The novel, play, and film of Dangerous Liaisons all have different endings. Discuss which ending you found the most and the least effective, and why each author/playwright/screenwriter chose to end the story in that particular way?
40 thoughts on “The novel, play, and film of Dangerous Liaisons all have different endings. Discuss which ending you found the most and the least effective, and why each author/playwright/screenwriter chose to end the story in that particular way?”
I like the ending in the novel better than the play and the movie version of Dangerous Liaisons. At the end of the novel, author LaClos describes the sufferings of Marquise de Merteuil which makes the karmic bondage to be true. Marquise de Merteuil makes a dangerous scheme with Valmont against Madame de Tourvel and Cecile Volanges which ultimately leads Tourvel to death and Cecile to return to convent to become a nun. Merteuil survives smallpox and becomes horribly disfigured. She loses the sight of one eye and becomes hideous. She also loses a court case and the judge orders her estates to be ceased. As a result she becomes bankrupt which leaves her no choices but escape to Holland, more like an exile. Once again nature proves that law and order are equal for everyone, does not matter if they are aristocrats or general public.
The least effective ending is portrayed in the play by author Hampton. Merteuil still lives as an aristocrat and spends time playing cards with her friends Volanges and Rosemonde like a usual day. Hampton does not mention about any sufferings of Merteuil even though many lives has been destroyed by her obnoxious scheme. I think Hampton tried to make the ending more realistic in terms of our modern times where the evil still lives among us without any shame and nothing can bring them down but the ultimate death like many political leaders in our times. On the other hand director Frears plays smart by creating an open ending in his movie where the audience can draw their own conclusion. In the movie we just see that Merteuil is booed by the audience at the opera and she runs away from there. She sits down in front of the mirror to remove her make-ups and goes through break down. We are not sure if she suffers in future for her gross action or if she lives a regular life with her aristocrat status among friends and family members. Movies are generally created with a big budget and the director’s main goal is to get his investment back and make any profit if possible, so creating an open ending will upset less audience.
Thanks for being the first to reply. In the film, I think we can assume from the booing of Merteuil at the opera that her social life is finished. Consider that her greatest effort has been to maintain an image of respectability and piousness, and when this is lost, it is a devastating blow. Also consider that Frears’ more “open ending” is somewhat riskier, and not a guaranteed audience pleaser, as most audiences prefer simpler answers, where vice is eradicated, and equilibrium and goodness restored. Of course, as you say, he leaves it up to us to determine to the degree of Merteuil suffering.
Christina Radcliffe
I would like to add the ending I didn’t care for the most was the second play write. I feel as through Madame Merteuil get’s away with the crime. Nothing is revealed about her, Her only hurt are tap on the hand only she learns of confession of love at valmont death. I’m sorry but what a corny ending that it. I was a little upset after reading that. The last thing that went through my head at end real waiting for the climax was of her crimes should have been revealed.
After reading the two short stories or play writes and watching the movie. I would have to say that I enjoyed the Movie the most. After reading the different short stories. I must say I most certainly enjoyed the movie. For one’ the wording was written in an old fashion way. The English used this type of dialogue more than two centuries ago. It made it boring and hard to read, it took me far every to finish it. It’s really hard reading something you don’t have interest in at all. However I found the movie far more interesting than the reading. For one even through the characters used they same old fashion form of conversation it still held my interest. As for the ending I think the movie was the best. Considering now a days when movies are made from a book the motion picture never gives the book the real justice and always seems to take away from the book true greatness. I think that a person such as myself that found the dialog at times hard to understand it still was much more easier to follow the movie and understand what the authors wanted audience to get from the story. The ending of Marquise de Merteuil having been boo at the opera and her cleaning her makeup off said something to me it made me feel. Finally everyone knew her true nature and cruel and unusual women. Marquise de Merteuil preyed on innocent people. The makeup removal part was sufficient of her shame within society and that the mask she ware in front of everyone was now revealed. She could no longer hide her bad behavior anymore and smile and come a cross as a nice person anymore. I also would like to add didn’t care for anyone having to kill themselves to prove there point she wins that way in the movie she doesn’t win.
Also in the first story When madame de Merteuil finds herself strictens with small poxs and losses her court case. She gets to run off to Holland which makes feel that she gets off some how. But the smalls pox should have been added in the movie some how not really share how through it was like god coursed her. But still I like the movie. Lastly Les” Liaisons Dangereuses “To me has no real ending Cecil is sent back to Convent and Valmont is killed in a dual. No only thing great about this ending was I get really hear what Valmont last real words are. I don’t like this ending because no one finds out about Madame de Merteuil true nature.
I find it was equally odd, interesting, and justified that the novel, play, and film of Dangerous Liasons all had different endings. The least effective for me though was the play’s ending. There was too much left undone. Although I can understand how the theatre can present certain restrictions that would’ve prevented a play ending the way the film did; judging by the way play ends it seems pretty evident that Madame de Merteuil has won. All of her victims are either retreated to their respective corners…or are dead. Yet there is no justice for the lives she destroyed. Volanges’s simple-mindedness is more irritating at the conclusion of the play than either of the other pieces. Merteuil declares that the best thing either of them could do would be to finish their card game, and that’s exactly what they did. As if all the devesation that happened all around them was trivial or didn’t happen at all. Also, the mentioning of the guillotine was too vague for curtain.
The playwright may have chosen this particular ending beacause it was the most practical to carry out. Perhaps for Christopher Hampton, this was the better way to conclude by having the three women in the same scene.
On the other hand, I believe the film had the most effctive ending of the three. In the final 3 scenes the audience is able to witness the story’s vilan being humanized. First, with the death of Valmont we see layers being removed from the shell of a woman. Considering the events leading up to that point, I didn’t expect Merteuil to breakdown the way she did in her dressing room. Then as we see she was able to regain enough composure to visit the opera, but by then Valmont’s dying wish to expose her had already been carried out. Merteuil being booed out of the operahouse gives the audience the gratification that she is finally being stripped of her social standing.
The moment were Merteuil trips/slips off her heel and quickly regains, was like a last stitch effort to save face in the wake of total embarassment. In the final scene, coming face to face with Merteuil as she removes her makeup gives the audience an idea that she is completely alone–not even her servants were around to assist her. In that silence we can gather that the jig is up; there is no space for her to run or hide, and we watch as everything she’d trained herself to be is stripped away and all that’s left is plain.
Perhaps the screenwriter chose to end the story like this because it was the obligatory scene…after all Merteuil had done to orchestrate the demise of others, it was only fitting that she get her cummupins. The film taps into the thing she was most terrified of–becoming a laughing stock and being outcast from society.
The novel, play and film of Dangerous Liaisons are famous for its exploration of the most cynical human relations ever. The story is originally told through a series of 175 fictional letters, exploring the depth and extent to which these aristocratic characters will go to to take revenge and seduce one another. However, the novel, play, and film of Dangerous Liaisons all have different endings even though they all tell the same story.
In the novel, Choderlos de Laclos chose to give an ending that is very fitting for a character as evil and ill natured as Marquise de Merteuil. Before Valmont dies in a duel with Danceny, he gives Danceny all the letters proving Merteuil’s involvement in her elaborate scheming of erotic games toying with the love of others. By revealing these letters to the public, Merteuil’s true nature is exposed. And as a result of her tarnished reputation, she takes flight into the countryside where she becomes infected with smallpox. The disease ruins the aristocrat by permanently scarring her beauty and leaving her blind in one eye. Losing her beauty, the one thing that no one was able to take from her, ultimately causes Merteuil to come to her own tragic pitiful ending.
I believe the author chose to end the story in this particular manner in the novel because a story that is so cynical as this one needs to have an ending that somehow justifies or punishes the wrong doing of such evil characters. I feel that the message the author was trying portray is that such evil can never go unpunished in any functional society. One way or another we all pay for our actions and sins. In the ending of the novel, Merteuil gets what she deserves. Being an aristocrat, and having nothing to do but play cards, she decides to use her power out of pure boredom to inflict pain on others by causing damage to them and their loved ones through her spiteful games. But she does not realize until it is too late, that her very actions is exactly what brings her to her downfall. Out of all the endings, I found this ending to be my favorite and the most effective ending. As I read the story and the deeper I got into the letters, I began to truly despise the two characters, Valmont and Merteuil. But towards the end, I felt a little bit more sympathetic towards Valmont because even though it was just a glimpse into his heart, the readers were able to see that he was capable of loving, making him more humane. Merteuil, on the other hand, was filled with need for such spitefulness and revenge that something as strong as love didn’t break her vicious soul. Instead the idea of love and others being in love and happy around her made her even more jealous and angrier. Thus, when she was charged with such a tragic ending, I felt like it was justified in her case.
The ending in the play is my least favorite. However it is probably the most practical ending compared to the novel and film because of the fact that it did not end so tragically for Merteuil. In the play, Merteuil continues to live her aristocratic lifestyle unaltered as she moves on playing cards. Her scheming plan that has led to the destruction of so many lives around her has no consequences. Hence in the play Merteuil’s character remains the same from the very beginning till the end. She starts out as this very poised evil wicked witch and she ends as the same poised evil character. One reason Hampton may have chosen to end the play in this fashion is to show us a realistic ending. The message I get from this play’s ending is that we live in a biased unfair world, where the rich can get away with almost anything.
The ending in the film was similar to the ending in the novel in the sense that both displayed Merteuil having a break down which the play did not portray at all. In the film, when the public finds out about her involvement in her own evil scheming, they began to “boo” her in the opera house. She no longer remained cool and composed. In the last scene of the film, as she sat in front of her vanity table, the audience witnessed her crumbling down from the inside out. The last image the audience was left with was of her wiping down her make-up as tears rolled down her eyes. As for the rest of the details of what exactly happened to Marquise de Merteuil, the ending was left up to the audience to interpret. I believe the director left this ending somewhat open for the audience to interpret so that that the audience can have the joy of choosing whichever ending satisfies them the most.
This ending in the film is also effective because Merteuil and Valmont both paid for their actions. Valmont paid with his life and the death of his lover Madame Tourvel while Merteuil paid with the loss of her reputation that is scarred permanently.
The novel, play, and the film of Dangerous Liaisons all had different endings. I felt the film ending was most effective. Valmont died realizing what a mistake he made by letting go of Madame de Tourvel, his one true love. He tries to explain himself to her through Danceny as he is taking his last few breaths. He also exposes Marquise de Merteuil through Danceny. This leads to Marquise de Merteuil being booed out of the opera after people learn the truth about her and her evil schemes against Madame de Tourvel and Mademoiselle de Volanges. Another significant scene was when Marquise de Merteuil broke down after the death of Valmont and Madame de Tourvel. After that scene she lost the image of being cool, collected and always once step ahead of everyone as she was throughout the film. The last scene was also significant as she takes of her makeup; she accepts that she no longer is the person she was in the beginning of the film or how people thought she was. She is stripped down to her true colors and everyone is able to see her for who she really is.
The play, however, I felt was least effective. It did not show that evil has lost and good won as it was shown in the film. In the play, she is still playing cards with Madame de Rosemonde and Madame de Volanges and still seems to have the respect and honor of people. I felt that this sends out the message that she was able to get away with her evil schemes and the pawns in her horrid game have all either died or are shunned away in their own misery.
I felt the novel was effective in its own way. In the end Marquise de Merteuil is ill and deformed after everyone learns about her schemes that lead to the deaths of Valmont and Madame de Tourvel. She is alone and exiles herself to Holland. However, I still liked the film the most and felt it was most effective in displaying the downfall of Marquise de Merteuil and at the same time uniting Valmont and Madame de Tourvel even if it was through death.
