Watching Kramer vs. Kramer the a couple of weeks ago got me to thinking about how important a strong ending is to a film, and how infrequently people seem to talk about it, at least in terms of screenwriting. Sure, we always hear about structure and character depth and subtext in dialogue, but it’s not often that I hear people discussing the virtues of a strong ending. Kramer vs. Kramer is an incredible film for the first 100 minutes, but the last five minutes are a dud. Personally that left me somewhat unsatisfied. I wasn’t totally unsatisfied, and still consider it an amazing film, but a stronger ending would have left me feeling better about it. There is a saying that you never get a second chance to make a first impression, and I would argue that the last impression is equally important to a film as any other component.
A case in point is Toy Story 3. I am a fan of animation, and I’ve worked in the animation industry for 16 years. I am a fan of PIXAR and I especially like the first two Toy Story films. However, I felt that Toy Story 3 was mediocre at best, but what it had was a very strong final act, and an especially emotional ending. I would contend that the last 15 minutes of that film are what made it so popular and probably won it the Oscar for Best Animated Feature. Having an amazing film with a less than satisfying ending can ruin all of the good will that you’ve built up with the audience over the course of the film. The last thing that they experience will be what they take with them. Likewise, a mediocre or poor film can be saved by a powerful ending due to the same phenomenon.
What is the difference between a good ending and a bad ending?
I’m glad you asked.
A good ending draws a satisfactory conclusion to the story. It doesn’t have to make you happy, and it can be ambiguous, but it at least has to satisfy. Take a film like The Godfather. That film has an ending that is both unhappy and ambiguous, but it is a completely satisfying ending because we’ve seen Michael Corleone change from virtuous war hero to ruthless mafia boss, and the last thing we see is his wife Kay, looking at him with a look on her face that is both fear and concern, as the door is shut in her face. Based on what we’ve seen throughout the film, we understand what this ending means, and it means that Michael has lied to her about his business and his intentions and that their destined for very difficult lives indeed. It was the perfect ending for that film based on the arc of the story and the arc of the main character. It’s an ending, that while certainly not rosy, the audience can accept.
Taking it from a completely different point of view and result, there is a film like Mary Poppins. No one does happy endings like Disney, but the happy ending needs to fit the story. George Banks is a father who is distant from his wife and children and can’t see that his stubborn nature will one day drive them away for good. He starts off the film thinking that he has life figured out and that he has everything that he wants, but he doesn’t realize that he doesn’t know his children, and that he’s more of a steward to them than a father. Then Mary Poppins tricks him into hiring her as the children’s nanny, and George’s life is thrown completely awry as everything around him loses its order and devolves into chaos to the point where he loses his job and his dignity. But he learns that there is more to being a father than simply providing a home and sustenance for his children. He must also provide love and encouragement and wisdom. George learns this lesson in time and when he takes his family to the park so that they can spend time together flying a kite, we know that from that day forward George Banks will be the best father that he can be to his children. This is a happy ending that is also satisfying because the arc of the story and the arc of the characters.
That leads me to Kramer vs. Kramer and the proverbial “Hollywood” ending. I never really liked the term “Hollywood ending” because it improperly surmises that the standard ending for a studio film is a happy one, no matter how improbably that happy ending is. However, anyone who knows film history knows that a significant percentage of Hollywood films do not end that way. Yes, most Hollywood films do have happy endings, but most of those endings make sense, and most are not forced upon us. But there are scores of examples of films that end unhappily or ambiguously, and they came out of Hollywood as well.
Sorry for the rant. Anyway, in Kramer vs. Kramer we again have a distant father (Ted) who is more interested in advancing in his career than being a good husband and good father. Maybe at one point he thought that advancing in his career was a way to be a good husband father because it meant providing more for his wife and child, but somewhere he lost his way and the means became the ends. The inciting incident in this film is when his wife Joanna leaves him and he must now figure out a way to balance handling the day to day chores of taking care of taking care of his son (school drop-off, time at the park) with the responsibilities he has at work. Then, half way through the film Joanna comes back and tells Ted that she wants custody of their son Billy, but Ted, who has now become a good father and loves his son more than anything, refuses to acquiesce to her demands, necessitating a custody hearing in court. The judge ultimately grants custody to Joanna and a very emotional story look to be headed towards a sad ending for Ted, but one in which his character has grown and made him become a better man. However Joanna arrives at the scheduled time to pick up Billy, but she instead tells Ted that when she was on her way to bring Billy home, she realized that he already was home and she’ll be leaving Billy with Ted. That’s how the film ends.
I find that to be terribly unsatisfying because it is too convenient. Ted, who is the hero of the story, doesn’t do anything to make it happen. It just happens to him. In a way that was not set up by the arc of the story or the arc of the characters, Joanna just has this epiphany that Billy should stay with Ted because Ted deserves it. It is abrupt, it is out of left field and it is unsatisfying. It doesn’t ruin the film, but it certainly does knock it down a peg. It would have been much more satisfying had either Joanna taken Billy and left us with the sad ending, but the satisfaction of knowing now that Ted has become a better person, or if Ted had given her one last example of why Billy should stay. For example, right after Joanna leaves at the beginning, Ted tries to make French toast and it’s a disaster. Then, right before Joanna comes to pick Billy up, they make it flawlessly. What if Joanna had been there to see that loving interaction between them? Then the audience would have seen the motivating factor behind Joanna’s epiphany and it would have made a lot more sense and been a lot more satisfying.
However you slice it, the ending is arguably the most important component to your script.
The way a film ends is the last thing the audience will see and accounts for most of what the audience will take with them to develop their impression of the film. If, as a writer, you don’t get your ending right, you run the risk of alienating the entire rest of your script, no matter how well-written and well-developed it may be.
Are you working on a screenplay and the proper way to end it is eluding you? Monument Script services can evaluate your entire script and help you create the best possible story with the best possible ending. Click the link below to see our screenplay coverage services.