Publication Date: May 11, 2007
Calvin Chimes
Headline: Is revealing the ending ruining it?

The End

Chris Beaumont

The prospect of graduating is meant to make me think about beginnings: like the beginning of adulthood, for example, or the beginning of the real world (that is, as real as can be expected from going to graduate school on a tropical island). However, as I consider post-collegiate life, I find myself contemplating endings. I am imagining my last day of college classes, my last months in Michigan, and the topic for my last Chimes article.

Perhaps in an attempt to view my life as cinematic, I’m also thinking about the endings of movies.

Why the ends of movies? Perhaps it’s because, as a reviewer, I am seldom able to discuss them. Many equate the quality of a film with the satisfaction of its ending. If you were to reveal the end of a movie to somebody, they would likely say that you “ruined” the ending.

It’s a shame that the topic of movie endings is off-limits, because endings have become a central focus of Hollywood as of late. Some directors seem to construct their whole film as an exposition for its hopefully-satisfactory climax (I’m looking at you, M. Night). In fact, entire movies are becoming advertisements for an ending in the form of a sequel (At two and a half hours, “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” was the longest preview for “POTC: At World’s End” I have ever seen).

In a medium shifting its focus towards endings, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to publicly discuss movies. For example, the Film Arts Committee presented “Pan’s Labyrinth” last Saturday. I’d love to tell you what I think of that film. However, to do so would require me to disclose and interpret the movie’s ambiguous final scene. That scene, which showcases what may be interpreted as either a transcendent vision or a delusion, ultimately defines the film’s message about hope and mystery. Without addressing the ending, it’s hard to express a complete thought about “Pan’s Labyrinth.”

It is in this spirit of dissatisfaction with the taboo of film endings that I write. For my final article I would like to discuss film endings, and consider a trend in recent movies. This is the tendency for movie endings to showcase resolution without conclusion.

As a study in the elusiveness of real conclusion in Hollywood movies, I highlight the third films in the “X-Men” and “Spiderman” franchise. In fitting with the unofficial rule of three, both movies pretty thoroughly tie up the loose ends that are developed in their two predecessors.

Strangely, sequels and spin-offs for both are in the works. Hugh Jackman is set to star in “Wolverine” a 2008 prequel to “X-Men”, and “Spiderman” director Sam Raimi has confirmed Sony’s plans to produce a fourth, fifth, and sixth installment.

The success of these films will likely set a new paradigm in popular film in which respectable franchises produce films long after passing the trilogy mark. It’s not that this is a bad thing – though I don’t care for the Spiderman films, I have enjoyed all of the X-Men movies. Furthermore, few can argue against the claim that the standards set for these films are far higher than the later installments of 80’s franchises like “Jaws” or “Rocky.”

However, I find something dissatisfying and bland about perpetual resolution. After a while, it all seems to tidy and artificial. Filmmakers have taken note of this, and have begun producing films which end on tenser notes (a popular route is to produce a prequel which can conclude with the conflict that is solved in the original film). In general, however, Hollywood seems to be losing respect for smaller ideas confined to one movie. These are the only films that can offer genuine resolution or irresolution, because they are the only ones which can believably say, “I’m done now.”

Consider “The Descent,” a low budget British horror film about a group of women who go spelunking and find nefarious creatures miles below the earth’s surface. In the original ending of this film, one of the main characters appears to escape from the cave. However, the final minute of the film again takes place underground and calls into question whether the character’s vision of escape was genuine. It’s a wonderfully conflicted and eerie conclusion to the film – one which suggests no resolution and allows no room for a sequel. Unfortunately, American distributors saw the ending as too depressing, and cut the final moments from the film (the DVD copy shows the original ending).

Personally, I find endings like the original one in “The Descent” to be much stronger than the contrived resolutions in trilogies (quadrilogies? quintrilogies?), and storylines that fit into one film usually leave more room for the viewer to ponder. Consequently, though I find myself on the brink of a summer blockbuster season with at least ten high profile sequels set for release, I await movies which are more finite in scope.

Or am I just ruining the endings?

chris beaumont
beaumont@ifa.hawaii.edu
graduate student
institute for astronomy
university of hawaii at manoa
2680 woodlawn drive
honolulu, hi 96822