Beatriz at Dinner concludes with an ambiguous, unresolved ending designed to leave the audience grappling with complex moral and philosophical questions. The film’s abruptness is not a narrative failure, but a deliberate artistic choice, reflecting the insurmountable chasm between Beatriz’s worldview and the wealthy, disconnected elite she confronts.
The Deliberate Ambiguity: An Unresolved Moral Landscape
The final scene of Beatriz at Dinner shows Beatriz (Salma Hayek), a holistic health practitioner, standing near the ocean, possibly encountering a figure resembling her deceased goat, Raziel. Whether this is a vision, a dream, or reality is left entirely to the viewer’s interpretation. This abruptness is central to the film’s theme: the inability to bridge the gap between drastically different ideologies and the lingering consequences of unchecked power. The ending isn’t about providing resolution; it’s about highlighting the irreconcilable differences that exist within society and the devastating impact of unchecked capitalism on the natural world and those who seek to protect it.
The filmmakers, director Miguel Arteta and writer Mike White, intentionally avoid a neatly packaged conclusion. They want viewers to contemplate the uncomfortable truths revealed throughout the dinner party. Did Beatriz snap? Did she imagine the encounter with Doug Strutt (John Lithgow) at the hotel? Did she actually harm him? These unanswered questions force the audience to confront their own biases and moral compass. By refusing to offer definitive answers, Beatriz at Dinner becomes a catalyst for deeper reflection on issues of social injustice, environmental degradation, and the enduring struggle for empathy. The lack of closure is, therefore, the point.
The ending serves as a potent reminder that real-world conflicts rarely resolve in a satisfying narrative arc. The film mirrors the ongoing struggle for social and environmental justice, where victories are hard-won, and setbacks are frequent. The abrupt cut to black leaves the viewer in a state of moral uncertainty, echoing the uncertainty that pervades these real-world battles.
Decoding the Symbolism: Beyond a Simple Ending
The film is rich with symbolism, and the ending is no exception. The image of Beatriz by the ocean can be interpreted in several ways. It could represent her return to a more natural, spiritual state after being confronted with the materialism and callousness of the wealthy elite. The appearance of Raziel, whether real or imagined, may symbolize her connection to the animal kingdom and her deep concern for its welfare.
Alternatively, the scene could be interpreted as a sign of Beatriz’s mental breakdown, driven by the frustration and powerlessness she experiences throughout the evening. Her inability to connect with Doug Strutt and the other guests, coupled with her growing anger over their destructive practices, could have pushed her to the brink. The ambiguity allows for both interpretations, further enriching the film’s thematic complexity.
The Role of Interpretation
Ultimately, the meaning of the ending rests on the viewer’s interpretation. This deliberate ambiguity is a hallmark of art that aims to provoke thought and challenge conventional narratives. By refusing to provide easy answers, Beatriz at Dinner invites the audience to engage with its themes on a deeper, more personal level. The film becomes a mirror, reflecting our own values and beliefs back at us.
FAQs: Exploring the Depths of Beatriz at Dinner
Here are some frequently asked questions about the ending of Beatriz at Dinner and the film’s overall themes:
1. Did Beatriz actually kill Doug Strutt?
This is deliberately left ambiguous. There’s no definitive answer in the film. The implication is strong, given her earlier fantasies and the subsequent news reports of an “incident” at the hotel, but it’s never confirmed. The ambiguity forces us to consider the ethics of her actions and the consequences of unchecked greed. The filmmakers leave this open to interpretation to further explore the moral grey area the film presents.
2. What does the goat, Raziel, symbolize?
Raziel represents Beatriz’s deep connection to nature and her compassion for all living beings. The goat’s death is a metaphor for the destruction of the environment and the loss of innocence. The ending scene with Raziel, real or imagined, reinforces this connection and highlights Beatriz’s spiritual grounding. This reinforces the film’s central theme of environmental responsibility.
3. Why didn’t Beatriz just leave the dinner party?
Beatriz’s inability to simply leave speaks to her inherent politeness and a naive belief that she can somehow reason with these people. It also highlights her economic vulnerability, as she’s reliant on Cathy (Connie Britton) for work. This demonstrates the power dynamics at play.
4. What is the significance of the painting of the dog?
The painting of the dog represents the commodification of animals and the lack of empathy shown towards them by the wealthy elite. It contrasts sharply with Beatriz’s genuine love for animals and her deep understanding of their suffering. This visually reinforces the disconnect between Beatriz and her hosts.
5. Is Doug Strutt meant to be a symbol of Donald Trump?
While never explicitly stated, the parallels between Doug Strutt and Donald Trump are undeniable. Strutt embodies the arrogance, self-interest, and environmental disregard often associated with the former president. He symbolizes the destructive forces of unchecked capitalism.
6. What are the main themes of the film?
The main themes include class conflict, environmental destruction, the clash between spirituality and materialism, and the struggle for empathy in a disconnected world. The film explores the challenges of bridging ideological divides in a polarized society.
7. Why is the film titled Beatriz at Dinner?
The title is deceptively simple. It highlights the absurdity of placing someone like Beatriz, with her values and worldview, in such an alien and hostile environment. It’s a social experiment with devastating consequences.
8. Does the film offer any hope for change?
The film doesn’t offer easy answers or a simplistic message of hope. However, it does suggest that awareness and empathy are crucial first steps towards creating a more just and sustainable world. It encourages viewers to examine their own complicity in the systems that perpetuate inequality and environmental destruction.
9. What is Mike White trying to say with this film?
Mike White is using Beatriz at Dinner to critique the moral bankruptcy of the wealthy elite and to explore the consequences of their actions. He’s challenging viewers to consider their own values and to question the dominant narratives of success and progress. He pushes the viewer to contemplate the ethical responsibility of wealth.
10. How does the film’s soundtrack contribute to its overall message?
The soundtrack, often featuring melancholic melodies and traditional Mexican music, underscores Beatriz’s emotional state and reinforces the film’s themes of displacement and cultural identity. The music amplifies the feeling of isolation Beatriz experiences.
11. What makes this film relevant in today’s society?
Beatriz at Dinner remains highly relevant because it tackles pressing issues such as income inequality, environmental degradation, and the rise of populism. The film’s exploration of these themes resonates deeply with contemporary anxieties and concerns. It serves as a powerful commentary on the state of the world.
12. What is the biggest takeaway from watching Beatriz at Dinner?
The biggest takeaway is the importance of empathy and understanding in a world increasingly divided by ideology and economic disparity. The film challenges viewers to look beyond their own biases and to connect with others on a deeper, more human level. The ultimate goal is to promote meaningful dialogue and positive change.