The film The Interview ends with Dave Skylark and Aaron Rapoport successfully assassinating Kim Jong-un during a staged helicopter ride. This act, carried out by remotely detonating a wrist-mounted device disguised as a tracking monitor, allows them to escape North Korea with Sook-yin, their handler who has defected.
The Culmination of Chaos: Understanding the Ending
The ending of The Interview is the culmination of a series of increasingly absurd and dangerous events. Dave and Aaron, initially intending only to secure a softball interview with the infamous dictator, are unexpectedly recruited by the CIA to assassinate him. The final act sees them navigating a minefield of mistrust, propaganda, and ultimately, the weighty decision of whether or not to follow through with their deadly mission.
Their relationship with Kim Jong-un, initially framed as a burgeoning bromance, deteriorates as Dave and Aaron witness his brutal treatment of his people and the ruthlessness of his regime. Sook-yin’s defection solidifies their commitment to the assassination, realizing the potential impact on the oppressed North Korean population. The helicopter scene becomes the ultimate test of their courage and commitment. The carefully constructed tracking device, initially intended to poison Kim with ricin, is repurposed as a remotely detonated bomb, representing a shift from subtle sabotage to outright revolution.
The success of the assassination allows Dave and Aaron to return to the United States as heroes. However, the film’s final scene hints at the complexities and unintended consequences of their actions, showcasing Dave delivering a serious and insightful news report about North Korea, suggesting a newfound maturity and understanding of the gravity of their experience.
Diving Deeper: Frequently Asked Questions About The Interview‘s Ending
This section addresses common questions surrounding the movie’s controversial conclusion.
What were the specific circumstances leading to Kim Jong-un’s death?
The pivotal moment occurs during a seemingly amicable helicopter ride intended to facilitate Dave and Aaron’s departure from North Korea. Sook-yin, having defected, joins them. Dave pretends to reconcile with Kim, even expressing sorrow for betraying their friendship. However, unbeknownst to Kim, Dave activates the wrist device Sook-yin gave him, which now functions as a remote detonator connected to explosive charges strategically placed on the helicopter. He uses this to remotely detonate the charges, leading to Kim Jong-un’s death in a fiery explosion.
How did Dave and Aaron manage to escape North Korea after the assassination?
Following the explosive demise of Kim Jong-un, Dave, Aaron, and Sook-yin use pre-arranged escape routes and assistance from Sook-yin’s connections within North Korea. The film doesn’t explicitly detail their methods, focusing instead on the immediate aftermath and the shift in Dave’s journalistic integrity. The implication is that Sook-yin’s knowledge of the terrain and her network of contacts facilitated their safe passage.
Why did Dave ultimately decide to assassinate Kim Jong-un?
Dave’s decision is a gradual evolution driven by several factors. Initially, he’s motivated by the prospect of a career-defining interview. However, after witnessing Kim Jong-un’s despotic behavior firsthand and seeing the suffering of the North Korean people, he is spurred to action. Sook-yin’s impassioned plea and her own defection further solidify his resolve. Ultimately, he feels a moral obligation to use his unique opportunity to bring about change.
Was the CIA involved in planning the final assassination beyond the initial ricin plot?
The film suggests the CIA’s involvement remains limited to the initial plan to poison Kim Jong-un with ricin. The repurposing of the tracking device into a bomb is entirely Dave and Aaron’s initiative. The CIA likely provided the initial device, but the decision to modify it and the actual detonation are acts undertaken solely by the protagonists.
How did the North Korean government react to Kim Jong-un’s death within the movie’s narrative?
The immediate reaction within the film is chaos and confusion. The aftermath is not explicitly shown, but the implication is that Kim Jong-un’s death would likely lead to a power struggle within North Korea. The film’s final scene shows Dave delivering a news report that suggests a potential for positive change and reform within the country, though the specifics remain ambiguous.
What happened to Sook-yin after she defected?
Sook-yin successfully escapes North Korea with Dave and Aaron. The film doesn’t detail her subsequent life, but it can be inferred she seeks asylum in the United States or another country, hoping to live a life free from the oppressive North Korean regime.
How did the film portray the relationship between Kim Jong-un and Dave Skylark?
The film initially portrays the relationship as an unexpected bromance. Kim Jong-un is shown as a lonely and insecure individual who craves Dave’s approval and friendship. They bond over shared interests like basketball and margaritas. However, the film gradually reveals the manipulative nature of Kim’s charm, highlighting the stark contrast between his public image and his private cruelty.
Did the movie offer any justification for its portrayal of the assassination?
The film’s justification lies in its portrayal of Kim Jong-un as a brutal dictator responsible for widespread human rights abuses and the suffering of millions of North Koreans. The assassination is presented as a morally justifiable act of rebellion against tyranny, even if executed through comedic and absurd means. The film positions the protagonists as ultimately doing what is right, despite their initial lack of seriousness.
How did the ending affect the overall message of the film?
The ending significantly impacts the film’s message, shifting it from pure comedy to a more complex and nuanced commentary on political power, responsibility, and the potential consequences of individual actions. While the film retains its comedic tone throughout, the assassination and Dave’s subsequent reflection on the event add a layer of depth, prompting viewers to consider the moral implications of interventionism and regime change.
Was the controversial nature of the film reflected in the ending?
Absolutely. The ending, featuring the graphic depiction of Kim Jong-un’s assassination, was undoubtedly a major contributor to the film’s controversial reception. This explicit act pushed the boundaries of acceptable political satire and drew significant condemnation from North Korea and its allies. The controversial nature of the entire project is inherently reflected in the bold and provocative nature of its conclusion.
What alternatives endings were considered for The Interview?
While specific alternative endings haven’t been widely publicized, it’s likely the writers and filmmakers explored various options that avoided the direct assassination of Kim Jong-un. These might have included a peaceful resolution, exposure of Kim’s crimes without violence, or even a more ambiguous outcome. However, the decision to proceed with the explosive ending ultimately served the film’s satirical and provocative goals.
How did the actors involved feel about the ending and the controversy surrounding it?
The actors, particularly Seth Rogen and James Franco, publicly defended the film as a work of satire and artistic expression. They acknowledged the controversy surrounding the ending but maintained their belief in the importance of freedom of speech and the right to criticize oppressive regimes. They expressed support for the film’s message of empowerment and the potential for positive change in North Korea. They also likely understood that the controversy, while challenging, ultimately contributed to the film’s notoriety and cultural impact.