An Analysis of Grease's Ending

MrE1111 · Guru

An Analysis of Grease's Ending

Kait · Senior Member

Interesting. My daughters have been Grease (movie) fans, but one of their best friends dislikes the movie because of the ending. I tend to take it less seriously. That ending IS open for interpretation, after all. Did the fact that Sandy changed her hair and clothes mean that she surrendered her convictions? Not necessarily. She could've dressed that way to show Danny that she cared enough about him to play his game, at least for the moment.

-- Edited by Kait at 13:39, 2007-08-22

reniefran · Senior Member

Okay, Let's philosphize for a minute(That's a word isn't it?) I like the way you think Kait. I think that if we were to take the ending beyond where it was Danny would realize that he loves Sandy for who she is and not how she looks and Sandy might adopt a middle ground, not bland and meek but not so bold in her dress as to appear tacky. But that's literally just a thought. A lot, not all but a lot of high school romances hinge on very little in terms of substance, I remember that when I was in high school you'd see people hand in hand one day and sometimes as little as a week later they weren't even speaking. So without reading a whole lot into it beyond that I think we just go for the fun factor. smile

MaxFan · Veteran Member

I have not had a chance to post my full opinion of the show --loved it overall--but I have to say that the Sandy transformation is an odd transition. I have to preface this with the fact that I have never seen any play version of Grease whatsoever. My only exposure to the story has been through the movie. In the movie, I always thought it was adorable that Danny tried to be more conservative with his letter jacket to please Sandy and Sandy "sexed" herself up to please Danny. Granted, he threw off the letter jacket to be Mr. Cool again with sexy Sandy, but I liked the idea that he thought about changing in an earnest attempt to win Sandy's heart. In navigating the uncertainty of teen years, both boys and girls struggle with sense of self and belonging. The play had only Sandy transforming and due to the plot-holes it was not clear exactly why. It did not bother me. It is more that it made me go hmm, okay. That said, plot-holes and all, I loved the show. I could analyze plot issues, but in the end the show is so fun that I really did not care so much. I would (and DID) see it again.

DogsandBirds · Guru

I think an analysis of the ending and Sandy's transformation is sort of trying to find the Zen of Grease. Philosophical? Hardly! The plot is what it is, a reflection on the times and people that the Jim Jacobs and Warren Casey knew.

Boy meets girl, boy or girl loses the other, they get back together - this is the plot line for what? A thousand movies, plays, stories, etc. You want to analyze the Wedding Crashers maybe??

Grease is fun and funny. End of analysis for me.

gramps3 · Senior Member

DogsandBirds wrote:

I think an analysis of the ending and Sandy's transformation is sort of trying to find the Zen of Grease. Philosophical? Hardly! The plot is what it is, a reflection on the times and people that the Jim Jacobs and Warren Casey knew.

Boy meets girl, boy or girl loses the other, they get back together - this is the plot line for what? A thousand movies, plays, stories, etc. You want to analyze the Wedding Crashers maybe??

Grease is fun and funny. End of analysis for me.

I'll second that. Enjoy the performance for what it is. Fiction and
fun.
Stan/gramps

greatwhiteway · Senior Member

I never liked the ending and always found it could ruin the movie for me if I let it, so I ignored it. When the first preview ended that way I felt the same way. The ending as the play stands now has Sandy kind of doubting she is doing the right thing but does it anyway....just to win his heart. I like seeing the doubt and makes the end much more tolerable and real life for me. But that is not the end in this Grease. The finale comes next...it is so peppy and happy...it gets you thinking' boy this is a really happy beginning instead of a farewell.

Ray · Senior Member

Kathleen had a month to work it out...and she certainly did! The ending is the best part of the show.

The way I look at it is that Sandy is sick of being sickeningly sweet and decides to take the bull by the horns, literally. She happens to have the physical attributes to get the male animal to grovel at her..uh..whatever.
Max and Laura play it so marvelously, outrageously teenage hormonal that I can still feel some of the exhilaration that I felt watching them. It's just a show, folks.

