The ending was too happy

Yes, I think it's totally (and misguidedly) "politically correct", where it didn't need to be so.

And if you think about it, James' ending actually conveys a stronger sense of human - therefore also female - dignity. Yes, Catherine's life is mostly confined to her room and to her embroidery. She knows that, she can see her own future - and yet she is not about to falter and accept Morris just to escape a life of solitude.

Now THAT's dignity and self-respect.

What's wrong with a happy ending?

So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past

David Traversa
Sarahew, It's fantastic how each of us will read a film (or a book) and find in it quite different elements. I think that the end of "Washington Square" is as frightful in its implications as that of "The Heiress". The protagonist suffers a terrible blow when she finds out her father was right after all about her pretender's intentions. She looses an enormous fortune when her father disinherits her (at the time, 300.000 Dollars was an enormous fortune) she looses the only man she loved passionately and she must find the strength to continue alone without loosing her mind. Some years go by during this process, while she adapts herself to her new and bitter circumstances (unless one commits suicide, one MUST adapt) and of course she will have some happiness taking care of children that are as vulnerable as she was at their age (and maybe because of that she finds comfort in helping them), when suddenly the old pretender is introduced shockingly by her too optimistic aunt into her life again. By then she was really calm because she had all those years to heal her wounds and recompose herself --she was an extremely well balanced person-- and that calmness allowed her to dismiss him quietly and without any kind of rancour or fuss, because by now she was completely in peace with herself. If you remember in "The Heiress", the final scene is presented much more theatrically (wonderfully theatrical, no doubt) but both protagonists are in the same frame of mind.

I actually found the ending very sad.

Even though she's happy and content and running a center for children and looks prettier, she's still wounded and damaged by the past. Her father's crappy judgement has ruined her chances for full happiness forever.

It would have been a tragedy either way- if she had married Morris, she might have been very unhappy and at the mercy of a cruel husband instead of a cruel father but not marrying him ruined her for the rest of her life.

stopjohnofgod.blogspot.com

stopsylvia.com

I took Washington Square as an updating of the novel written by Henry James in 1880. Even though they kept the setting and culture the same, the movie makes made Catherine Sloper more modern. That's why I'm OK with the ending. I hate stories where the woman's life unrelentingly sucks and she might as well off herself because she's not attached to a man.

Sort of like what theatres do with Shakespeare or operas. Take the basic story that's been around for ages, then put a spin on it. Give the old text a new interpretation. For some reason, I really like this story and I've think I've seen every movie version.

The 1949 version of The Heiress is my favorite version of the Washington Square novel. Probably because of Montgomery Clift. He's always a joy to behold. Although Ben Chaplin and Farley Granger aren't not too hard on the eyes themselves.

No two persons ever watch the same movie.

I am writing a "skip" sequel to WS. My story begins in 1941 and my protagonist is married to the son of Morris Townsend. We only learn what happens to the original characters when my protagonist has chance encounters with their descendants and a diary left by Catherine. There is a 21st Century flavor about my story that sets it apart from the originals and some might object to my treatment of Catherine. But I expect my treatment of my protagonist will offset any negative feelings you might have about Catherine.