting at the end of each day. We were doing an improv on the scene trying to find the way I could give up my dreams of going to Monterey and still have it be a good thing, not a surrender to patriarchal values, when Kris Kristofferson, playing David, said, 'Come on, I'll take you to Monterey.' It was like the room was suddenly filled with sunshine. 'You will?' I said, feeling a little smile break out on my face. 'Sure, I don't give a damn about that ranch. Come on.' We had broken through. We'd found the change in conciousness that the whole movie led up to. The man was willing to support the woman in her aspirations. What she wanted was important enough for him to make a scarifice. What a concept. Notice that I hadn't come up with that solution - "the man" did. Kris had to release me/Alice from the bondage of the old way of thinking. In real life, I wasn't there yet. Thank God for Kris. He was smart and awake enough to see what Alice - and I - needed."
Great Summation Toughrabbit. I'm late to this conversation, but finally saw the film in its entirety after all these years. Love the end shot and the analogy back to the beginning of The Wizard of Oz. In other words, always looking for something when it's in your own backyard, i.e. the whole Monterey thing that Alice kept looking for. Monterey was her Oz and in the end she figured out her happiness was within herself the whole time.
Well, SunnySix, I saw this movie for the first time just today (May 20, 2012) and was pleased to see that it is a Scorsese film.
For me, the ending was perfect, as is usually the case with any Scorsese film. Why do I think so? Recall that Alice wanted to go back to Monterrey, the home of her youth and where her heart still remained. Now, also recall that Kristofferson character, David, promised to take her to Monterrey and help her get a job as a singer.
Now - recall the final scene: Alice and her son are still in Tuscon, talking about David and how she loves him, while walking along a road towards a big billboard above a bar/diner. It's called The Monterey. And she finally says to her son: "I can be a singer anywhere..."
Home is where the heart is, SunnySix, the story's thematic anchor. Always was, always will be.
I've seen an awful lot of movies and a lot of awful movies...
It's called The Monterey. And she finally says to her son: "I can be a singer anywhere..." Home is where the heart is
Yeah, Monterey is presented as an "idyllic mythical place full of happiness and innocence" that may have never actually existed to begin with( An homage to THE WIZARD OF OZ)
You are not talking about the ending of the film. You are talking about what happened prior to the ending. The real ending came as the Alice character and her son were walking together and approaching a large weather-beaten sign advertising the "Monterey" Lounge and Bar. I think it was a wonderful ending because it indicated that she made it to Monterey afterall and who knows? She MAY have gotten a job there as a singer. That left it pretty open-ended, don't you think? Now I will read the other responses and see if anyone else saw the same ending that I saw. Update: Some did. I agree that the climax of the movie, as worked out by the three major players* (see toughrabbit's post), came when the David character agreed to give up his farm and take the Alice character and her son to Monterey. *Burstyn, Scorsese and Kris
You people claiming he was an abusive father figure are deluded. The kid slapped him round the face so he gave him a smack on the butt. That is NOT child abuse and you are all the reason we have so many undisciplined thugs being born who can't ever be disciplined as they are giving highest priority.
That's right. It wouldn't even be 'child abuse' if he slapped the kid back in the face or pulled on his ear or grabbed him by the scruff of the neck or the collar & lifted him up in the air. Anymore more than it would be teenager abuse if some junior high school kid of 13 or 14 decided to smack you in the face & you smacked him back. In fact, with strangers, most people are allowed to defend themselves full on and punch the kid's lights out if he attacks you, it's only with their own kids that defending against violence becomes a child abuse issue.
Now, obviously you don't slap a 10 year old kid hard and knock his teeth out or punch him in the face but you teach him a lesson that violent behavior won't be tolerated. It would only be 'abuse' if you slapped him everytime he didn't do what you wanted him to do, like you tell him to clean his room and even offer him money and he doesn't do it or eat his greens or clean his plate and he doesn't do it and you smack him in the head, that's abusive but not if he's clearly stepped over the line and acted in a physically abusive way himself. You can also grab him and throw him in a room with nothing but four walls to stare at, lock the door and refuse to let him out for two days without hitting him at all as punishment but that would be considered even more 'inhumane'of you by all these morons, since how dare you punish a kid for misbehavior for locking him in a room in solitary confinement for two days and throw him only his food and water ? In fact, if you asked the kid himself, he would probably prefer the smack to the 2 day imprisonment.
You're supposed to let him grow up into a total and complete punk thinking that whatever he does there are no consequences to himself, just like the Kristofferson character correctly lectures the Alice character. That's the plan, to destroy society through programming kids and parents through their mass-media and colluding government (they always work hand-in-hand) that discipline and manners have no place in life while in reality they are the most important things you can teach any human being since true freedom itself is not libertinism or hedonism or do whatever feels good but a hard discipline that must be practiced consistently before it can ever be won.
Spanking has been associated with increased aggressive behavior, substance and alcohol abuse, stilted cognitive, emotional, and social development, stilted academic performance, and mental health problems.
But I'd love to see the scientific data for this statement:
you are all the reason we have so many undisciplined thugs being born who can't ever be disciplined as they are giving highest priority.
Or could it be that you're just talking out of your ass.
David (Kristoferson) wasn't a jerk. He was human. He was a good guy, and he definitely loved Alice. Her son tested his patience is all. The kid hit him in the face with a plate of food, and all he did in return was give him one swat on the butt. Big deal. David was willing to give up his life to become a part of Alice's. You honestly call that a jerk?
*YOU* are the jerk. Or at least you were eight years ago. Hopefully you've grown as a person since then.