“How It Ends,” the 2018 Netflix apocalyptic thriller, leaves audiences questioning the true nature of the ending. Ultimately, the film deliberately avoids a definitive resolution, opting instead for a thematic conclusion that emphasizes the importance of human connection and resilience in the face of utter chaos, leaving the characters’ ultimate fate and the source of the apocalyptic event shrouded in mystery. This ambiguity invites viewers to interpret the ending based on their own experiences and perspectives, focusing more on the emotional journey than a concrete explanation.
The Power of Ambiguity: Why “How It Ends” Ends the Way It Does
“How It Ends” excels in creating a sense of unease and uncertainty from the very beginning. The mysterious seismic events that trigger the apocalypse are never fully explained, adding to the overall feeling of helplessness and disorientation. This narrative strategy carries through to the film’s conclusion. Instead of providing a neat resolution or revealing the cause of the disaster, the film chooses to focus on the evolving relationship between Will (Theo James) and Tom (Forest Whitaker) and their struggle for survival.
The final scenes depict Will and Samantha (Kat Graham) driving toward the Pacific Northwest, seemingly unaffected by the apocalyptic storms that previously ravaged the landscape. While this might suggest a potential safe haven or a point of relative stability, it’s equally plausible to interpret it as a temporary respite or even a symbolic representation of hope amidst despair. The lack of concrete information ensures that the audience is left grappling with the uncertainty of the characters’ future, mirroring the uncertainty of their own world in the face of existential threats.
The film’s strength lies in its ability to tap into our primal fears about societal collapse and the breakdown of order. By avoiding definitive answers, “How It Ends” forces us to confront these fears head-on, prompting us to contemplate what truly matters in the face of potential annihilation. The film isn’t about finding answers; it’s about exploring the human condition under immense pressure, forcing characters to rely on each other for survival.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about “How It Ends”
Here are some frequently asked questions, designed to clarify crucial points about the movie:
Understanding the Apocalypse
FAQ 1: What exactly caused the apocalypse in “How It Ends”?
The film intentionally leaves the cause of the apocalypse ambiguous. There are hints of seismic activity, electromagnetic pulses, and powerful storms, but no single event is identified as the primary trigger. This lack of clarity contributes to the overall sense of unease and helplessness. Theories range from a geological event to a weaponized technological disaster, but the film provides no concrete answer.
FAQ 2: Are there any clues within the movie about the origin of the apocalyptic event?
While a definitive answer remains elusive, subtle hints are sprinkled throughout the narrative. Tom’s military background and his understanding of survival tactics suggest a potential human element, such as a catastrophic weapon failure. The intensity and rapid spread of the events also point towards a potentially unnatural or accelerated phenomenon. However, these are merely speculative interpretations.
FAQ 3: Was the military involved in causing or attempting to control the situation?
The military’s role remains ambiguous. Initially, they appear to be trying to maintain order and provide assistance, but their actions become increasingly questionable as the film progresses. The abandoned checkpoints, the desperate messages, and the general sense of chaos suggest that they may have lost control or even played a role in exacerbating the situation.
Analyzing the Characters
FAQ 4: Why is Tom so reluctant to trust Will initially?
Tom’s initial distrust of Will stems from his protective instincts toward his daughter, Samantha. He sees Will as an outsider who potentially disrupted their family dynamics. Furthermore, Tom’s military background likely makes him cautious and wary of strangers, especially in a crisis situation.
FAQ 5: What is the significance of the changing relationship between Will and Tom?
The evolving relationship between Will and Tom is a central theme of the film. Initially strained and filled with animosity, their bond gradually strengthens as they face shared adversity. They learn to rely on each other for survival, ultimately forging a deeper understanding and respect. Their journey showcases the importance of human connection in the face of chaos.
FAQ 6: How does Samantha’s character contribute to the overall narrative?
Samantha’s character represents hope and resilience. She embodies the strength to persevere despite the devastating circumstances. Her determination to reunite with Will and navigate the treacherous landscape highlights the power of love and connection in the face of apocalyptic events.
Interpreting the Ending
FAQ 7: What does the ending scene with Will and Samantha driving toward the Pacific Northwest signify?
The ending scene is deliberately ambiguous. It can be interpreted as a sign of hope, suggesting that they have found a safe haven or a path to rebuilding their lives. Alternatively, it could be a temporary respite before facing further challenges. The lack of resolution encourages viewers to project their own interpretations onto the scene.
FAQ 8: Is there a “safe zone” that Will and Samantha are heading towards?
The film doesn’t explicitly confirm the existence of a safe zone. The Pacific Northwest might represent a region that was less affected by the initial apocalyptic events, or it could simply be a destination chosen out of desperation. The possibility of a safe haven remains open to interpretation.
FAQ 9: What is the meaning of the dust clouds or volcanic ash at the end of the movie?
The swirling dust clouds or volcanic ash represent the ongoing instability of the environment. They serve as a constant reminder of the devastating events and the potential for further disasters. They reinforce the notion that the world has fundamentally changed and that survival remains a precarious endeavor.
Production and Critical Reception
FAQ 10: Who directed “How It Ends” and what was their intention with the ending?
“How It Ends” was directed by David M. Rosenthal. While official statements are limited, it’s clear that the ambiguous ending was a deliberate choice, designed to provoke thought and discussion. Rosenthal aimed to create a film that explored the psychological impact of a global catastrophe, rather than simply providing a straightforward action-packed narrative.
FAQ 11: What were the main criticisms leveled against “How It Ends”?
One of the most common criticisms of “How It Ends” was its reliance on familiar apocalyptic tropes and its perceived lack of originality. Some viewers also found the ambiguous ending frustrating and unsatisfying. Critics often cited the film’s slow pace and lack of clear resolution as major drawbacks.
FAQ 12: Despite criticisms, why does “How It Ends” continue to resonate with viewers?
Despite its flaws, “How It Ends” continues to resonate with viewers because it taps into fundamental human anxieties about societal collapse and the loss of control. The film’s focus on the importance of human connection and resilience provides a glimmer of hope amidst the despair, making it a thought-provoking and emotionally engaging experience for many. The ambiguity forces engagement, prompting conversations and interpretations that extend beyond the credits.