MovieChat Forums > Maurice (1987) Discussion > just curious... (spoilers)

just curious... (spoilers)

posted 20 years ago by opdiva
19 replies | jump to latest

I was just curious on what you thought about...

At the very end when Maurice tells Clive about his love for Alec, why do you think he had to tell Clive? Clive pretty much abandoned him during the 2nd part of the movie and let's face it...he thought he was much superior than Maurice, and Maurice knew it. I know that it brought closure to the relationship of Maurice and Clive, but was there another reason? Maybe it was out of the respect for Clive, but Clive didn't have much respect for Maurice.

And also, why wouldn't Maurice let Clive ask about what was to come with Alec? Was it in fear that Clive might possibly narc on them or was it because it simply wasn't his business?

I love this movie and I kinda wish there was a sequel "where are they now?"
But then it probably wouldn't be realistic.

[–] maraudertheslashnymph 20 years ago

I think he tells Clive so that he can feel completely honest, and so they can have some sort of closure on their previous relationship. After that he doesn't want Clive in his life anymore, so that's why he doesn't tell Clive where he and Alec are going.

[–] Zusi 20 years ago

That's more or less it. In the book when Maurice tells Clive that he's come to tell him what he did, the narration explains that it's closing a book never to be reopened, but it must be finished properly. Also the last scene between Maurice and Clive in the book is longer. Where their scene finishes in the film, Maurice makes a speech to Clive that he can't hang all his life on the spare time Clive can spare him from Anne and politics; that Clive will do anything for him except see him; that he was Clive's until death if he had cared to keep him, 'but I'm someone else's know, and he's mine in a way that shocks you, but why don't you stop being shock and attend to your own happiness.' To me this is the goodbye speech and I feel it is such a pity it didn't make it to the final film, as it is well written and beautiful.

This is one of the best adaptations of any book which I have seen - it is very close to the book, but there are some obvious differences (Risley isn't arrested - he tell Maurice about the hypnotist) and missing characters. This doesn't detract from the story or the way it's told.

At the end of the book is a small piece by EM Forster about the main characters, the story's evolution, theme and ending. He did try an epilogue where Kitty met some woodcutters 'some years later' but at that would take them into WW1 it didn't work.

[–] opdiva 20 years ago

I totally agree with you. I have the DVD set with the deleted scenes. Some of the deleted scenes, I wish were in the film. The last deleted scene, which was an extension of the final scene in the movie, I cried! It was so touching and moving, that I wish was in the final film. The last scene with Maurice and Clive just seemed to be a little abrupt.

[–] smoothhoney1265 20 years ago

Hi diva!

First of all I wanted to say that just like you I love this movie and adore both Rupert Graves as well as James Wilby... (As if it isn't obvious :-) )

The reason why Maurice had to tell Clive - well I think, it was discussed thoroughly enough. What I wanted to add is that I wouldn't wish that there was a sequel. Because it would become either sad (WWI and its consequences as well as the impossibility for gay people to live their love freely in the society back then) or trivial and boring (a couple, that just came together either lives happily ever after or one of them one day cheats on the other or they slowly drift apart). Besides, it would destroy the magic of the happy ending of the film. It's just like Beautiful Thing: With both film endings we do not know what might happen to the couple and so it's up to the viewer's imagination. This sounds like a much more interesting option to me than to see some (probably) dull sequel.

Cheers, Smooth

But Nyah - you ask the question and you are the answer. (Dougray Scott, M:I-2)

[–] opdiva 20 years ago

Thanks for your thoughts!

[–] rogerneon 20 years ago

As someone who has had the experience of having a couple of affairs with "revolving closet door cases," I felt that Maurice was at long last asserting himself with Clive in that final scene. Always before, Clive called all the shots and got to have things his way. Even after he married Ann, he wanted Maurice in his life, but of course on his own terms. Finally, he is faced with the realization that Maurice will no longer play the game according to his rules, and I think Maurice would have derived a great deal of satisfaction from telling him so.

