MovieChat Forums > Theeviravaathi: The Terrorist (2000) Discussion > Ending ***SPOILERS***

Ending SPOILERS

posted 20 years ago by mrpads
24 replies | jump to latest

I haven't seen this film in a while, but the ending disappointed me. Throughout the film we were given her struggle over her beliefs, sense of duty and coming to terms with her pregnancy (i think, can't quite remember very well). The end where she goes to press the detonator then drops it spoilt the whole thing for me. A far better ending IMO would have been her hovering over the button and then leaving us to decide whether she would have pressed it. This would, I feel, have forced us to think further into the film, watch it again maybe, work out what she would have done.

Don't get me wrong though, this film was great as far as i remember, very engaging.

[–] 666Night999 20 years ago

I've seen the movie 3 times. The ending makes more sense each time. She chooses to not kill herself and her child. She will probably be killed later on, because she didn't commit the assassination, but I think she comes to believe that suicide and being murdered are separate things. Through her interactions with the old man, who teaches her the optimistic ways of the world and reveals that she is pregnant, Massi changes internally and chooses life rather than death. At least for now.

It's a powerful ending, imo. That last scene and the one before it with the comatose wife. I was floored when that woman grabbed her arm. It said so much in just a gesture. Wow.

"Words, they cut like a knife.
Cut into my life. I don't want to hear your words"

[–] chronoscoop 19 years ago

No no, you have it all wrong -she was too indoctrinated, she DID go through with the mission and she DID kill herself and the VIP.

The explosive had a dead man's trigger on it, which means that when you let go of the detonator, the explosives detonate.

What happened a second after she let go of the detonator? Everything went black -i.e. instantaneous death from the explosion. The last thing we saw was from her eyes and was the second she relased the detonator and the second before it blew up and everything went black for her (and us, as we were watching from her eyes).

....Do I really believe this?.... I don't know, I don't think so.... But I have friends who have watched the film, and that's what they think happened.

But anyways, don't jump to conclusions, and try watching the film again. It might not be all that clear afterwards...

[–] 666Night999 19 years ago

NO, you have it wrong.

The point of the movie is that the girl decides life is worth living. That is why she spends time and learns from the old man.

If the bomb went off or was going to, it would have been instantaneous, even in slow motion, but instead we see her hand falling and rose pedals or flowers floating in the air. If an explosion were to happen like you say, a "dead man's trigger", it was certainly a slow reacting one.

I'm think you're dead..........wrong.

"Don't talk to me about endings, dare the beginnings" [Jack Ketchum, 7/69]

[–] SewerRanger 19 years ago

I haven't seen this movie in a long time, but I remember the ending being open to interpretation. It left it up to the viewer to decide if she kills herself or not. I myself believe she didn't because she did learn the value of life.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
-Einstein
www.deism.org

[–] keats272 19 years ago

I just watched it so it is very fresh in my mind.

She definitely did NOT set off the bomb. She dropped the detonator and it was replaced by rose pedals in her hand. Do you see the symbolism?

[–] gleep 18 years ago

I don't belive it was a dead mans trigger. The majority of the audience would recognise that pressing a button triggers an event, like what occurs in everyday appliances. And for cinematic effect, pressing a button to detonate makes the point clearly and with more impact.

Also the fact that there was a few seconds after she released the controler indicates to me that nothing happened, no expolosives went off.

Further, I belive the director would have chosen a fade to white, rather than black, to represent the flash of the explosives going off.

The journey she went on led me to belive that she chose life over death too.

Yes, it is possible that the ending was left open to interpretation, and I've thought about what both endings mean. But I like to belive she chose life :)

[–] halloweenjack74 19 years ago

She didn't kill herself, she chooses life, preserving both her own and the future life of her unborn child. Of course she will be killed anyway, exactly in the manner with which the film opens giving it a cyclical quality, but it is the gesture that is important. I also thought that the credits would roll after the first 'black out' and perhaps a more ambiguous ending would have worked better, especially considering the themes. (is any political cause ever worth sacrificing life itself for? it's a tough question. What we are talking about is not just Al Quada opreatives but the Czech nationalist who shot Reinhardt Heydrich sacrificing his own life. Is it worth one man's life to kill a top Nazi or any other abominable politician?) But the ending is not without merits. I agree that the old lady grabbing her arm was a powerful and effective scene.

[–] honeycomb2 18 years ago

She never wavered or showed any doubts in her commitment to the mission.
I think she did set the bomb off and the falling petals symbolises her life ending. The fade to black is her death.

[–] louknees 18 years ago

The fact that she doesn't press the button and chooses life is what she does at the end, but you know that she'll be tortured and killed for not going through with the mission. She'll be considered a traitor and hated and she'll pay dearly. That's what struck me as so powerful at the end. No matter what she chose, she and her baby were dead. You can believe that maybe she somehow miraculously escapes and the glimmer of hope gives the viewer a little bit of comfort. I couldn't help thinking that even though she made the right decision, she will be killed.