All three versions of the story had different endings. Each of these endings were significant in their own way, but the one that spoke to me the most was that of the film. In the film, Valmont and Danceny battle eachother after the Marquise declares war. In his dying breath, Valmont explains his true love for Madame de Tourvel and tells Danceny about all of the schemes that he and the Marquise plotted. After the Marquise’s horrible schemes were found out by the public, she was booed and we see her having an emotional breakdown while taking off her makeup. I think that this was the most effective ending because it showed how weak and vulnerable she actually was. Throughout the entire film, she came across as an extremely confident and righteous woman who did not back down for anything. With such a huge stab at her ego, she has nothing left to do but show her true self which is an ugly and malicious person. The makeup was just a cover up for her wicked ways, and it is finally being surfaced. The ending in the novel was similarly symbolic to the ending in the film. The Marquise’s face was terribly distorted and she ran away to the countryside in order to avoid backlash. However, in the novel Marquise is the one who informs Danceny about Valmont’s plan to seduce Cecile. I think that this was significant to put into the novel because it put an extra emphasis on Marquise’s tragic ending. I think that it gave a physical representation of all of the horrible and deceiving things that she did. Rather than in the film where her actual face is being shown and is representing her true “ugly” self, her face is being covered by deformities which allows everyone to physically see her shame. While I like this ending as well, I think that it was the least effective because it didn’t leave much to the imagination. In the film, we only see the beginning of the Marquise’s nervous breakdown and can only imagine what happened next. The novel tells us what happens and we do not get to guess. The play had an entirely different ending. In the play, all of the terrible things happen but the Marquise goes about her day as if nothing happened. Her schemes and plots have no repercussions and she can continue living her glamorous lifestyle. I think that this ending was very symbolic of human nature. Sometimes when evil people do evil things, they do not suffer the consequences. By showing that Merteuil was not phased by all of the horrible things that she did, showed that the evil in the world and the evil within human nature lives on. Bad things happen to good people, and bad people do not suffer the consequences. It was an interesting choice for an ending, and I did not think it was either the most or least effective one.
A very astute analysis, Rebecca. It’s interesting that in the film when she takes off her makeup what is revealed is not an ugly face but one more innocent, or perhaps more vulnerable.
The novel, play, and film of “Dangerous Liaisons” all have different endings. The ending that I found to be most effective is the novel version of “Dangerous Liaisons” the novel begins with Marquise de Merteuil whose plan is to get revenge on and ex-lover who supposed to get married to the young beautiful Cecile. Cecile is the daughter of Madame de Tourvel. Marquise de Merteuil plan is to have young Cecile ruined, by this she wants Cecile to lose her Virginity and purity so he ex-husband would be embarrassed and brought to shamed. For Marquise de Merteuil mischievous plot she calls he former lover Vicomte de Valmont,At first he declines the offer saying it was too easy. Marquise de Merteuil tells him if he does the deed he would have an opportunity to spend one night with her.Vicomte de Valmont accepts the job and said he wanted to challenge himself, so he will make Madame de Tourvel fall in love with him. Cecile falls in love with her poor music teacher named Danceny. Vicomte de Valmont uses the secret affair with Cecile and her music teacher to his advantage so he can sleep with Cecile. Valmont impregnate, Cecile she has a miscarriage weeks later. The novel and film had similar beginnings but different endings.
In the novel I found the ending more effective. The story ended with Danceny and Valmont fencing. Danceny ends up puncturing Valmont with the weapon. When Valmont fall to the floor he confesses to Danceney about how evil Marquise de Merteuil really is. He gave the collections of letter that was written by her of terrible plot to ruin Cecile life. Once Danceney published the letters to everyone, Marquise de Merteuil was forced to move to the country side. She contracted the deadly Disease small pox. The diseases caused bad scars all over her face; her beauty was ruined for eternity. She also became blind in one eye. She later found out Valmont was died she then died in despair. This was more effective to me because I felt satisfied know that Marquise de Merteuil cruelty came back and haunted her. It gave me a feeling of satisfaction that the evil one didn’t win.
In The film of “Dangerous Liaisons” it ended to simple for me. It ended with Danceney publicizing the letters that Mertuiel had written about the cruel plot just as it did the novel. The only difference is in the film during an opera performance with a large crowd of people Mertuiel is booed and humiliated. The last scene end of the movie showed Mertuiel removing her makeup and dramatically crying and screaming in the mirror. I believe the director of the film ended in this way so that audience aren’t left a very much satisfying feeling of very a happy ended. A movie like that I would except to be finished with a much deadly lesson for the evil Mertuiel but it wasn’t. The Novel on the other hand left me with a more relieved feeling; therefore the movie is least effective for me.
After reading/watching the different versions of Dangerous Liaisons, I personally enjoyed the ending of the movie the most. Did I think it was the most effective? Probably not. But I think it left the viewers open to their interpretations when Merteuil was taking the makeup off in the mirror. To me, the removal of the makeup was symbolic. I think it meant that her true ‘ugliness’ came out (from the letters being published), and there was nothing she could now to do cover it up (which was all that makeup that she had on). I think she knew it was the beginning of the end for her. In terms of effectiveness, I think the novel’s ending may have been more effective. The only reason I say this is because to me it was straightforward and readers got to see the punishment that she got. It was more like a deserving punishment for all the actions that she did. I disliked the play’s ending because I really didn’t see any real closure (which I believe is important). I was waiting for karma to strike back at Merteuil, which I didn’t see to the extent that satisfied me as a reader.
I believe the different endings were created to correspond with the different feelings that each writer wanted to elicit. The ending of the movie, which is the one that I found most effective, ends with the viewers believing that Merteuil got her just deserts. The fact that he started the movie with her clean face getting made up and ending it with her face being cleaned or removing what I believe to be her mask, the one thing that has never betrayed her and now will never matter was beautiful. I felt that in the novel everything was more severe. Cecile deciding to become a nun due to the circumstances which lead her to feel like she needs to be forever cleansed, is a big decision to be made at such a tender age. Merteuil gets sued, booed and disfigured due to small pox so now her “outsides match her insides”. Even though I desperately wanted something bad to happen to her it felt like over kill. Also the fact that we hear what happens through the Volanges nonchalant depiction of the events helps make it the least effective ending because there was such little emotion, it was like saying “this is it, the end no thought needed.” The play interested me because it ended on a cliffhanger, the guillotine in the background definitely signifies that heads will roll, but who’s head and for what reason? My curiosity was sparked and although at first I thought that the ending meant that Merteuil got away with ruining Valmont, but after thinking about it I believe that the guillotine was for her, because the truth will make its way out and then she will have nothing left. It was intended to make the audience think and make their own conclusions, which is why it also was an effective ending.
An insightful observation about masks and the duality of both Valmont and Merteuill. Consider that the guillotine might be a reference to the upcoming French Revolution where most of the aristocracy will pay for their crimes.
There are three different endings in the film,novel and play “Dangerous Liaisons”. All of them carry their own sense and idea, depending on what the author was trying to say. For me, the most effective ending happened in the movie. Both “bad guys” (Valmont and Marquise de Merteuil) were punished by the fate for their unhuman actions throughout the film. Valmont is dieing at the duel with Danceny and ,frankly speaking, in spite of Valmont’s multiple sins I still felt some sympathy towards him. He wasn’t hopeless. We saw at the end of the film that even such person like him was capable to feel something to the woman, to Madame de Tourvel( if to be exact)and I think it was love. As for Marquise de Merteuil, she received what she deserved. She made so many people unhappy through her erotic games and with the help of her player Valmont. She was such a vilain, that in the end I enjoyed seing her emotional breakdown, while sitting in front of the mirror without her make-up and crying, understanding that her happiness ended much earlier than she was expecting.I think the director Frears was intending to say that sooner or later the evil will be punished.You can do whatever u like in your life, unless you hurt someone either physically or emotionally, what our main chartecters did.
The ending of the play by Hampton,in my opinion, is the least effective. From the very beginning we saw who Marquise de Merteuil was, what kind of person she was and how she addressed to people. And I was expecting to get a logical ‘happy end” with her sufferings, but I didnt. In the end, she just kept doing her regular activies: playing cards with friends, for example. Nothin bad happened to her in comparison with both novel and the movie. Probably, Hampton wanted to be “realistic”,as some other students said. And I agree, because life is unfair to many people: some peole go to jail for nothing,being accused by mistake,the others escape from punishment and never get caught.So, the idea of the author is totally understandable.
I found the ending of the Movie to be most effective.The Novel is second most effective and the ending of the Play less effective.
Frears’s ending made the most sense base on the entirety of the story.Valmont was forced to ditch Tourvel by Marquise so it was only fear for Valmont, being a rich egotistical Playboy would demand Marquise to fulfill her promise and Marquise being how she was refused and that’s enough to pit them against each other. Valmont wanted Tourvel as his lover from the begining of the story so it made sense that he would fall in love with her. Marquise valued her beauty which was no more by the end of the story.
According to LaClos’s version, Cecile went back to the convent, Marquise was forced to left Town and Tourvel got sick and died. Typically in stories there are tough consequences to every act done by the protagonists.in this case even the so called innocent such as Cecile and Tourvel suffered consequences in the end. Most stories of this kind are predictable. Once I saw the ending the movie, it made sense that it would end this way.
Then there was a twist in the ending of Hampton’s Play with Marquis’s smallpox and the fact she became blind in one eye.
I’ve never before read a story with three different endings and as I said before, stories of this sort could be very predictable especially with the outcome. I believe the authors wanted to change this idea in order to give us readers a shock, which make the story a bit more exciting.
After reading Dangerous Liaisons’ play, novel, and seeing the film I am torn between which ending made more of an impact. I sort of liked the way all three authors and creators ended each because I think they all had a message to deliver. Both the novel and film had somewhat of the same ending because they both show the destruction or downfall of the main character Merteuil. Her evil plans are exposed and the reaction towards her are not accepted kindly but thrown in her face and causes her to wither. In the novel, which I guess, is my favorite of the three, ends with Merteuil’s whole life coming apart when she leaves and is infected by the small pox disease. I like this ending better then the others because I feel like the old witch got what she deserved. Merteuil was a horrible person and used her smarts and power to do as she pleased to the people around her. Everything has a consequence and once her secret was exposed, her consequence was to live in pain like all the others whom she caused pain to. I feel like this was a smart way to end a book because it seals the book. It ends the book with the circle being closed as opposed to the movie who leaves it semi open for the audience to choose.
The play to me can be said to be my least favorite because it is so typical for the main character to end in her high horse the way she does. Although I kind of like the fact she gets away with her evil ways I still feel like it does not close the circle with Karma the way the novel does. I feel like Merteuil needed to get put down and torn apart instead of continuing being the high-powered woman that she is in the play.
Finally I feel like each writer and director chose to deliver their message differently. Two of them choose to have a traditional ending by having Merteuil receive what she deserved and this could be somewhat expected in a novel and film while the play chooses to continue having its character as a powerful figure throughout the whole play. Each deliver a different ending with a different feeling to its audience.
Consider that Hampton ending his play with the villain unpunished, at least for the moment, is not really “typical.” Or course, in this play, the villain is also the protagonist, and not only is she unpunished as a villain, she is unchanged without any revelation as a protagonist, both of which are highly unusual.