Another aspect to consider is that Clive has convinced himself that he loves Anne, and is happy with her. All that "nonsense" about love between two men is dead and buried in the past, or at least he THINKS it is. Maurice's revelation that he not only loves Alec, but has slept with him (and doesn't regret it) throws Clive's neat little world into a turmoil.

As for what happens to Maurice and Alec, Forster could of course not have predicted the First World War, but in some of his notes about the story he says something to the effect that they just disappeared into the woods together. Realistically, I think the only way they could have been happy was to emigrate to some location where class differences would have been less of a factor. I've even thought up the basic plot of a sequel that has them running a hunting lodge in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California-- a situation that gives them each an opportunity to exercise his skills, Alec as an outdoorsman, and Maurice as a businessman.

[–] smoothhoney1265 20 years ago

Hey roger, how bout writing a script for a sequel. I'd like to read it! :)

Cheers, Smooth

I love you so much that I could die! I'm an old bastard, Tommy, but I love you!

[–] pogostiks 19 years ago

Actually, after reading the manuscript, one of Forster's friends said to him something like "You realize of course that it would never have lasted more than a few months" and Forster apparently admitted this to be probably true, adding that this was the reason he wrote the book in the first place, because, at least in the book, there could be a happy ending.

[–] virjiro 11 years ago

I don't think that Foster thought that their relationship last only few months. Indeed, Maurice and Alec relationship is based upon the real couple Edward Carpenter and Georde Merrril. One upper class and with stuides , the other poor and with no eductation. Teey were together during 30 years. Untill they died.

The reason of the ended is that the WWI came and besides, there was no point in to contimue the story. No much can be told.

[–] Imhotep77 17 years ago

When Lasker-Jones mentions other countries where they wouldn't be prosecuted are France and Italy, I have this idea that they could move to Tuscany and buy a vineyard and make wine. Since Maurice is a good business man and Alec is good with plants and outdoors. The pragmatic in me wants them to live happily together but not in destitute and still have creature's comfort. Of course I didn't even realize WWI was just a year away and they might just as well stay in the forest and might be they could prevent getting drafted or however England did it then.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Imhotep77 17 years ago

Well, circumstances change, maybe he would think differently. Who could say for certain, right?

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] eloisefiendish 17 years ago

Maurice and Alec live happily ever after in a little cottage near the woods. In England.

Probably.

Apparently someone wrote a kind of sequel to Maurice, which involved them going to America. Pfft, no.

[–] cdshow 19 years ago

I thought its because Maurice was elated that finally he found sommeone who can reciprocate his love and DYING to tell someone. Naturally it had to be Clive. But lest Clive would spoil everything ( Aleck was his gamekeeper and STILL knew how to contact Alec's family and disclose the reason why Alec missed his boat), he didnt tell Clive their plans, because he knew that Alec has made possible the chance of 1 in a thousand ( in his own words) that they meet again after their union in town and didnt want to increase the odds to 1 in a million!

[–] ladytron72 19 years ago

the ending is as wonderful as the rest of the film.
I don't think Clive is a coward, the caracter just symbolises the whole edwardian society's hypocisy.
At the same time the scene shows how Maurice dominates Clive for the first time in the film. He controles him and has almost the sadistic opportunity to through his happiness and freedom at this face. We see how Maurice can manipulate other people's feelings, like with his sister for example.
At the end this scene leeds to the depiction of Clive's neverending loneliness.

My point of view that's all.

;)

[–] glorfindel956 18 years ago

As for the sequel thing, I read somewhere that E.M. Forster originally put in his foreword that Ada or someone came across 'two woodcutters' years later, which I assume he meant were Alec and Maurice (that would make sense, as he says Maurice and Alec escaped 'into the greenwood', an archaic word meaning 'forest'), but he discarded it, probably because he thought it was unrealistic too.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] eva_rosen16 16 years ago

As for a secuel, me and my mates sometimes entertain ourselves imagining Maurice must have returned after (sadly) breaking up with Alec, and his mere presence would have made Clive's life hell. Imagine that. Society can be blind whem they want to be, I suppose Clive wouldn't tell on him because he'd had to tell also how he knew....awkward.;)