[–] raebyrn 18 years ago

I think that even though she opened her hand, the ending is still ambiguous. As a few people mentioned, the story is inspired by the assassination of former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Ghandi in 1991 by a female Tamil Tiger suicide bomber. Here are some details:

http://members.tripod.com/~sosl/gandhi.html

[–] ringslady1987-1 17 years ago

Hello guys. The film is based on Rajiv Gandhi's assasination. He did get assassinated dint he? So why r u all still speculating over the ending?

But of course,as a film without any clue of its basis on a real-life event(since the name of the terrorist Dhanu was changed to Malli in the film), the ending is left for the interpretation of the audience. A truly world-class cinema this is.

[–] therealamericanbeauty 17 years ago

I just wanted to chime in and say that I have read alot of material on this film, and the film is only LOOSELY based on the Rajiv Gandhi assasination. It is only the framework for the film, as in it's about a female with a suicide mission, that's it. This film is simply telling its own tale, not re-enacting the Gandhi assasination as many of you seem to think.

I would suggest that sajanthan take his/her own advice and learn about the movie a little more before jumping to conclusions.

She clearly does NOT trigger the bomb at the end. Watch the movie again...it will make sense.

[–] blinddreamer28 18 years ago

I think it's hilarious that we're arguing about this. I think the movie purposely left the ending unclear... it's artistic in that it leaves so many questions swimming in your mind.

[–] 666Night999 18 years ago

hilarious. It's a debate, a discussion. Maybe the ending was supposed to be ambiguous, and that was the point.

I personally, like I said before, believe she does not detonate the bomb. To me, it is obvious she drops her hand and refuses to trigger the bomb. She will die later anyway, for failure to fulfill her mission, but like many have said, it was the gesture that counts. She chooses life. If she is going to die, it will be by someone else's hand, not hers.

thanks

"Nice beaver!"
"Thanks, I just had it stuffed."--The Naked Gun

[–] albertox84 18 years ago

I think she does not press the trigger, she falters as a result of her getting in touch with her femininity. For most of the film she is a very masculine character, so much so that in the opening scenes she looks like one of the guys covered in the red hood. The chants against the traitor go "you've betrayed your blood brothers". Her realization of her femininity begins in the house with the old man as she looks at the pictures of glamourous and very feminine women and reenacts their poses. The pregnancy,a clearly feminine phenomenon; the flashback to her only contact of a romantic kind, and the old woman's touch complete her transformation to a woman. War is a man's creation, while femininity is said to value life. I think that is the message of the film, once Malli becomes a woman she is no longer a brutal killer.

[–] MakerooM 18 years ago

I think she shoots the terminator and storms in to her captains office and throws her badge down and walks off the force forever....

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fahrmboy 17 years ago

The film is defintely circular. Remember what Mali is doing in the very begining of the film--putting to death a traitor.

Maybe she'll suffer the same fate, or maybe she'll live on. What matters is what she learned and the decision she made.

[–] sajanthan 17 years ago

I don't know what movie most of you have been watching as many of you do not understand the storyline. To generalize, this movie deals with up to Rajiv Ghandi's death from the perspective of Mali, who is portrayed in this as LTTE's suicide bomber. That 'VIP' all of you seem to mention often is no other than Rajiv Ghandi and the point of the movie is to show a realistic view into the reason behind his assassination. Trust me, this is not a movie about some girl who attempts to kill a VIP and eventually decides not to. This is about the 1991 assassination of India's former prime minister. Learn some history and try to understand what the movie is about before jumping to conclusions.

[–] gottahavemypunk 16 years ago

I actually just watched this movie in my political theory and film class, and i was one of the few people who thought that she pressed the trigger and the black was her letting go after she pressed the trigger (like the second before she blew up)... but since everyone said she didn't press the trigger, I thought I was just being pessimistic about the outcome of the movie...

anyway, if she did survive i think it is because of the fact that she valued life - not necessarily her own persay, but the life of her unborn child and the lives of the people she was about to take. for the first time, she realized that by killing herself she would have to not only make a personal sacrifice (which she was willing to make) but kill those around her who might not have wanted to make that choice

overall though, i think she pulled the trigger... as most people have said it is a loosely based account on actual events and the ending is ambiguous enough to let people draw that conclusion

[–] Squirrel-5 16 years ago

I've seen the film once and the ending was very good. Her decision to choose life for herself, her child, and the man she was sent to kill shows that even indoctrinated people can change. They should screen this film in Iraq, the West Bank, and Gaza. Maybe it would discourage the violence there.