The novel, play, and film of Dangerous Liaisons all have different endings. I think Movie ending were more effective to me. In the movie Valmont dies in a duel with Danceny. After Valmont confession to Danceny right before he died, Danceny decides to disclose all letters Valmont gave to him about how Marquise de Merteuil tricked everyone, and ruined Cecile’s life for just one desire to get a revenge on her ex-lover. After the letters been disclosed for public judgment in movie’s scene Merteuil has been humiliated and degraded by public. At the last moment of the movie Merteuil seats in front of the mirror and cleans her makeup. It symbolizes Merteuil’s mask has fallen off the face, there is nothing else to hide, nothing uncovered left in her. All around know who she is now and who she was all her life. In this moment she looks in the mirror, and to its emptiness. Nothing is left behind and there is nowhere to go.
I also liked an ending in the novel, where Marquise de Merteuil got sick with small pox, and she lost her beauty and face. Also, the fact that Merteuil was forced to live in the country side adds some logic pay off day for all terrible things she have done in her life. She ruined many lives around her only for her own satisfaction in her sexual games and personal desires.
The Play ending is my least preference because Marquise de Merteuil didn’t changed for me from beginning to the end. The is no repentance, no punishment or awareness from Marquise de Merteuil. I feel that nothing changed after all tragedy she have done.
Yelena Kobzar
Not only is it interesting that the novel, play, and movie all have different endings, but it’s also a reflection of Linda Seger’s “The Art of Adaptation” essay that we read previously. The novel (altogether, not just the ending), was clearly more detailed and fleshed out than either the play or the film. It’s no surprise then that there’s a lot to be said about De Laclos’ ending, seeing as the beginning and middle of the novel were so elaborate. Throughout the novel, we essentially get into the minds of all of the characters — even Cecile, by way of her letters to Sophie. In the end, we are left with an understanding (not just a narration), of how characters, such as Madame de Volanges and Danceny, feel about their respective misfortunes. We learn how and why Danceny resolves to relocate in Malta, and how betrayed (yet still in love) he is with Cecile. Subsequently, we get an account of Volanges’ thoughts, while simultaneously learning what has since happened to Merteuil (who gets smallpox, loses eyesight in one eye, loses a trial, and flees to Holland to avoid further shame and debt). None of these underlying stories and elements can be found in the play or film: the former barely ends at all with a scene of Merteuil, Volanges, and Rosemonde simply playing cards, and the latter concluding with a shot of Merteuil removing makeup from her face after being booed at the opera.
I think that the novel’s ending was most effective for reasons aforementioned, and also because it really drives home the idea that nothing good comes from being evil/malicious, moreso than the adaptations of it. With that said, I believe the play’s and the film’s endings each coincide with its respective platform. For instance, in the film, we can see/hear what’s happening, and that’s essentially all that matters; so in the end when Merteuil gets booed and shamefully removes her makeup, it says enough for us to come to our own conclusions. Anything more, such as her getting smallpox or going to trial would have been just as unnecessary as the last scene in Brokeback Mountain with Ennis having a conversation with his daughter. Similarly, production plays a large role when it comes to almost any play: Les Liaisons is no different. Because of this, having an ending where the three ladies are playing cards and an “unmistakable silhouette of the guillotine” appears, is sufficient enough. This spectacle speaks for itself, just as in the rest of the play which was mostly dialogue and production/props.
In my opinion the ending in the novel was more effective. Everybody had their own punishment which proved the main point that the author must have been tried to make: it is very cruel to play with the feelings of another person and no matter how skillful and crafty a person is, there is no way to escape a punishment. In all these works we can see that all of them got their own punishment. However, the original ending contains a lot more meaningful and well thought-out events that make the story colorful and interesting. I think the novel had a more effective ending also because it has an ability to influence the reader in a certain way and even teach him/her something valuable in life and prevent the mistakes that could be done by young and not experienced people (e.g. Cecile or the presidente de Tourvel). For instance, in the film Madame de Merteuil did not get sick, whereas in the novel she got smallpox, and as a result was fearfully disfigured and lost an eye. Moreover, she lost her case and all “costs, damages, restitution of the funds received, all was adjudged to the minors”. In the movie, it is not shown what kind punishment was given to Cecile. Although, I do not think that Cecile was a bad character, and I mostly felt bad about her because her trust was betrayed by Madame de Merteuil, the Chevalier Danceny and the Vicomte de Valmont, and as I think she should have not got the punishment, I still believe it was a good idea that in the novel she decided to become a nun. This small piece of information shows us that in the “war” everybody will suffer and most likely everybody’s life will be damaged.
It was very strange to me that the play, the film and the novel had different endings. However, to me the novel had the most effective ending. I think the author brought the story full circle. The evil, distructive and conniving behavior of Marquise de Merteuil caught up with her. When she was faced with ill health and her life took a bad turn she could not garnish the sympathy and support that she needed from her peers. She had to leave town by night with the few valuables that she had left. The author gave her a chance to reflect,, start over and hopefully change her ways. She fell from grace after being so prominent within her community.
The play had the least effective ending. The Marquise de Merteuil continued to live her life and enjoyed a game of cards with her friends. However when the lights dimmed in the very end and the silhoutte of a guillotine was shown, I think that the playwright wanted the audience to know that someone will pay for all the hurt
that they have caused. It was left open ended , hence tesaga continues.
The film had an interesting ending just like the novel. The screenwriter wanted to show Marquise de Merteuil ‘s fall from grace, and that one should always follow their heart in love.
The story “Dangerous liaisons” and it’s adapted play and film counterparts all have very different endings, some being more effective than others. In my opinion the most effective ending was the ending of the novel. At the end of the novel you get to read about the total breakdown of Madam de Merteuil with her contracting small pocks and not only becoming hideously disfigured but has to go into hiding after all her assets were seized. The reader is left with some gratification knowing that she was not able to live out her life in happiness after all the wrong doings she orchestrated. I believe De Laclos ended the novel in this fashion to portray that even with all the disgusting things Madam de Mereuil was able to get way with throughout the years that not even she is untouchable.
The least effective ending was the ending of the play. I fell as if Christopher Hampton left everything so unresolved. The only thing you really get from it is Madam de Merteuil beginning to have a sense of dread of what may happen to her if she does not watch her next steps carefully. There weren’t any real repercussions displayed in the play for her and the viewer/reader is left to speculate what happens next. I really have no idea why Hampton would write the plays ending like this other than maybe he did not want to share a definitive version of Madam de Merteuil’s fate.
The movies ending was more or less adapted from the novels ending, with Merteuil getting booed and humiliated. The differences being Stephen Frears decided not to share how Merteuil lives out the rest her days and rather chooses to show us the beginning of her demise rather than her demise it’s self. More or less I feel it was a dumbed down ending most likely because of time restraints and felt it was unnecessary to go any further already showing us it’s the beginning of the end for Madame Mereuil.
Consider that Frears wanted the audience to make up their own minds about the exact fate of Merteuil. Also, consider what exactly her face in the mirror might reveal. Is it not a face just like ours?
As for the play, Merteuill’s sense of dread that you mention is quite important, as it signals the fall of the upper classes which will soon happen in the revolution. Also consider, as others have said, that the play’s ending might be the most realistic as evil isn’t always punished. And, with enough money and power, a rich person can pretty much do whatever they want. We see this in our society today, but this was even more true with the French aristocracy.
I found it interesting that the novel, film, and play all had different endings. The least effective ending was the play. It left the audience wanting more. There was a lot left unsaid, in the play who can see right away what kind of person Marquise de Merteuil is. She is an evil person whogets great pleasure into harming others. But you would think that such a horrivle person would get what she deserved, not in the play it ends with her not sufferingbut living her life as she always had lived it. She plays cards and socializes with friends but the author Hampton never mentions her living a horrible life.
The most effective and my favorite was the novel because you get to visualize how everyones lives turn out. Marquise de Merteuil receives her karma, by getting small pox but survives but becomes disfigured. She also loses her property and becomes bankrupt which makes her go to Holland. Did I mention she loses her eye sight? Well the author basically wanted to show how much suffering she gets because of all the bad things she has done to others. It was my faborite ending because she got what she deserved.
The movie was effective as well because we got to see how everything played out. in the begining we see her getting pampered up and looking beautiful and clean but In the end it shows her removing her “mask” and it shows us her true colors and how ugly she really is inside and out.
Did you really find her ugly when she takes off her makeup in the film? I had a very different impression. Consider that Frears might have wanted to show her vulnerable, innocent and just like us.
The novel, play, and film of Dangerous Liaisons all have different endings. The movie version wasn’t so effective compared to the novel. The ending of the movie concludes with the audience taking their own conclusions of what might happen for the characters. The movie ends with Merteuil being disliked by the opera. Merteuil runs away from the scene quickly. She sits in front of her mirror, which is the same way the movie starts and she completely breaks down. I was personally confused of the movie. I wasn’t sure if something happens to her for doing so much evil in the world or not? Movies leaving the story as a cliffhanger can be annoying for the audience. However, movies prefer to use a cliffhanger then to not give the audience a happy ending.
I enjoyed the novel version of the story. The novel is more effective because it ends by having Marquise de Merteuil planning a revenge on Valmont against Madame de Tourvel and Cecile Volanges. Her plans lead Tourvel to her death and Cecile to become a nunagain. In the end, Merteuil gets a horrible disfigured face, even though she was cured from the chicken pox. All she had left was her beauty and now that was gone. Later, she becomes blind in one eye. She looses all her money and because of the courts decision becomes an exile. She has no choice to leave to Holland and escape. I thought this ending was very effective because it satisfied me knowing that Marquise de Merteuil was punished because of all her cruelty.
I didn’t think the play was so effective because in the end of the play she continued to be her own self. I didn’t much agree because I wanted Karma to torture her a bit. She has such an evil heart and to end the playing the same way it started by playing cards seems as though nothing happened. I know life is fair and this movie wasn’t fair at all. All these stories are the same because the plot doesn’t change. However, the ending changes which might mean each writer wanted to convey the audience with something different.
Choderolos de Laclos lets you know the complete story of the novel and you are able to see what happened to Marquise de Merteuil after the letters she has written to Valmont are revealed to the public unlike the movie’s ending. With the people anger at her of what she has been involved in the interruption of other people’s lives out of her own pleasure the people force her to leave and head to the country where she catches a severe case of the smallpox leaving her blind and with scars once she was known for beauty has gone. This ending let you see that the joy she valued out of others misery came in full circle to destroy herself being. I believe Choderolos de Laclos chose this ending because the reader really wanted to know what happened after she left the theater did Marquise de Merteuil get what she deserved or did her life continue as normal with a few whispers. The novel’s ending satisfied me the most on knowing that Marquise de Merteuil did not walk away freely but in fact ended up suffering the most and utterly alone.
The film ending with Marquise de Merteuil getting booed out of the theater by everyone and then she is left alone taking off her makeup that covered up her true self allowed you to see that her life as she knew it was a camouflage and now it had been removed to reveal true self that she will now have to live with in all that she has done to people. I think the director wanted you to get that the corrupted Marquise de Merteuil’s story was completely over with her reputation ruined and the people will shun her away to never have her exist in their lives again. As of the play by Christopher Hampton the ending to me was how I think it would have ended in a real life setting at that time there would have been an uproar for a while but then it would have settle down and return back to normal because she was that of a higher standard bloodline that was shown to the people as a respected family.
The novel, play, and film versions of Dangerous Liaisons all had very different endings. I think each ending was interesting because they were all different, and it almost gave you the option to see all the ways this story could have played out in the end. I think I enjoyed the play and the novel the most just because in the end it seemed that Marquise de Merteuil got what she deserved after causing so much torment to other people’ lives. That being said, I think all of these endings were effective because it gave three perfectly different scenarios for how Marquise de Merteuil life could have turned out.
