MovieChat Forums > Get Real (1999) Discussion > Question about the ending

Question about the ending

posted 15 years ago by jaroslaw99
18 replies | jump to latest

I haven't read the play, so I don't know what the ending is like; but I wondered if anyone else thought it was odd that only Jessica and Linda were with Steven after he came out at the prize day program? The bullies made their way over to get one final taunt in, but his friend Mark didn't show up; I don't recall if he had any other male friends...Also I thought it was too bad when the mother was saying to the father in the car: "Graham, I've got something to tell you" that they cut off the scene. I would have liked to hear the father's reaction.

Another venue that was unexplored was the reaction of John's parents. They HAD to know John was lying after Steven said "you can bet he's not the only parents who have a gay son" - that's not exactly right, but the meaning is there I think....

Or perhaps it was left this way for a sequel. Which I sure wish they would do.

[–] Viltrumite 15 years ago

That bothered me too. The movie seemed to end to too abrupt a note. It would have been nice to see what Steve's other friends thought of the whole thing.

[–] romney_k_tarasco 15 years ago

I think that the reason for the abrupt nature of the ending had a lot to do with the subject matter. This was supposed to be a realistic portrayal of Steven's life, and so they couldn't have everything end on this big happy note. His mother stood by him, but his father is still unsure about his feelings on the matter. As for the scene in the car, I don't think she ended up telling him because the teacher showed up. I think the point of this was used again with the relationship between Steven and Jessica - where although you really want to tell someone something (our son is gay or I am gay) something tends to come up. The only way for the truth to come put is to announce. As for John's parent's I don't think that it isn't that they didn't suspect, it's the fact that they don't want to let themselves. This film (and play) are set in a time where it was illegal to have a homosexual relationship before the age of 21. No one's parents in the film would just assume that their son was (in their mind) one of the "perverts in the woods". As for a sequel - highly doubtful, "Get Real" is based on a play "What's Wrong With Angry" which tends to be a solid indicator for these things.

This said, I love how realistic this film was. The relationship between Steven and John was heartbreaking. Absolutely lovely show.

[–] jaroslaw99 15 years ago

Romney- I always like to read other viewpoints so don't take the following as a criticism of your whole entry, I'm just questioning a couple minor points. I've watched this film about 20 times (and I could still be wrong) but the scene in the car where the mother starts to tell the father - the filmmakers cut that off for impact. The teacher didn't show up until they were OUT of the car and she was walking to the auditorium. I'm almost 100% positive. As for John's parents- why would they suspect? He had girlfriends all the time. My question was I wanted to see their reaction AFTER Steven's announcement on prize day. I agree, it was a realistic portrayal and while I would have liked a happy ending, I know life isn't always like that.

[–] mak3706 15 years ago

What do you mean by "happy ending"? If you mean that Steven and John would live happily ever after, that wasn't going to happen. I thought it was a very happy ending because Steven decided to come out of the closet. John was never going to come out and, like Glen, was destined for a miserable cover marriage and a life of picking up men in toilets. The only way Steven could lead an honest, happy, free life was to leave him behind.

Just as Steven thought Jessica deserved better than Kevin, Steven deserved better than John. There were indications sprinkled throughout the film that John was a selfish sod: John was using Christina as a cover; John suggested they split up when they heard someone in the woods, leaving scrawny Steven to fend for himself; John obviously didn't want Steven to visit him at Oxford which tells you that Steven was just a high school fling; the heartbreaking violent scene in the locker room; and in their last encounter by the track, after he had inflicted violence on Steven, his primary concern was whether someone had followed Steven.

So for me the ending was as happy as it could be.

[–] leftbanker 15 years ago

Agreed! Nice analysis, well expressed. I thought the music and visuals of the closing scene expressed Steven's (and the audience's) sense of liberation.

"Nothing personal. Your name just happened to come up."

[–] jaroslaw99 15 years ago

Mak3706 - I'm glad you asked "what do I mean by happy ending" because reading your post, I think we only disagree a little bit or perhaps term things differently.

