Movie Musings: What makes a good ending?

It stands to reason that no discussion on endings is complete without the following warning:

SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILERS!

I am trying to avoid specifics about the end of any movie about which I talk but give a general idea of what it is about it that makes it good or bad.

I was watching Sideways the other day (coming of middle-age drama set in the wineries of the USA) and I was struck by its fantastic choice of ending method.

The film ends without definite resolution, but with a sense of hope that you really feel grateful for. The main character of Miles is so pathetic you just beg him to make the right choice - and the fact you aren't given the easy and cathartic image at the end really settles this film as a true classic of naturalistic cinema.

At the other end of this particular scale, for me, are the wilfully "clever endings" of such as The Sopranos etc where the uncertain ending really only suggests that the writers couldn't work out what to do.

For a while, we had a man who would wilfully come up with clever endings just since that was his "thing" - M. Night Shyamalan. There is no question in my mind that his first two films, Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, were really quite good. Problem being, he appears from then on to have taken a disastrous route through bizarre plots pretty much just for the sake of it. That Signs, in which an alien force invades a planet 90% of which they are violently and fatally allergic to, is the best of his later work, shows the sad state of affairs in truly hideous light.

See... an obsession with the "twist" ending can lead to the twist coming at the expense of the rest of the film - for gods sake... the man has WIND becoming a force of evil!

What a fricking loser.

So what is the usual way to finish a film? We should look at that first so we can see where the clever ones differ.

The assumption of most western films is that they are self contained - so there is not initially at least scope for sequels or long term planning past the end of the movie. SO... at the happy end of the movies for the most part;

• We have a resolution of the character arcs
• We get an appropriate feeling of emotion at the end
• We get an image of the characters at that resolution that we can keep and take away (classic examples; the medal ceremony in Star Wars, the wedding at the end of The Wedding Singer etc)
• There are no loose ends left worth caring about.

A non-happy ending will violate one of these rules... but it should be appropriate. A romantic comedy where one of the principals is suddenly killed off at the end just to make a point would be wilfully violating such rules as an attempt presumably to gain attention.

I recall, though I may have it slightly wrong, that the classic Pretty Woman originally had the ending in which Julia and Richard DON'T get together. Of course, it was panned in the previews and eventually changed. This happens all the time. I worked (as an extra) on a film earlier this year, for example, where the ending was being totally reshot due to poor previews. I think, as you may, that the two leads in Pretty Woman getting together is a little silly if it was meant to be a realistic movie, but surely the genre of the romantic comedy demands they at least adore each other.

Escapist cinema should and usually does have the obvious ending - it's not rocket science to assume twenty minutes into Walt Disney's Enchanted (which, btw, I really enjoyed) that the princess will end up with the nice guy instead of the boorish tosser in the tights or that everything will turn out alright in My Super Ex-Girlfriend (though Eddie Izzard's american accent still gives me nightmares).

Morally ambiguous cinema is a lot more difficult to type- Sideways for example has two main male characters who, lets face it, are jerks. One of them more than the other, but both of them are essentially irritating pretentious fools. What's the obvious ending here?

Classic endings here include French Connection's ambiguous gunshot, Michael Corleone going down the rabbit hole in The Godfather (or losing his most precious thing in Godfather 3), Martin Sheen's mental self destruction in Apocalypse Now etc etc etc.

Now imagine these alternatives to each of those endings:

• The Goodfella's ending to Godfather, where Michael turns over his friends to the police.
• Popeye Doyle catches and sends the Frenchman to justice.
• Martin Sheen picks up a minigun and wipes out all of Kurtz's followers, then wisecracks t the death of the Colonel - "you made quite a sacrifice, Kurtz!)
• Michael Corleone takes the bullet for his daughter.

What this intended to do is to inspire you to think about these endings and whether there is ANY ending that would improve these films.

To finish off my point about sideways, the whole point of the ending is to reinforce that these people are still not the finished article and that a "happy" ending will only be forthcoming after a lot more work - all of this summed up in what is NOT shown. Genius.

Another example - how about the Stephen King original ending to The Shining, in which Jack realises the error of his ways and sacrifices himself to blow up the hotel? Crap, right? The Kubrick film is SO MUCH BETTER because it fits... and we feel all the appropriate emotions as a response. The King ending feels like the Rambo ending of Apocalypse Now I just described. False and unsatisfying.

So what is my conclusion to this little ramble? What does make a good ending? Here's my take.

• The ending should serve the film, not the other way around.
• The ending should be appropriate to the intention of the film.
• The should NEVER violate the rules the film has already set up just to be controversial.

I'm sure you'll disagree with me on something, probably my selection of classic "morally ambiguous" endings, but go ahead... give me your responses on the comment form below. I'll look forward to them.

A