The film had a great ending as we were able to watch Marquise de Merteuil have her breakdown. In addition we are showed her being booed out of the theater. Not only has she lost the love of her life but she has lost what seems most important to her which is her status. The difference with this ending compared to the others is that after this initial breakdown we aren’t sure how she carries out the rest of her life and that is left up to the viewer. Sometimes this can be the most pleasing ending because we can decide what happens to Marquise de Merteuil in the end.
The novel had a gruesomely amazing ending with Marquise de Merteuil becoming ill with the chicken pox and then her face becoming deformed and losing an eye. I believe this ending holds so much meaning in her appearance being altered. It shows all the negativity and horror that she pressed in people’s lives for so long has finally come back to haunt her, and in the end we are able to literally see all of this on her face as a result.
The play wasn’t necessarily the least effective, it just doesn’t seem fair! It’s the ending that no one wants to happen. As viewers we always want a happy ending of the bad guy getting what they deserve or some kind of karma and Marquise de Merteuil just didn’t get any. In the play Marquise de Merteuil plays cards with Madame de Rosemonde and Madame de Vonlanges and it seems that none of her power or status has been lost. She was able to get away with all of her wrong doings. Although obviously the most disliked ending I don’t think it was necessarily the worst, maybe just the most realistic. Bad people walk away from their wrongdoings all the time and never see the day where they have to pay for their choices. It shows that the world has good but also has pure evil and this will never change.
I find the varied endings so diverse and interesting; I wonder why they were so varied? The movie portrays Merteuil’s greatest fear as loss of face; the movie ends with her loosing prestige and facing an onslaught of embarrassment. She shudders in horror overwhelmed with the shock; she stumbles and runs away from her own shame. I never got the impression that she suffered real loss though; she wept at Valmont’s passing but was it loss of the person or the loss of the game. Was it merely a slap in the face or was it true punishment that in the end his love and loyalty was for another. The booing and the jeers felt hardly a punishment. Perhaps the movie goer saw this as an appropriate punishment for such a character, who prides herself on appearance and persona. The play foreshadows her demise but doesn’t outright exclaim any sort of real ending. Was the guillotine shadow a portrayal of Merteuil’s fear of exposure or was it a projection of what was to come? Difficult to say. I believe the best example of poetic justice came from the novel version. Her fortune lost in court and her disfigurement served as a truer punishment for her manipulations. I think the line; “her illness had turned her inside out” and that her “soul was now on her face.” Her true self now on the outside for the world to see, I always felt like she was a manipulative monster, her pretty powdered mask hid who she truly was. There was now no amount of power that could hide her soul. I love the ending moral of the story factor; the afterthought of looking back at the grand amount of ills all caused from one dangerous liaison. The novel for me offered the best sense of justice and even offered a parable on which to reflect.
Some very interesting comments. In the film, she did more than weep at Valmont’s death, she totally broke down, smashed her furniture, threw herself on the floor and screamed. Behavior completely out of character for the controlled, rigid Merteuil. The film wants us to believe that Merteuil really loved Valmont, and it was her pride and vanity that got in the way. And perhaps not having her great love is punishment enough. The novel is more ambiguous on the subject.
I liked the end of the novel most the three; I thought it was the most effective punishment for Marquise de Merteuil for her actions during the course of the story. By taking away everything she had, her looks, her power, her money, her home and even her place in society she was left a broken woman for the games she had played. I found the ending of the play least effective, The Marquise ends up without any sort of real punishment for her schemes; she ruins the lives of several people but never is punished in any significant way for it. I think there was an obvious answer to where the movie’s director came up with the film’s ending he wished to punish the Marquise de Merteuil and did so by exposing her, something she had bragged earlier in the film she had never allowed to happen. The novel’s author Choderlos de Laclos made a similar decision with how he would end the story; he wished to punish Marquise de Merteuil, though he punished her much more severely by taking away everything she had. The play by Christopher Hampton on the other hand seems to let Marquise de Merteuil get away with all that she did. I think this was an example of the playwright attempting to end the play on a sour note, and have someone who was in a way the story’s main villain end up victorious to show that sometimes people can get away with bad things.
Understanding the different endings between the three versions of Dangerous Liaisons requires the reader to understand the different audiences which these three mediums, given the confines of this plot and the themes with which it deals, are meant to cater to. Each ending is meant to have a different effect on the reader, or the viewer. These differences represent the different priorities the authors had in telling these stories.
The novel’s ending sees the Marquise punished, seemingly for her crimes. Her wealth depleted, her health waning, and her beauty as well. The tides of fate have conspired to make her pay for her crimes, in more than enough ways to sate the demands of the reader. This begs the questions of whether one can be so wretched without the universe invoking some divine retribution. According to the author, the answer is no.
In the play, the writer is positing a completely different hypothesis. The Marquise’s life, though slightly saddened by the loss of what seemed to be her favorite toy, comes completely full circle. She finds herself surrounded by two of the women whom she’s had a direct hand in victimizing, playing cards and talking about the death of the Vicomte as if she’d not had a hand in it. And yet the flash of the guillotine, given it’s placement in the narrative, and the importance of the guillotine in French culture, would suggest that the writer thinks the events of the play to be of no consequence for what is to come; The Revolution of France, the overthrowing of the noble class and the fall of the monarchy as it had been known in France. Women like the Marquise were not long for that world.
The film has the distinction of being the most emotionally diverse of the three endings. While the Marquise does fall, a fall which strikes as a much more fitting punishment for her, she also suffers emotionally from the loss of the Vicomte. Her reaction to his death is to tear her clothes and scream in her home, rampaging through her powder room. This, followed by the scene in the opera house where she is booed out, shows us that she has lost everything. She’s lost the game she’s been playing with society, and the game which she’s playing with the Vicomte. This makes one wonder if any of this had ever been more than a game to her. And yet throughout the film, the cat and mouse game between The Marquise and the Vicomte plays with an unmistakable hint of affection, and the devastation apparent when Valmont demands the Marquise honor their arrangement plays as the separation between two lovers, which they seem to be in an emotional sense if not in a physical one.
Given these mixed signals, we can garner some sense of pleasure from the fact that the Marquise gets what’s coming to her, but we’re also hit with a sudden revelation when we see her reaction to Valmont’s death and realize she loved him, in her own strange, manipulative way. And in some way, we’re able to feel sorry for her.
I think to declare one of these endings better than the other is misguided. Instead it’s better to see the effect each one is having and decide whether those morals have any merit to them.
A very fine analysis. Glad to see it was worth the wait. I agree, Frears wants us to feel sorry for Merteuil at the end. And we almost can because we see her devastation at Valmont’s death. A scene that LaClos would never have considered, and one that perhaps changes the whole story.
I enjoyed the film the most out of the three endings, I feel in that setting the characters were represented in their truest forms and it took small influences from the play and novel. Small pox isnt an issue in the film but the element of death gives the viewers the feeling of justice that was a large elment to the novel. I think that the play and novel expanded on many unique details that in turn made for a more drawn out plot development. Watching the film I began thinking of the film cruel intentions which is a modern adaptation of the film that I had saw many years ago. I enjoyed seeing where that film that I had saw growing up recieved its influence. All three endings are trying to envoke a certain emotional standard with the audience but I feel that the play was the least effective. The story had so much detail and the play left a lot to be guessed about. I enjoy how the other endings (the novel and film) gave some sort of punishment to those wicked characters.
The novel, play, and film “Dangerous Liaisons” all tell a chilling and cruel story of the rotten core of societal relations through the interaction, deception, trickery, and seduction by two aristocratic characters: Marquise de Merteuil and Valmont. While the play, novel, and film seldom deviate in telling the beginning and middle of the story, the reader and or viewer would realize that the ending of each is different.
The ending, which I found most effective, was that of the novel and secondarily, the one of the film. The story itself was very gruesome and chilling in telling how human beings can do such wretched things to one another simply out of boredom and status. What makes this story even more powerful is that innocent characters were the intentional prey. I think many would agree that as the story unfolds the reader/viewer wants to see Marquise de Merteuil and Valmont punished for their wrongdoing and I believe that the novel serves the correct brand of justice. After Valmont dies at the hand of Danceny (as in the film), Merteuil’s letters are circulated which I appropriately believe is only the beginning of her extensive punishment. Consequently is disgraced and is demoted from her atistocratic stature and later contracts chickenpox and must live the rest of her life disfigured and blind in one eye. I believe the author chose this particular ending because it serves the wrongdoers justice correctly and to the maximum extent. The film also ends in a similar fashion but the punishment for Marquise’s treachery was toned down as the actual suffering was left for interpretation. Both the author’s and screenwriter’s ending suggested that in our society people pay for their sins in the appropriate way.
I found the play’s ending to be the least effective because everyone ended up suffering except the most heinous character, Marquise de Merteuil. Her deception and treachery was left without consequences and punishment. I believe the reason why the playwright, Hampton, ended the play in such a way is because, while it left the reader in an unsatisfactory state, it showed the most realistic ending possible, which correctly portrayed the world that we live in.
Though all three versions of Dangerous Liaisons had different endings, I believe the film was the most effective. The novel was effective as well. The author showed that every character was reprimanded and Karma got her payback. However in the film, you could see the expression on all of the characters faces and how their little scheme unravels… Valmont who dies realizing what a mistake he made by letting go of Madame de Tourvel, his one true love. How Marquise de Martials trips on the stairs trying to save herself yet ends up losing everything. This is shown by her removing her makeup and being booed at the opera. Basically saying she lost and her scheme has been unraveled.
The play left me without any ending. I was waiting for something more to happen. It left me wanting more.
This truly is a challenging question to answer. All three endings are radically different, but by no means is any which one worse than another. They all tell us something different. By that account, I can’t truly pick a “worst” ending, but I can say that the novel’s leaves me feeling the most indifferent. In the novel, just as in the film, Valmont and Danceny duel just as they do in the film, and things play out very similar in that regard, but Valmont’s postmortem reveal of the Marquise’s involvement leads to far different results. The Marquise winds up fleeing the country in shame and contracts smallpox, of all things, and her beauty is literally ripped away from her. While I respect the imagery, I think this pushes home the point a bit too hard. It almost feels lazy to me.
On the other hand, the film relies more on subtle imagery to get it’s message across. After the Marquise’s letters proving her involvement are published, her reputation is tarnished and she is a figure of much gossip and ill contempt from her peers. The major difference following this is that she doesn’t (as far as we know at least) run away afterwords and get some horrible disease. If we go back to the beginning of the film, we see her dawning heavy make up on her face. It seems implied that she, for lack of a better word, puts on a strong face every day to tackle the world as the strong woman she sees herself to be. At the end, post mocking from the audience at the opera, we see her removing her face paint in the last shot of the movie. She strips herself of her false face and has a breakdown. The imagery suggests to me that without her reputation, she truly is nothing.
The ending of the play is also interesting in that there really is no repercussions for her actions. The Marquise more or less just goes on as if nothing has changed. As one of my fellow classmates stated above, this really does show an ugly side of the nature of mankind.
I think the play and the films endings are both a little more to my liking than the novel’s, sure, but it’s hard for me to objectively choose the better ending between the play and the film. They both succeed on very different levels. One shows the wrong-doer being punished, while the other shows them getting away with it, and they are both valid approaches. That being said, I guess my (entirely subjective) favorite ending would be that of the film’s, if only because Valmont details how he is truly in love he is with Tourvel. Add to that the punishment the Marquise suffers (in a much more subtle form, of course) and there you go. I guess I am just a romantic.