Kait · Senior Member

Oh, good. Ray, your description mentions a chemistry similar to what I saw of Max and Laura on those last two TV shows -- that very realistic glimpse back to first love. Awkward, but sooo sweet.

Maybe the critics have simply forgotten what it was like to be eighteen, and in love.

Ray · Senior Member

Yes, I hadn't thought of the chemistry thing. While it's weak or missing when Sandy is squeaky mousey, it does kick in when she takes charge of the situation.
When she lets her jacket fall seductively to the floor, and Max frantically rips off his jacket....well, let me tell you....the temperature goes up, up and away! If that ain't chemistry, I don't know what is!

MrE1111 · Guru

I hate to be the fly in the ointment, but chemistry is a tricky thing.

Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick had it beautifully in The Producers, and then when they did The Odd Couple, it was like they had never met before. Kelli O'Hara and Harry Connick, Jr., set the American Airlines Theatre ablaze with their surprisingly large amount of sexual tension and chemistry during The Pajama Game. There's a reason why Michael Cerveris, Patti LuPone, and Audra McDonald have done about 10 shows together.

There's no way to define IT, but some people have it, and others don't.

NYC9758 · Veteran Member

MrE1111 wrote:

I hate to be the fly in the ointment, but chemistry is a tricky thing.

Very tricky! I don't think you even have to go to the Odd Couple for that...I'm not sure if it was just the medium or the directing, but I remember thinking that Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick's hilarious onstage chemistry evaporated in the movie.

MrE1111 · Guru

Assuming you're talking about the 'Producers' remake...

It was a combination of the direction (Mel should have directed the film version since Stroman had no previous film experience, but Anne was dying at that point and he didn't want to leave her side) and the fact that both performances were completely wrong for the screen. They were both way too broad, playing too much to that imaginary balcony.

It's a perfectly decent adaptation...if you're going for a Lincoln Center archival recording. As a film, not so much.

That said, there's no way to define how chemistry comes about. I'd say it's partially due to stage experience. Some actors know how to pull great performances out of each other, other actors don't have that ability. Chemistry is just magic.

Just my $0.02.

-- Edited by MrE1111 at 19:14, 2007-08-23

Kait · Senior Member

"Chemistry is just magic."

Yes. I want to add that attraction, also, has more of an esoteric quality than the critics might have us believe. They have repeatedly mentioned Max's looks, as if they just can't buy a Danny who doesn't have X quality. (Burly arms? A dimpled chin? What is it the old guys want to see?) Some have even found fault in conventionally beautiful Laura. I have to wonder what they thought of the audience on the night they attended? Of the screams when Max enters the stage? And why do so many of them repeat opinions so similar to those of their fellow critics? It's almost as if they didn't want to do their own homework, but looked on each other's papers.

MrE1111 · Guru

The critics don't take note of the audience reaction, as they're not reviewing the audience, they're reviewing the show.

The reason why so many opinions carry over from paper-to-paper? Simple, really. Each critic has the same opinion.

***

You can usually pick a critic out in a crowd. They're the only ones who aren't applauding, whooping, cheering. They're sitting there, emotionless and poker-faced throughout. You're lucky if you see a critic stay past the finale of the show. They're usually out before the curtain comes down, even before the bows.

Kait · Senior Member

The reason why so many opinions carry over from paper-to-paper? Simple, really. Each critic has the same opinion.

Oh, I'm sure you're right. Which is why you often hear people saying they give reviews very little regard. Now that so many of us are Internet-connected, you can get so much information by world-of-mouth.

They're the only ones who aren't applauding, whooping, cheering. They're sitting there, emotionless and poker-faced throughout.

Jeez. What a joyful job.

MrE1111 · Guru

All you have to do is remember that it's just 1 opinion out of everyone who has seen the show. The difference is that their's goes out to a broader scope of people.