The Screenplay: The End

End with a flourish, end early, end decisively

Every tale has its end. The end of the tale of a man is, the last deed of the man in his life; the tale is then wrapped up with a farewell or envoi that reflects, in brief, on how important the man and his deeds were to the rest of us. The end of the tale of an action is the conclusion of that action, which comes when the goal is won or lost beyond question; the tale is then wrapped up with an envoi that tells, in brief, of the consequences of that gain or loss to those involved.

The envoi is optional; it is a way the talesman brings his audience gently back from the tale’s world into their own, and may be also a way for the talesman to ask his audience to reflect on the tale in light of their world, and gain wisdom or deeper feeling in themselves for having heard the tale.

In a movie, the end credits release us in the audience back to our real world. We get out of our seats and file out of the theater into the day, or night, passing through the lobby of the theater, perhaps. Since we watch a movie in a group, we have the chance to discuss the movie and its tale as we leave, and in the moments afterward.

The envoi, then, is a luxury in a movie. And since the movie and its screenplay are so straitened for time and pages, the luxury of the envoi is generally foregone. Only when the true end to the tale leaves a false taste in the mouth of the audience, is the envoi needed. This comes when the true consequences of the end are not obvious from the end. The hero gains his goal, but is gravely wounded, and far from home; the envoi, in a brief scene (perhaps no more than one shot), tells us of his homecoming, healthy once more. Another kind of ‘false taste’ can come when the mood of the tale’s end is not the mood of the final consequences of victory or defeat. The actual moment of the end may be bitter, though it comes with victory, and then it’s best to let us in the audience leave on a somewhat brighter, happier note with an envoi.

The Flourish of the End

The end of a movie or screenplay that has no envoi, ends abruptly. It counts on the end credits to give its audience the chance to move gently back to our world. Even as the movie should open with a gripping image that straight off plunges us into the tale’s world, so the movie should end on another gripping image.

The question of the Image is something that writers of words only rarely deal with. Some writers, those more dramatic in their bent, deal with images readily. But movies are images blent with sound, moving in real time before their audience; this makes the Image vital. The great filmmaker is the one who can create vivid, unforgettable Images in a string through his movie. The great screenwriter is the one who offers the rest of the crew the opportunity to create those Images.

This makes it vital for those of us who write screenplays with an eye to seeing them produced as movies, to envision at all times how the movie will look, as if we had the movie projected before our mind’s eye.

The last image a movie gives us before the credits roll, is the one that lingers as we leave the theater and rejoin our own lives. It is the movie’s most important image (as the opening image is its second most important).

End Early

Even as the shortness of the screenplay demands that the screenwriter leave each scene as early as he can, and earlier than he would like, so too it asks that he leave the tale early. The final sequence should be so constructed that any repercussions and consequences of the end are implied, and will unfold in the minds of the audience as we get up and walk away from the screen — even in the hours and days to come.

An abrupt, early end is a strong one; a straggling, protracted end is weak. Better to err on the side of ending too early than outstaying your movie’s welcome.

There is a fault of commercial Hollywood movies of the past quarter-century or so, that they offer us not one ending, but several. This is a great flaw of the current cinema. Does it come from indecisiveness, from filmmakers who haven’t made up their mind which scene should end the movie? Does it come from some misunderstanding of how we watch and understand movies? Does it come from poor organization of the scenes of the screenplay? Does it come from sloppiness?

I suspect all these factors contribute to the trend. There is also the (thoroughly mistaken) notion, maybe, that if people are asked to pay high prices for tickets, they should be given ‘value for their money’ in the form of extra minutes! extra scenes! extra endings! More and more! seems to be in back of some of these endings, for example the horror film that kills the monster at the end, only to have the monster arise again and need to be killed one more time. One more shock! One more killing!

This philosophy trades the experience of the moment for the enjoyment of the hours and days to come. It is part of the general notion of the movie as a thrill ride rather than as a tale told and enjoyed. It makes sense that if the movie is nothing more than an experience, like a roller-coaster, that more time on the ride, and one more loop-the-loop, will give us in the audience more enjoyment for our money. Under this philosophy, the movie is nothing but a string of exciting (arousing, scary, tearful, etc.) moments or scenes. The more the merrier!

But this idea of the movie as spectacle, ‘no more than a circus parade’ in the words of a famous court decision in the USA in the earliest days of commercial cinema, falls outside the realm of talesmanship. It may be true; it may be a valid form of moviemaking; it may well appeal to many moviegoers. But I have nothing more to say of that.

(Composed on keyboard Monday, June 9, 2008)