Film and Literature 
I like the ending in the novel better than the play and the movie version of Dangerous Liaisons. At the end of the novel, author LaClos describes the sufferings of Marquise de Merteuil which makes the karmic bondage to be true. Marquise de Merteuil makes a dangerous scheme with Valmont against Madame de Tourvel and Cecile Volanges which ultimately leads Tourvel to death and Cecile to return to convent to become a nun. Merteuil survives smallpox and becomes horribly disfigured. She loses the sight of one eye and becomes hideous. She also loses a court case and the judge orders her estates to be ceased. As a result she becomes bankrupt which leaves her no choices but escape to Holland, more like an exile. Once again nature proves that law and order are equal for everyone, does not matter if they are aristocrats or general public.
The least effective ending is portrayed in the play by author Hampton. Merteuil still lives as an aristocrat and spends time playing cards with her friends Volanges and Rosemonde like a usual day. Hampton does not mention about any sufferings of Merteuil even though many lives has been destroyed by her obnoxious scheme. I think Hampton tried to make the ending more realistic in terms of our modern times where the evil still lives among us without any shame and nothing can bring them down but the ultimate death like many political leaders in our times. On the other hand director Frears plays smart by creating an open ending in his movie where the audience can draw their own conclusion. In the movie we just see that Merteuil is booed by the audience at the opera and she runs away from there. She sits down in front of the mirror to remove her make-ups and goes through break down. We are not sure if she suffers in future for her gross action or if she lives a regular life with her aristocrat status among friends and family members. Movies are generally created with a big budget and the director’s main goal is to get his investment back and make any profit if possible, so creating an open ending will upset less audience.
Thanks for being the first to reply. In the film, I think we can assume from the booing of Merteuil at the opera that her social life is finished. Consider that her greatest effort has been to maintain an image of respectability and piousness, and when this is lost, it is a devastating blow. Also consider that Frears’ more “open ending” is somewhat riskier, and not a guaranteed audience pleaser, as most audiences prefer simpler answers, where vice is eradicated, and equilibrium and goodness restored. Of course, as you say, he leaves it up to us to determine to the degree of Merteuil suffering.
Christina Radcliffe
I would like to add the ending I didn’t care for the most was the second play write. I feel as through Madame Merteuil get’s away with the crime. Nothing is revealed about her, Her only hurt are tap on the hand only she learns of confession of love at valmont death. I’m sorry but what a corny ending that it. I was a little upset after reading that. The last thing that went through my head at end real waiting for the climax was of her crimes should have been revealed.
Christina Radcliffe
After reading the two short stories or play writes and watching the movie. I would have to say that I enjoyed the Movie the most. After reading the different short stories. I must say I most certainly enjoyed the movie. For one’ the wording was written in an old fashion way. The English used this type of dialogue more than two centuries ago. It made it boring and hard to read, it took me far every to finish it. It’s really hard reading something you don’t have interest in at all. However I found the movie far more interesting than the reading. For one even through the characters used they same old fashion form of conversation it still held my interest. As for the ending I think the movie was the best. Considering now a days when movies are made from a book the motion picture never gives the book the real justice and always seems to take away from the book true greatness. I think that a person such as myself that found the dialog at times hard to understand it still was much more easier to follow the movie and understand what the authors wanted audience to get from the story. The ending of Marquise de Merteuil having been boo at the opera and her cleaning her makeup off said something to me it made me feel. Finally everyone knew her true nature and cruel and unusual women. Marquise de Merteuil preyed on innocent people. The makeup removal part was sufficient of her shame within society and that the mask she ware in front of everyone was now revealed. She could no longer hide her bad behavior anymore and smile and come a cross as a nice person anymore. I also would like to add didn’t care for anyone having to kill themselves to prove there point she wins that way in the movie she doesn’t win.
Also in the first story When madame de Merteuil finds herself strictens with small poxs and losses her court case. She gets to run off to Holland which makes feel that she gets off some how. But the smalls pox should have been added in the movie some how not really share how through it was like god coursed her. But still I like the movie. Lastly Les” Liaisons Dangereuses “To me has no real ending Cecil is sent back to Convent and Valmont is killed in a dual. No only thing great about this ending was I get really hear what Valmont last real words are. I don’t like this ending because no one finds out about Madame de Merteuil true nature.
I find it was equally odd, interesting, and justified that the novel, play, and film of Dangerous Liasons all had different endings. The least effective for me though was the play’s ending. There was too much left undone. Although I can understand how the theatre can present certain restrictions that would’ve prevented a play ending the way the film did; judging by the way play ends it seems pretty evident that Madame de Merteuil has won. All of her victims are either retreated to their respective corners…or are dead. Yet there is no justice for the lives she destroyed. Volanges’s simple-mindedness is more irritating at the conclusion of the play than either of the other pieces. Merteuil declares that the best thing either of them could do would be to finish their card game, and that’s exactly what they did. As if all the devesation that happened all around them was trivial or didn’t happen at all. Also, the mentioning of the guillotine was too vague for curtain.
The playwright may have chosen this particular ending beacause it was the most practical to carry out. Perhaps for Christopher Hampton, this was the better way to conclude by having the three women in the same scene.
On the other hand, I believe the film had the most effctive ending of the three. In the final 3 scenes the audience is able to witness the story’s vilan being humanized. First, with the death of Valmont we see layers being removed from the shell of a woman. Considering the events leading up to that point, I didn’t expect Merteuil to breakdown the way she did in her dressing room. Then as we see she was able to regain enough composure to visit the opera, but by then Valmont’s dying wish to expose her had already been carried out. Merteuil being booed out of the operahouse gives the audience the gratification that she is finally being stripped of her social standing.
The moment were Merteuil trips/slips off her heel and quickly regains, was like a last stitch effort to save face in the wake of total embarassment. In the final scene, coming face to face with Merteuil as she removes her makeup gives the audience an idea that she is completely alone–not even her servants were around to assist her. In that silence we can gather that the jig is up; there is no space for her to run or hide, and we watch as everything she’d trained herself to be is stripped away and all that’s left is plain.
Perhaps the screenwriter chose to end the story like this because it was the obligatory scene…after all Merteuil had done to orchestrate the demise of others, it was only fitting that she get her cummupins. The film taps into the thing she was most terrified of–becoming a laughing stock and being outcast from society.
Really good analysis, Seymonnia.
The novel, play and film of Dangerous Liaisons are famous for its exploration of the most cynical human relations ever. The story is originally told through a series of 175 fictional letters, exploring the depth and extent to which these aristocratic characters will go to to take revenge and seduce one another. However, the novel, play, and film of Dangerous Liaisons all have different endings even though they all tell the same story.
In the novel, Choderlos de Laclos chose to give an ending that is very fitting for a character as evil and ill natured as Marquise de Merteuil. Before Valmont dies in a duel with Danceny, he gives Danceny all the letters proving Merteuil’s involvement in her elaborate scheming of erotic games toying with the love of others. By revealing these letters to the public, Merteuil’s true nature is exposed. And as a result of her tarnished reputation, she takes flight into the countryside where she becomes infected with smallpox. The disease ruins the aristocrat by permanently scarring her beauty and leaving her blind in one eye. Losing her beauty, the one thing that no one was able to take from her, ultimately causes Merteuil to come to her own tragic pitiful ending.
I believe the author chose to end the story in this particular manner in the novel because a story that is so cynical as this one needs to have an ending that somehow justifies or punishes the wrong doing of such evil characters. I feel that the message the author was trying portray is that such evil can never go unpunished in any functional society. One way or another we all pay for our actions and sins. In the ending of the novel, Merteuil gets what she deserves. Being an aristocrat, and having nothing to do but play cards, she decides to use her power out of pure boredom to inflict pain on others by causing damage to them and their loved ones through her spiteful games. But she does not realize until it is too late, that her very actions is exactly what brings her to her downfall. Out of all the endings, I found this ending to be my favorite and the most effective ending. As I read the story and the deeper I got into the letters, I began to truly despise the two characters, Valmont and Merteuil. But towards the end, I felt a little bit more sympathetic towards Valmont because even though it was just a glimpse into his heart, the readers were able to see that he was capable of loving, making him more humane. Merteuil, on the other hand, was filled with need for such spitefulness and revenge that something as strong as love didn’t break her vicious soul. Instead the idea of love and others being in love and happy around her made her even more jealous and angrier. Thus, when she was charged with such a tragic ending, I felt like it was justified in her case.
The ending in the play is my least favorite. However it is probably the most practical ending compared to the novel and film because of the fact that it did not end so tragically for Merteuil. In the play, Merteuil continues to live her aristocratic lifestyle unaltered as she moves on playing cards. Her scheming plan that has led to the destruction of so many lives around her has no consequences. Hence in the play Merteuil’s character remains the same from the very beginning till the end. She starts out as this very poised evil wicked witch and she ends as the same poised evil character. One reason Hampton may have chosen to end the play in this fashion is to show us a realistic ending. The message I get from this play’s ending is that we live in a biased unfair world, where the rich can get away with almost anything.
The ending in the film was similar to the ending in the novel in the sense that both displayed Merteuil having a break down which the play did not portray at all. In the film, when the public finds out about her involvement in her own evil scheming, they began to “boo” her in the opera house. She no longer remained cool and composed. In the last scene of the film, as she sat in front of her vanity table, the audience witnessed her crumbling down from the inside out. The last image the audience was left with was of her wiping down her make-up as tears rolled down her eyes. As for the rest of the details of what exactly happened to Marquise de Merteuil, the ending was left up to the audience to interpret. I believe the director left this ending somewhat open for the audience to interpret so that that the audience can have the joy of choosing whichever ending satisfies them the most.
This ending in the film is also effective because Merteuil and Valmont both paid for their actions. Valmont paid with his life and the death of his lover Madame Tourvel while Merteuil paid with the loss of her reputation that is scarred permanently.
The novel, play, and the film of Dangerous Liaisons all had different endings. I felt the film ending was most effective. Valmont died realizing what a mistake he made by letting go of Madame de Tourvel, his one true love. He tries to explain himself to her through Danceny as he is taking his last few breaths. He also exposes Marquise de Merteuil through Danceny. This leads to Marquise de Merteuil being booed out of the opera after people learn the truth about her and her evil schemes against Madame de Tourvel and Mademoiselle de Volanges. Another significant scene was when Marquise de Merteuil broke down after the death of Valmont and Madame de Tourvel. After that scene she lost the image of being cool, collected and always once step ahead of everyone as she was throughout the film. The last scene was also significant as she takes of her makeup; she accepts that she no longer is the person she was in the beginning of the film or how people thought she was. She is stripped down to her true colors and everyone is able to see her for who she really is.
The play, however, I felt was least effective. It did not show that evil has lost and good won as it was shown in the film. In the play, she is still playing cards with Madame de Rosemonde and Madame de Volanges and still seems to have the respect and honor of people. I felt that this sends out the message that she was able to get away with her evil schemes and the pawns in her horrid game have all either died or are shunned away in their own misery.
I felt the novel was effective in its own way. In the end Marquise de Merteuil is ill and deformed after everyone learns about her schemes that lead to the deaths of Valmont and Madame de Tourvel. She is alone and exiles herself to Holland. However, I still liked the film the most and felt it was most effective in displaying the downfall of Marquise de Merteuil and at the same time uniting Valmont and Madame de Tourvel even if it was through death.