I did not mean Steven and John living together would be a happy ending; obviously all the things you mentioned were terrible - leaving Steven to fend for himself in the woods, using Christina as cover, and most horribly the locker room violence....all clearly show John is far to weak to live a happy life and wasn't interested in Steven's well being at all. I never thought there was the slightest possiblity they would have worked it out.

What I meant was it would have been nice if John had ultimately grown up and just broken it off with Steven instead of that horrible business in the locker room. It was (and IS still) sad in my mind that there are so many shallow people like John, so many others who look the other way at violence and narrow thinking. All of John's buddies joined in to belittle and threaten Steven etc. I'm at work on a break so I wish this was better written, but I hope you get the idea.

Although what is really being said here; I looked at the negative and you looked at the positive. Although I can say from my experience living an open an honest life isn't necessarily happier.

[–] lllRubyRoolll 14 years ago

It's interesting...this film is largely from Steve's point of view, and the sympathy people seem to be feeling is entirely directed towards him, with John as a bad guy bringing him down. But I think, had the film been from John's perspective, people might have a lot more sympathy for him. Steve had Wendy, John had no one. He was in a desperate situation. The relationship with his parents was hinted at as being worse than Steve's with his. He had real feelings for this guy when he didn't know his sexuality yet. Steve was already at a stage where he was comfortable with himself, but not every just "knows" at a young age and being confused is certainly not "weak". Although a relationship on a sexual and romantic level between the two might not have worked, we should really feel a sense of injustice for the possibility of John living his entire life in the closet, not have a misplaced feeling he "deserves it".

[–] jaroslaw99 14 years ago

lllRubyRoolll - I get what you're saying that the movie is largely from Steven's point of view. John responded to social norms and it is sad. Not everyone has the strength to think for themselves. John had great incentive not to rock the boat; to keep his very privileged upper middle class existence. It is also true that not everone knows their sexuality at a young age. Not sure what you mean about John's relationship with his parents was "hinted" to be worse. I saw nothing but love & concern from John's parents, even if it was a bit more formal than Steven's relationship with his parents.

Yet I still think applying the word "injustice" to John's situation is a bit too sympathetic. John was older, and don't forget a couple years at that age is a LOT! Surely you remember the difference between 16 & 18 when you were that age. Anyway, we all make choices and while I'm not going to hold an 18 year old to the same standard I would hold a 40 year old, it would be a lot easier to be sympathetic to John if he hadn't kicked the living hell out of Steven in the locker room. (Frankly that was the one place in the movie that was unrealtstic - if John had really kicked him as hard as it sounded, Steven ahould have had broken or at the least extremely bruised ribs) Remember the scene in the rain when John comes home from his "date" with Christina? John knew his waffling and pretending was greatly hurting Steven emotionally.

This means nothing?????

So, to beat a dead horse, as it were; holding John accountable for his choices and the fact those choices have consquences (For Steven I mean) is totally different in my mind than saying he "deserves it." (whatever you meant by that - social disapproval, punishment, deserving to be unhappy etc).

[–] sirjeremy 14 years ago

I don’t think it was odd, really, that Mark wasn’t there. It just adds to the realism effect the writer was (I think) striving for. When we all have ‘big moment’s’ it’s common for not all of our nearest and dearest to be there, no?

The father’s reaction to the news wasn’t something I personally felt would have added anything to the story. Besides the expression on his face later on after Steve’s speech said it all – a mixture of pride and disappointment. I think that was pretty impactful by itself. You know there’s going to be some tough times ahead for the family.

Yes they must have had a good idea about the relationship when they heard the speech. Remember John’s father look of fury and his mother glaring at John? They knew he’d already lied to them about Steve staying at their home when they were away.

Six inches is perfectly adequate. More is vulgar.

[–] jaroslaw99 14 years ago

Sir Jeremy - please don't interpret my response as 'trying to have the last word' - from my point of view, if I'm going to bother to exchange views, well, then let's have an exchange, right?

I totally agree with paragraph three about John's parents being both aware of John's gayness and esp. the fact he lied about Steven staying over.