All three versions of the story had different endings. Each of these endings were significant in their own way, but the one that spoke to me the most was that of the film. In the film, Valmont and Danceny battle eachother after the Marquise declares war. In his dying breath, Valmont explains his true love for Madame de Tourvel and tells Danceny about all of the schemes that he and the Marquise plotted. After the Marquise’s horrible schemes were found out by the public, she was booed and we see her having an emotional breakdown while taking off her makeup. I think that this was the most effective ending because it showed how weak and vulnerable she actually was. Throughout the entire film, she came across as an extremely confident and righteous woman who did not back down for anything. With such a huge stab at her ego, she has nothing left to do but show her true self which is an ugly and malicious person. The makeup was just a cover up for her wicked ways, and it is finally being surfaced. The ending in the novel was similarly symbolic to the ending in the film. The Marquise’s face was terribly distorted and she ran away to the countryside in order to avoid backlash. However, in the novel Marquise is the one who informs Danceny about Valmont’s plan to seduce Cecile. I think that this was significant to put into the novel because it put an extra emphasis on Marquise’s tragic ending. I think that it gave a physical representation of all of the horrible and deceiving things that she did. Rather than in the film where her actual face is being shown and is representing her true “ugly” self, her face is being covered by deformities which allows everyone to physically see her shame. While I like this ending as well, I think that it was the least effective because it didn’t leave much to the imagination. In the film, we only see the beginning of the Marquise’s nervous breakdown and can only imagine what happened next. The novel tells us what happens and we do not get to guess. The play had an entirely different ending. In the play, all of the terrible things happen but the Marquise goes about her day as if nothing happened. Her schemes and plots have no repercussions and she can continue living her glamorous lifestyle. I think that this ending was very symbolic of human nature. Sometimes when evil people do evil things, they do not suffer the consequences. By showing that Merteuil was not phased by all of the horrible things that she did, showed that the evil in the world and the evil within human nature lives on. Bad things happen to good people, and bad people do not suffer the consequences. It was an interesting choice for an ending, and I did not think it was either the most or least effective one.
A very astute analysis, Rebecca. It’s interesting that in the film when she takes off her makeup what is revealed is not an ugly face but one more innocent, or perhaps more vulnerable.
The novel, play, and film of “Dangerous Liaisons” all have different endings. The ending that I found to be most effective is the novel version of “Dangerous Liaisons” the novel begins with Marquise de Merteuil whose plan is to get revenge on and ex-lover who supposed to get married to the young beautiful Cecile. Cecile is the daughter of Madame de Tourvel. Marquise de Merteuil plan is to have young Cecile ruined, by this she wants Cecile to lose her Virginity and purity so he ex-husband would be embarrassed and brought to shamed. For Marquise de Merteuil mischievous plot she calls he former lover Vicomte de Valmont,At first he declines the offer saying it was too easy. Marquise de Merteuil tells him if he does the deed he would have an opportunity to spend one night with her.Vicomte de Valmont accepts the job and said he wanted to challenge himself, so he will make Madame de Tourvel fall in love with him. Cecile falls in love with her poor music teacher named Danceny. Vicomte de Valmont uses the secret affair with Cecile and her music teacher to his advantage so he can sleep with Cecile. Valmont impregnate, Cecile she has a miscarriage weeks later. The novel and film had similar beginnings but different endings.
In the novel I found the ending more effective. The story ended with Danceny and Valmont fencing. Danceny ends up puncturing Valmont with the weapon. When Valmont fall to the floor he confesses to Danceney about how evil Marquise de Merteuil really is. He gave the collections of letter that was written by her of terrible plot to ruin Cecile life. Once Danceney published the letters to everyone, Marquise de Merteuil was forced to move to the country side. She contracted the deadly Disease small pox. The diseases caused bad scars all over her face; her beauty was ruined for eternity. She also became blind in one eye. She later found out Valmont was died she then died in despair. This was more effective to me because I felt satisfied know that Marquise de Merteuil cruelty came back and haunted her. It gave me a feeling of satisfaction that the evil one didn’t win.
In The film of “Dangerous Liaisons” it ended to simple for me. It ended with Danceney publicizing the letters that Mertuiel had written about the cruel plot just as it did the novel. The only difference is in the film during an opera performance with a large crowd of people Mertuiel is booed and humiliated. The last scene end of the movie showed Mertuiel removing her makeup and dramatically crying and screaming in the mirror. I believe the director of the film ended in this way so that audience aren’t left a very much satisfying feeling of very a happy ended. A movie like that I would except to be finished with a much deadly lesson for the evil Mertuiel but it wasn’t. The Novel on the other hand left me with a more relieved feeling; therefore the movie is least effective for me.
After reading/watching the different versions of Dangerous Liaisons, I personally enjoyed the ending of the movie the most. Did I think it was the most effective? Probably not. But I think it left the viewers open to their interpretations when Merteuil was taking the makeup off in the mirror. To me, the removal of the makeup was symbolic. I think it meant that her true ‘ugliness’ came out (from the letters being published), and there was nothing she could now to do cover it up (which was all that makeup that she had on). I think she knew it was the beginning of the end for her. In terms of effectiveness, I think the novel’s ending may have been more effective. The only reason I say this is because to me it was straightforward and readers got to see the punishment that she got. It was more like a deserving punishment for all the actions that she did. I disliked the play’s ending because I really didn’t see any real closure (which I believe is important). I was waiting for karma to strike back at Merteuil, which I didn’t see to the extent that satisfied me as a reader.
I believe the different endings were created to correspond with the different feelings that each writer wanted to elicit. The ending of the movie, which is the one that I found most effective, ends with the viewers believing that Merteuil got her just deserts. The fact that he started the movie with her clean face getting made up and ending it with her face being cleaned or removing what I believe to be her mask, the one thing that has never betrayed her and now will never matter was beautiful. I felt that in the novel everything was more severe. Cecile deciding to become a nun due to the circumstances which lead her to feel like she needs to be forever cleansed, is a big decision to be made at such a tender age. Merteuil gets sued, booed and disfigured due to small pox so now her “outsides match her insides”. Even though I desperately wanted something bad to happen to her it felt like over kill. Also the fact that we hear what happens through the Volanges nonchalant depiction of the events helps make it the least effective ending because there was such little emotion, it was like saying “this is it, the end no thought needed.” The play interested me because it ended on a cliffhanger, the guillotine in the background definitely signifies that heads will roll, but who’s head and for what reason? My curiosity was sparked and although at first I thought that the ending meant that Merteuil got away with ruining Valmont, but after thinking about it I believe that the guillotine was for her, because the truth will make its way out and then she will have nothing left. It was intended to make the audience think and make their own conclusions, which is why it also was an effective ending.
An insightful observation about masks and the duality of both Valmont and Merteuill. Consider that the guillotine might be a reference to the upcoming French Revolution where most of the aristocracy will pay for their crimes.
There are three different endings in the film,novel and play “Dangerous Liaisons”. All of them carry their own sense and idea, depending on what the author was trying to say. For me, the most effective ending happened in the movie. Both “bad guys” (Valmont and Marquise de Merteuil) were punished by the fate for their unhuman actions throughout the film. Valmont is dieing at the duel with Danceny and ,frankly speaking, in spite of Valmont’s multiple sins I still felt some sympathy towards him. He wasn’t hopeless. We saw at the end of the film that even such person like him was capable to feel something to the woman, to Madame de Tourvel( if to be exact)and I think it was love. As for Marquise de Merteuil, she received what she deserved. She made so many people unhappy through her erotic games and with the help of her player Valmont. She was such a vilain, that in the end I enjoyed seing her emotional breakdown, while sitting in front of the mirror without her make-up and crying, understanding that her happiness ended much earlier than she was expecting.I think the director Frears was intending to say that sooner or later the evil will be punished.You can do whatever u like in your life, unless you hurt someone either physically or emotionally, what our main chartecters did.
The ending of the play by Hampton,in my opinion, is the least effective. From the very beginning we saw who Marquise de Merteuil was, what kind of person she was and how she addressed to people. And I was expecting to get a logical ‘happy end” with her sufferings, but I didnt. In the end, she just kept doing her regular activies: playing cards with friends, for example. Nothin bad happened to her in comparison with both novel and the movie. Probably, Hampton wanted to be “realistic”,as some other students said. And I agree, because life is unfair to many people: some peole go to jail for nothing,being accused by mistake,the others escape from punishment and never get caught.So, the idea of the author is totally understandable.
I found the ending of the Movie to be most effective.The Novel is second most effective and the ending of the Play less effective.
Frears’s ending made the most sense base on the entirety of the story.Valmont was forced to ditch Tourvel by Marquise so it was only fear for Valmont, being a rich egotistical Playboy would demand Marquise to fulfill her promise and Marquise being how she was refused and that’s enough to pit them against each other. Valmont wanted Tourvel as his lover from the begining of the story so it made sense that he would fall in love with her. Marquise valued her beauty which was no more by the end of the story.
According to LaClos’s version, Cecile went back to the convent, Marquise was forced to left Town and Tourvel got sick and died. Typically in stories there are tough consequences to every act done by the protagonists.in this case even the so called innocent such as Cecile and Tourvel suffered consequences in the end. Most stories of this kind are predictable. Once I saw the ending the movie, it made sense that it would end this way.
Then there was a twist in the ending of Hampton’s Play with Marquis’s smallpox and the fact she became blind in one eye.
I’ve never before read a story with three different endings and as I said before, stories of this sort could be very predictable especially with the outcome. I believe the authors wanted to change this idea in order to give us readers a shock, which make the story a bit more exciting.
Shermaine, I think you’re confusing the ending of the play with the novel.
After reading Dangerous Liaisons’ play, novel, and seeing the film I am torn between which ending made more of an impact. I sort of liked the way all three authors and creators ended each because I think they all had a message to deliver. Both the novel and film had somewhat of the same ending because they both show the destruction or downfall of the main character Merteuil. Her evil plans are exposed and the reaction towards her are not accepted kindly but thrown in her face and causes her to wither. In the novel, which I guess, is my favorite of the three, ends with Merteuil’s whole life coming apart when she leaves and is infected by the small pox disease. I like this ending better then the others because I feel like the old witch got what she deserved. Merteuil was a horrible person and used her smarts and power to do as she pleased to the people around her. Everything has a consequence and once her secret was exposed, her consequence was to live in pain like all the others whom she caused pain to. I feel like this was a smart way to end a book because it seals the book. It ends the book with the circle being closed as opposed to the movie who leaves it semi open for the audience to choose.
The play to me can be said to be my least favorite because it is so typical for the main character to end in her high horse the way she does. Although I kind of like the fact she gets away with her evil ways I still feel like it does not close the circle with Karma the way the novel does. I feel like Merteuil needed to get put down and torn apart instead of continuing being the high-powered woman that she is in the play.
Finally I feel like each writer and director chose to deliver their message differently. Two of them choose to have a traditional ending by having Merteuil receive what she deserved and this could be somewhat expected in a novel and film while the play chooses to continue having its character as a powerful figure throughout the whole play. Each deliver a different ending with a different feeling to its audience.
Consider that Hampton ending his play with the villain unpunished, at least for the moment, is not really “typical.” Or course, in this play, the villain is also the protagonist, and not only is she unpunished as a villain, she is unchanged without any revelation as a protagonist, both of which are highly unusual.
The novel, play, and film of Dangerous Liaisons all have different endings. I think Movie ending were more effective to me. In the movie Valmont dies in a duel with Danceny. After Valmont confession to Danceny right before he died, Danceny decides to disclose all letters Valmont gave to him about how Marquise de Merteuil tricked everyone, and ruined Cecile’s life for just one desire to get a revenge on her ex-lover. After the letters been disclosed for public judgment in movie’s scene Merteuil has been humiliated and degraded by public. At the last moment of the movie Merteuil seats in front of the mirror and cleans her makeup. It symbolizes Merteuil’s mask has fallen off the face, there is nothing else to hide, nothing uncovered left in her. All around know who she is now and who she was all her life. In this moment she looks in the mirror, and to its emptiness. Nothing is left behind and there is nowhere to go.
I also liked an ending in the novel, where Marquise de Merteuil got sick with small pox, and she lost her beauty and face. Also, the fact that Merteuil was forced to live in the country side adds some logic pay off day for all terrible things she have done in her life. She ruined many lives around her only for her own satisfaction in her sexual games and personal desires.
The Play ending is my least preference because Marquise de Merteuil didn’t changed for me from beginning to the end. The is no repentance, no punishment or awareness from Marquise de Merteuil. I feel that nothing changed after all tragedy she have done.
Yelena Kobzar
Not only is it interesting that the novel, play, and movie all have different endings, but it’s also a reflection of Linda Seger’s “The Art of Adaptation” essay that we read previously. The novel (altogether, not just the ending), was clearly more detailed and fleshed out than either the play or the film. It’s no surprise then that there’s a lot to be said about De Laclos’ ending, seeing as the beginning and middle of the novel were so elaborate. Throughout the novel, we essentially get into the minds of all of the characters — even Cecile, by way of her letters to Sophie. In the end, we are left with an understanding (not just a narration), of how characters, such as Madame de Volanges and Danceny, feel about their respective misfortunes. We learn how and why Danceny resolves to relocate in Malta, and how betrayed (yet still in love) he is with Cecile. Subsequently, we get an account of Volanges’ thoughts, while simultaneously learning what has since happened to Merteuil (who gets smallpox, loses eyesight in one eye, loses a trial, and flees to Holland to avoid further shame and debt). None of these underlying stories and elements can be found in the play or film: the former barely ends at all with a scene of Merteuil, Volanges, and Rosemonde simply playing cards, and the latter concluding with a shot of Merteuil removing makeup from her face after being booed at the opera.
I think that the novel’s ending was most effective for reasons aforementioned, and also because it really drives home the idea that nothing good comes from being evil/malicious, moreso than the adaptations of it. With that said, I believe the play’s and the film’s endings each coincide with its respective platform. For instance, in the film, we can see/hear what’s happening, and that’s essentially all that matters; so in the end when Merteuil gets booed and shamefully removes her makeup, it says enough for us to come to our own conclusions. Anything more, such as her getting smallpox or going to trial would have been just as unnecessary as the last scene in Brokeback Mountain with Ennis having a conversation with his daughter. Similarly, production plays a large role when it comes to almost any play: Les Liaisons is no different. Because of this, having an ending where the three ladies are playing cards and an “unmistakable silhouette of the guillotine” appears, is sufficient enough. This spectacle speaks for itself, just as in the rest of the play which was mostly dialogue and production/props.
In my opinion the ending in the novel was more effective. Everybody had their own punishment which proved the main point that the author must have been tried to make: it is very cruel to play with the feelings of another person and no matter how skillful and crafty a person is, there is no way to escape a punishment. In all these works we can see that all of them got their own punishment. However, the original ending contains a lot more meaningful and well thought-out events that make the story colorful and interesting. I think the novel had a more effective ending also because it has an ability to influence the reader in a certain way and even teach him/her something valuable in life and prevent the mistakes that could be done by young and not experienced people (e.g. Cecile or the presidente de Tourvel). For instance, in the film Madame de Merteuil did not get sick, whereas in the novel she got smallpox, and as a result was fearfully disfigured and lost an eye. Moreover, she lost her case and all “costs, damages, restitution of the funds received, all was adjudged to the minors”. In the movie, it is not shown what kind punishment was given to Cecile. Although, I do not think that Cecile was a bad character, and I mostly felt bad about her because her trust was betrayed by Madame de Merteuil, the Chevalier Danceny and the Vicomte de Valmont, and as I think she should have not got the punishment, I still believe it was a good idea that in the novel she decided to become a nun. This small piece of information shows us that in the “war” everybody will suffer and most likely everybody’s life will be damaged.
It was very strange to me that the play, the film and the novel had different endings. However, to me the novel had the most effective ending. I think the author brought the story full circle. The evil, distructive and conniving behavior of Marquise de Merteuil caught up with her. When she was faced with ill health and her life took a bad turn she could not garnish the sympathy and support that she needed from her peers. She had to leave town by night with the few valuables that she had left. The author gave her a chance to reflect,, start over and hopefully change her ways. She fell from grace after being so prominent within her community.
The play had the least effective ending. The Marquise de Merteuil continued to live her life and enjoyed a game of cards with her friends. However when the lights dimmed in the very end and the silhoutte of a guillotine was shown, I think that the playwright wanted the audience to know that someone will pay for all the hurt
that they have caused. It was left open ended , hence tesaga continues.
The film had an interesting ending just like the novel. The screenwriter wanted to show Marquise de Merteuil ‘s fall from grace, and that one should always follow their heart in love.
The story “Dangerous liaisons” and it’s adapted play and film counterparts all have very different endings, some being more effective than others. In my opinion the most effective ending was the ending of the novel. At the end of the novel you get to read about the total breakdown of Madam de Merteuil with her contracting small pocks and not only becoming hideously disfigured but has to go into hiding after all her assets were seized. The reader is left with some gratification knowing that she was not able to live out her life in happiness after all the wrong doings she orchestrated. I believe De Laclos ended the novel in this fashion to portray that even with all the disgusting things Madam de Mereuil was able to get way with throughout the years that not even she is untouchable.
The least effective ending was the ending of the play. I fell as if Christopher Hampton left everything so unresolved. The only thing you really get from it is Madam de Merteuil beginning to have a sense of dread of what may happen to her if she does not watch her next steps carefully. There weren’t any real repercussions displayed in the play for her and the viewer/reader is left to speculate what happens next. I really have no idea why Hampton would write the plays ending like this other than maybe he did not want to share a definitive version of Madam de Merteuil’s fate.
The movies ending was more or less adapted from the novels ending, with Merteuil getting booed and humiliated. The differences being Stephen Frears decided not to share how Merteuil lives out the rest her days and rather chooses to show us the beginning of her demise rather than her demise it’s self. More or less I feel it was a dumbed down ending most likely because of time restraints and felt it was unnecessary to go any further already showing us it’s the beginning of the end for Madame Mereuil.
Consider that Frears wanted the audience to make up their own minds about the exact fate of Merteuil. Also, consider what exactly her face in the mirror might reveal. Is it not a face just like ours?
As for the play, Merteuill’s sense of dread that you mention is quite important, as it signals the fall of the upper classes which will soon happen in the revolution. Also consider, as others have said, that the play’s ending might be the most realistic as evil isn’t always punished. And, with enough money and power, a rich person can pretty much do whatever they want. We see this in our society today, but this was even more true with the French aristocracy.
I found it interesting that the novel, film, and play all had different endings. The least effective ending was the play. It left the audience wanting more. There was a lot left unsaid, in the play who can see right away what kind of person Marquise de Merteuil is. She is an evil person whogets great pleasure into harming others. But you would think that such a horrivle person would get what she deserved, not in the play it ends with her not sufferingbut living her life as she always had lived it. She plays cards and socializes with friends but the author Hampton never mentions her living a horrible life.
The most effective and my favorite was the novel because you get to visualize how everyones lives turn out. Marquise de Merteuil receives her karma, by getting small pox but survives but becomes disfigured. She also loses her property and becomes bankrupt which makes her go to Holland. Did I mention she loses her eye sight? Well the author basically wanted to show how much suffering she gets because of all the bad things she has done to others. It was my faborite ending because she got what she deserved.
The movie was effective as well because we got to see how everything played out. in the begining we see her getting pampered up and looking beautiful and clean but In the end it shows her removing her “mask” and it shows us her true colors and how ugly she really is inside and out.
Did you really find her ugly when she takes off her makeup in the film? I had a very different impression. Consider that Frears might have wanted to show her vulnerable, innocent and just like us.
The novel, play, and film of Dangerous Liaisons all have different endings. The movie version wasn’t so effective compared to the novel. The ending of the movie concludes with the audience taking their own conclusions of what might happen for the characters. The movie ends with Merteuil being disliked by the opera. Merteuil runs away from the scene quickly. She sits in front of her mirror, which is the same way the movie starts and she completely breaks down. I was personally confused of the movie. I wasn’t sure if something happens to her for doing so much evil in the world or not? Movies leaving the story as a cliffhanger can be annoying for the audience. However, movies prefer to use a cliffhanger then to not give the audience a happy ending.
I enjoyed the novel version of the story. The novel is more effective because it ends by having Marquise de Merteuil planning a revenge on Valmont against Madame de Tourvel and Cecile Volanges. Her plans lead Tourvel to her death and Cecile to become a nunagain. In the end, Merteuil gets a horrible disfigured face, even though she was cured from the chicken pox. All she had left was her beauty and now that was gone. Later, she becomes blind in one eye. She looses all her money and because of the courts decision becomes an exile. She has no choice to leave to Holland and escape. I thought this ending was very effective because it satisfied me knowing that Marquise de Merteuil was punished because of all her cruelty.
I didn’t think the play was so effective because in the end of the play she continued to be her own self. I didn’t much agree because I wanted Karma to torture her a bit. She has such an evil heart and to end the playing the same way it started by playing cards seems as though nothing happened. I know life is fair and this movie wasn’t fair at all. All these stories are the same because the plot doesn’t change. However, the ending changes which might mean each writer wanted to convey the audience with something different.
You really think life is fair? Talk to me in ten years.
The ending of the film isn’t really a cliffhanger, as we can assume that Mertueil’s social life is destroyed. See my comments to Shiab.
Choderolos de Laclos lets you know the complete story of the novel and you are able to see what happened to Marquise de Merteuil after the letters she has written to Valmont are revealed to the public unlike the movie’s ending. With the people anger at her of what she has been involved in the interruption of other people’s lives out of her own pleasure the people force her to leave and head to the country where she catches a severe case of the smallpox leaving her blind and with scars once she was known for beauty has gone. This ending let you see that the joy she valued out of others misery came in full circle to destroy herself being. I believe Choderolos de Laclos chose this ending because the reader really wanted to know what happened after she left the theater did Marquise de Merteuil get what she deserved or did her life continue as normal with a few whispers. The novel’s ending satisfied me the most on knowing that Marquise de Merteuil did not walk away freely but in fact ended up suffering the most and utterly alone.
The film ending with Marquise de Merteuil getting booed out of the theater by everyone and then she is left alone taking off her makeup that covered up her true self allowed you to see that her life as she knew it was a camouflage and now it had been removed to reveal true self that she will now have to live with in all that she has done to people. I think the director wanted you to get that the corrupted Marquise de Merteuil’s story was completely over with her reputation ruined and the people will shun her away to never have her exist in their lives again. As of the play by Christopher Hampton the ending to me was how I think it would have ended in a real life setting at that time there would have been an uproar for a while but then it would have settle down and return back to normal because she was that of a higher standard bloodline that was shown to the people as a respected family.
The novel, play, and film versions of Dangerous Liaisons all had very different endings. I think each ending was interesting because they were all different, and it almost gave you the option to see all the ways this story could have played out in the end. I think I enjoyed the play and the novel the most just because in the end it seemed that Marquise de Merteuil got what she deserved after causing so much torment to other people’ lives. That being said, I think all of these endings were effective because it gave three perfectly different scenarios for how Marquise de Merteuil life could have turned out.