Paragraph two - Steve's father's reaction - you're spot on of course, that his expression tells a lot (although I don't see even a smidgen of pride - I see confusion and surprise) - and it is filmmaker's option to do it whatever way he likes, the fact that his father was so in the dark would make it VERY ripe for him to say more. Come to think of it, how could it be pride? Remember what the father said when the police brought Steven home from the woods "you could've been molested by some dirty old queer."

Now paragraph one - anything is possible, but normally when people get up in front of the whole school, speak at any kind of large assembly be it family reunions or political rallys, the immediate friends and family almost always go up and congratulate the person for their poise, interesting speech or whatever. (the first solo I did at Church everyone patted me on the back- it is an unnerving experience to SING in front of 2000 people!) What Steven did was so far beyond that, coming out, at such a young age, knowing the consequences etc. It is unbelieveable to me that his lifetime friend, Mark in this case, would NOT come and offer support.

I look forward to your comments.

[–] sirjeremy 14 years ago

Defensive, much? I don't think I interpreted your response as 'trying to have the last word' at all.

These things are always subjective but as I said in my previous post, I personally saw some pride there. For the same reason he feels pride as his wife does, because Steve came out to everyone and did it so eloquently. But this - I think - is just one emotion he was feeling. Disgust and disappointment being two others. His father not saying anything more to me adds to the 'real' effect the writer was striving for. And I don't want everything explained to me.

It's not like Mark knew that Steve was going to make that speech. No-one did.

Six inches is perfectly adequate. More is vulgar.

[–] jaroslaw99 14 years ago

Didn't mean to be "defensive"! I'm on a couple pretty contentious blogs and people are always replying to comments with remarks that you didn't address each and every possiblility....and I have said quite a bit already.

Yes, things are subjective. Some famous screenwriters were in a documentary and said that with each person's diverse background and life experiences, no two people actually see the same movie. And I'll grant you that I have not really given a lot of thought to the scene in the car; AND that I probably formed an opinion and didn't give it additional thought. BUT I have watched this movie about 10 times and really, I just seem to remember the father kind of looking out and a bit down, in a daze. But I will watch it again with this in mind.

I totally agree, Mark didn't know Steven was going to make this speech, but what does that have to do with anything? I can't make it any clearer. He should have been there to support his lifelong friend at the end. There's just no excuse for him not to be there for something this huge. What would your family think if you missed a wedding or funeral?

[–] sirjeremy 14 years ago

Sorry for the delay replying, completely forgot to. How are you?

Anyway, the event that Mark missed was just a school presentation day, something that Steve himself wasn't fussed about. Of course that eventually turned into something much bigger, which nobody anticpated. Quite understandable Mark didn't turn up, I think?

[–] jaroslaw99 14 years ago

Yes, Sir Jeremy, looking at it that way, it makes sense (Mark not showing up because it wasn't a big deal). Then again, to play the devil's advocate - the room was pretty full. But more importantly, for whatever reason, Mark did not seem to be attending, therefore it would make sense that he didn't show up to offer support after the program. Thanks for that insight.

[–] sam_dean1972 13 years ago

Just finished watching the dvd. Questions on my mind about the ending. You sum it very well. Thanks for that

'We only against the things we're guilty of'

[–] augustdiehl 14 years ago

This film has a very sad ending... All the films with gay characters OFTEN have a similar ending AND I don't like it...It's not easy to come out..it seems that nobody understands John. John needs a lot of time to come out, but meanwhile they can love each other in secret, it makes the life more interesting, at least it would be for me. The story between these two characters is very complex, but I'm very sorry for John, they love each other very much. I had liked to see another ending for this film... Steven comes out but he loses his love... that's really sad!!! John just needs time...

[–] riklapham 14 years ago

Dear Augustdiehl - did you read the other posts? Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, and we'll never know what happened because the author didn't write a sequel that I know of - but this is NOT sad after you get past the first glance. Steven is only 17, he's come out to his parents, and his school and himself. He is FREE. He has the whole world ahead of him. On the other hand, John will be almost guaranteed left in the dust to protect his upper middle class privileges - ie marry to please his parents etc.

[–] leftbanker 14 years ago

@ riklapham - exactly!

"Nothing personal. Your name just happened to come up."