The film had a great ending as we were able to watch Marquise de Merteuil have her breakdown. In addition we are showed her being booed out of the theater. Not only has she lost the love of her life but she has lost what seems most important to her which is her status. The difference with this ending compared to the others is that after this initial breakdown we aren’t sure how she carries out the rest of her life and that is left up to the viewer. Sometimes this can be the most pleasing ending because we can decide what happens to Marquise de Merteuil in the end.
The novel had a gruesomely amazing ending with Marquise de Merteuil becoming ill with the chicken pox and then her face becoming deformed and losing an eye. I believe this ending holds so much meaning in her appearance being altered. It shows all the negativity and horror that she pressed in people’s lives for so long has finally come back to haunt her, and in the end we are able to literally see all of this on her face as a result.
The play wasn’t necessarily the least effective, it just doesn’t seem fair! It’s the ending that no one wants to happen. As viewers we always want a happy ending of the bad guy getting what they deserve or some kind of karma and Marquise de Merteuil just didn’t get any. In the play Marquise de Merteuil plays cards with Madame de Rosemonde and Madame de Vonlanges and it seems that none of her power or status has been lost. She was able to get away with all of her wrong doings. Although obviously the most disliked ending I don’t think it was necessarily the worst, maybe just the most realistic. Bad people walk away from their wrongdoings all the time and never see the day where they have to pay for their choices. It shows that the world has good but also has pure evil and this will never change.
I find the varied endings so diverse and interesting; I wonder why they were so varied? The movie portrays Merteuil’s greatest fear as loss of face; the movie ends with her loosing prestige and facing an onslaught of embarrassment. She shudders in horror overwhelmed with the shock; she stumbles and runs away from her own shame. I never got the impression that she suffered real loss though; she wept at Valmont’s passing but was it loss of the person or the loss of the game. Was it merely a slap in the face or was it true punishment that in the end his love and loyalty was for another. The booing and the jeers felt hardly a punishment. Perhaps the movie goer saw this as an appropriate punishment for such a character, who prides herself on appearance and persona. The play foreshadows her demise but doesn’t outright exclaim any sort of real ending. Was the guillotine shadow a portrayal of Merteuil’s fear of exposure or was it a projection of what was to come? Difficult to say. I believe the best example of poetic justice came from the novel version. Her fortune lost in court and her disfigurement served as a truer punishment for her manipulations. I think the line; “her illness had turned her inside out” and that her “soul was now on her face.” Her true self now on the outside for the world to see, I always felt like she was a manipulative monster, her pretty powdered mask hid who she truly was. There was now no amount of power that could hide her soul. I love the ending moral of the story factor; the afterthought of looking back at the grand amount of ills all caused from one dangerous liaison. The novel for me offered the best sense of justice and even offered a parable on which to reflect.
Some very interesting comments. In the film, she did more than weep at Valmont’s death, she totally broke down, smashed her furniture, threw herself on the floor and screamed. Behavior completely out of character for the controlled, rigid Merteuil. The film wants us to believe that Merteuil really loved Valmont, and it was her pride and vanity that got in the way. And perhaps not having her great love is punishment enough. The novel is more ambiguous on the subject.
I liked the end of the novel most the three; I thought it was the most effective punishment for Marquise de Merteuil for her actions during the course of the story. By taking away everything she had, her looks, her power, her money, her home and even her place in society she was left a broken woman for the games she had played. I found the ending of the play least effective, The Marquise ends up without any sort of real punishment for her schemes; she ruins the lives of several people but never is punished in any significant way for it. I think there was an obvious answer to where the movie’s director came up with the film’s ending he wished to punish the Marquise de Merteuil and did so by exposing her, something she had bragged earlier in the film she had never allowed to happen. The novel’s author Choderlos de Laclos made a similar decision with how he would end the story; he wished to punish Marquise de Merteuil, though he punished her much more severely by taking away everything she had. The play by Christopher Hampton on the other hand seems to let Marquise de Merteuil get away with all that she did. I think this was an example of the playwright attempting to end the play on a sour note, and have someone who was in a way the story’s main villain end up victorious to show that sometimes people can get away with bad things.
Understanding the different endings between the three versions of Dangerous Liaisons requires the reader to understand the different audiences which these three mediums, given the confines of this plot and the themes with which it deals, are meant to cater to. Each ending is meant to have a different effect on the reader, or the viewer. These differences represent the different priorities the authors had in telling these stories.
The novel’s ending sees the Marquise punished, seemingly for her crimes. Her wealth depleted, her health waning, and her beauty as well. The tides of fate have conspired to make her pay for her crimes, in more than enough ways to sate the demands of the reader. This begs the questions of whether one can be so wretched without the universe invoking some divine retribution. According to the author, the answer is no.
In the play, the writer is positing a completely different hypothesis. The Marquise’s life, though slightly saddened by the loss of what seemed to be her favorite toy, comes completely full circle. She finds herself surrounded by two of the women whom she’s had a direct hand in victimizing, playing cards and talking about the death of the Vicomte as if she’d not had a hand in it. And yet the flash of the guillotine, given it’s placement in the narrative, and the importance of the guillotine in French culture, would suggest that the writer thinks the events of the play to be of no consequence for what is to come; The Revolution of France, the overthrowing of the noble class and the fall of the monarchy as it had been known in France. Women like the Marquise were not long for that world.
The film has the distinction of being the most emotionally diverse of the three endings. While the Marquise does fall, a fall which strikes as a much more fitting punishment for her, she also suffers emotionally from the loss of the Vicomte. Her reaction to his death is to tear her clothes and scream in her home, rampaging through her powder room. This, followed by the scene in the opera house where she is booed out, shows us that she has lost everything. She’s lost the game she’s been playing with society, and the game which she’s playing with the Vicomte. This makes one wonder if any of this had ever been more than a game to her. And yet throughout the film, the cat and mouse game between The Marquise and the Vicomte plays with an unmistakable hint of affection, and the devastation apparent when Valmont demands the Marquise honor their arrangement plays as the separation between two lovers, which they seem to be in an emotional sense if not in a physical one.
Given these mixed signals, we can garner some sense of pleasure from the fact that the Marquise gets what’s coming to her, but we’re also hit with a sudden revelation when we see her reaction to Valmont’s death and realize she loved him, in her own strange, manipulative way. And in some way, we’re able to feel sorry for her.
I think to declare one of these endings better than the other is misguided. Instead it’s better to see the effect each one is having and decide whether those morals have any merit to them.
A very fine analysis. Glad to see it was worth the wait. I agree, Frears wants us to feel sorry for Merteuil at the end. And we almost can because we see her devastation at Valmont’s death. A scene that LaClos would never have considered, and one that perhaps changes the whole story.
I enjoyed the film the most out of the three endings, I feel in that setting the characters were represented in their truest forms and it took small influences from the play and novel. Small pox isnt an issue in the film but the element of death gives the viewers the feeling of justice that was a large elment to the novel. I think that the play and novel expanded on many unique details that in turn made for a more drawn out plot development. Watching the film I began thinking of the film cruel intentions which is a modern adaptation of the film that I had saw many years ago. I enjoyed seeing where that film that I had saw growing up recieved its influence. All three endings are trying to envoke a certain emotional standard with the audience but I feel that the play was the least effective. The story had so much detail and the play left a lot to be guessed about. I enjoy how the other endings (the novel and film) gave some sort of punishment to those wicked characters.
The novel, play, and film “Dangerous Liaisons” all tell a chilling and cruel story of the rotten core of societal relations through the interaction, deception, trickery, and seduction by two aristocratic characters: Marquise de Merteuil and Valmont. While the play, novel, and film seldom deviate in telling the beginning and middle of the story, the reader and or viewer would realize that the ending of each is different.
The ending, which I found most effective, was that of the novel and secondarily, the one of the film. The story itself was very gruesome and chilling in telling how human beings can do such wretched things to one another simply out of boredom and status. What makes this story even more powerful is that innocent characters were the intentional prey. I think many would agree that as the story unfolds the reader/viewer wants to see Marquise de Merteuil and Valmont punished for their wrongdoing and I believe that the novel serves the correct brand of justice. After Valmont dies at the hand of Danceny (as in the film), Merteuil’s letters are circulated which I appropriately believe is only the beginning of her extensive punishment. Consequently is disgraced and is demoted from her atistocratic stature and later contracts chickenpox and must live the rest of her life disfigured and blind in one eye. I believe the author chose this particular ending because it serves the wrongdoers justice correctly and to the maximum extent. The film also ends in a similar fashion but the punishment for Marquise’s treachery was toned down as the actual suffering was left for interpretation. Both the author’s and screenwriter’s ending suggested that in our society people pay for their sins in the appropriate way.
I found the play’s ending to be the least effective because everyone ended up suffering except the most heinous character, Marquise de Merteuil. Her deception and treachery was left without consequences and punishment. I believe the reason why the playwright, Hampton, ended the play in such a way is because, while it left the reader in an unsatisfactory state, it showed the most realistic ending possible, which correctly portrayed the world that we live in.
Though all three versions of Dangerous Liaisons had different endings, I believe the film was the most effective. The novel was effective as well. The author showed that every character was reprimanded and Karma got her payback. However in the film, you could see the expression on all of the characters faces and how their little scheme unravels… Valmont who dies realizing what a mistake he made by letting go of Madame de Tourvel, his one true love. How Marquise de Martials trips on the stairs trying to save herself yet ends up losing everything. This is shown by her removing her makeup and being booed at the opera. Basically saying she lost and her scheme has been unraveled.
The play left me without any ending. I was waiting for something more to happen. It left me wanting more.
This truly is a challenging question to answer. All three endings are radically different, but by no means is any which one worse than another. They all tell us something different. By that account, I can’t truly pick a “worst” ending, but I can say that the novel’s leaves me feeling the most indifferent. In the novel, just as in the film, Valmont and Danceny duel just as they do in the film, and things play out very similar in that regard, but Valmont’s postmortem reveal of the Marquise’s involvement leads to far different results. The Marquise winds up fleeing the country in shame and contracts smallpox, of all things, and her beauty is literally ripped away from her. While I respect the imagery, I think this pushes home the point a bit too hard. It almost feels lazy to me.
On the other hand, the film relies more on subtle imagery to get it’s message across. After the Marquise’s letters proving her involvement are published, her reputation is tarnished and she is a figure of much gossip and ill contempt from her peers. The major difference following this is that she doesn’t (as far as we know at least) run away afterwords and get some horrible disease. If we go back to the beginning of the film, we see her dawning heavy make up on her face. It seems implied that she, for lack of a better word, puts on a strong face every day to tackle the world as the strong woman she sees herself to be. At the end, post mocking from the audience at the opera, we see her removing her face paint in the last shot of the movie. She strips herself of her false face and has a breakdown. The imagery suggests to me that without her reputation, she truly is nothing.
The ending of the play is also interesting in that there really is no repercussions for her actions. The Marquise more or less just goes on as if nothing has changed. As one of my fellow classmates stated above, this really does show an ugly side of the nature of mankind.
I think the play and the films endings are both a little more to my liking than the novel’s, sure, but it’s hard for me to objectively choose the better ending between the play and the film. They both succeed on very different levels. One shows the wrong-doer being punished, while the other shows them getting away with it, and they are both valid approaches. That being said, I guess my (entirely subjective) favorite ending would be that of the film’s, if only because Valmont details how he is truly in love he is with Tourvel. Add to that the punishment the Marquise suffers (in a much more subtle form, of course) and there you go. I guess I am just a romantic.