MovieChat Forums > Take Shelter (2011) Discussion > The ending explained (There is only one ...

The ending explained (There is only one concrete interpretation)


SPOILERS BELOW!!!!!!!!!!!





There are three main camps in regards to what the ending means:

Theory 1: The ending is another one of Curtis's hallucinations/nightmares.

Theory 2: The scene is a metaphor for Sam completely accepting her Husband’s condition. And her saying "Okay" means she also empathizes with how he must feel when he sees these hallucinations/nightmares.

Theory 3: He wasn't having hallucinations/nightmares and they were all premonitions of a future world changing disaster.

Honestly, all three of these theories would have merit if it wasn't for the interview below. The writer literally gives away which of these 3 views are correct when he answered the question. Based on what he said, #3 can be the only explanation that makes sense. Many have given excellent reasoning behind why #3 is correct. I will give very simplified yet obvious reasons why that can be the only explanation.

First here is what the author had to say:


Q:Without spoiling it for readers, the ending of the
film is somewhat ambiguous. Do you have a preferred way that
you want viewers to read it?

It’s specifically designed to be ambiguous. That really riles
some people and some people really love it. What’s funny and
interesting to me — and not to sound too cocky about it, but
I really do think it worked — is everybody talks about the
specifics of what’s happening in that scene. And to me, the
specifics don’t matter that much. And I’ll explain.

What is happening, what is going to happen, all that is just
fun to talk about. But what’s important to me is that these
two people are on the same page and are seeing the same thing.
There’s several interpretations of where they’re at. And
that’s great. But as long as they’re seeing the same thing I
think there is a resolution
and the possibility of hope in
the film.


The writer tried to be "ambiguous" in his answer but slipped up with the bolded parts. Basically the only thing he gave away was the "they were both seeing the same thing." And he follows up with saying that "because they are seeing the same thing there is a resolution." These two lines are extremely telling as to the writers true ending and leaves no room for interpretation of alternate explanations. Here is why:

Theory 1: The theory regarding the last scene being another of Curtis's delusion's is impossible under what the writer stated. If he was just "dreaming" his wife, child and the disaster then it's impossible for them to be "on the same page." The only way they can be on the same page is if the last scene is real. Obviously Sam can't simultaneously have the same nightmare that Curtis has. Thats the only way they can be "on the same page." Based on the entirety of the movie; this would be a ridiculous explanation. In my opinion this is the weakest theory because based on the writers answer it's clear its not a hallucination.

Theory 2: The metaphor theory is also practically impossible based on the style and direction of the movie. The movie followed a strict set of rules. The director made very clear distinctions between what Curtis was hallucinating and what was reality. Many movies are meant to be seen as if the audience is "part of the movie." Artsy movies often do this where even the audience is intentionally confused by the writer as to what’s real, what’s going on and who the main character is.

In this film the author made it very clear what was going on. The only thing the audience wasn't sure of is if Curtis was delusional or seeing premonitions. There were no "made up" or "metaphoric" scenes in the ENTIRE movie besides the hallucinations Curtis has. So it would make no sense that the writer added in a random fake scene that is not "real" or "Curtis’s delusion" that is supposed to represent a metaphor for Sam's complete understanding of what Curtis goes through. It doesn't fit in with the style of the movie.

Plus a tsunami, multiple tornados and polluted rain seem like an extremely weak metaphor for Sam's understating/complete acceptance of Curtis's condition. Finally, how can they "be on the same page" if this is a completely made up scene?

Theory 3: That brings us to the end scene being 100% real. This is the only explanation that fits in with the style, theme and flow of the movie if you take into account what the writer said above. The first thing we notice at the end is that there are very clear separations between what Curtis imagines and what is reality. Through the whole movies we know exactly which is which.

The second clue to the ending being real is the hallucinations/nightmares he has. They all follow one simple rule that makes it clear that they are not reality. Anytime he sees/hears birds, thunder, tornados, polluted having temporary hallucinations (like when he hears thunder at work with Dwight) or when he is having a nightmare.

Watch the first nightmare he has when his dog bites him. Pay extra close attention. Notice that his daughter doesn't react/see at all to the thunder, lightning or tornados forming. In fact, there is a scene before his dog bites him (10:58) where you can clearly see that his daughter see's nothing from the fact that he is staring up at the storm with grave concern while she is acting like it's just another day. This same scenario repeats in all his dreams where he is the only one that can see the signs.

So we know that the movie has clear separations between the "fake scenes" and reality. We also know that in EVERY single "fake scene" Curtis is the only one that sees the signs of disaster. Furthermore, the author states that at the end its a fact that Curtis and Sam are on the same page. Based on all these facts, there is no explanation besides the last scene being real. Another clue to this scene being real is the fact that this is the ONLY scene in the ENTIRE movie where someone else (Hannah) see's the storm besides Curtis. To make it even more clear, the scene is shot to show that Hannah actually see's the storm in this scene BEFORE Curtis. When you add all this together the only theory that makes perfect sense is #3.

On a side note, based on the size of the Tsunami, how Tsunami's work in real life and the families proximity to the beach; I believe they all died. The reason Curtis and Sam are so clam at the end is because they understand and accept their death. They want to spend their last moments together in peace as a family without going into hysteria and distressing Hannah.

reply

They are not both seeing the same thing.
They are three who see the same thing.
That the little girl saw it before Curtis noticed it was the hint for it being real.

What didnt fit is the yellow rain. Why would it be yellow?

I wouldnt rule out the nightmare completely.
Didnt the girl scream in one of those nightmares when both got dragged out of the car?
In every nightmare he got attacked (dog, humans). Last attacker could be nature/weather.

---
Lincoln Lee: I lost a partner.
Peter Bishop: I lost a universe!

reply

Rain is yellow, because it's a hint to an earlier part of the movie. After his seizure in bed Curtis tells his wife about the dreams he's been having and that rain is always like fresh motor oil.

reply

If he was just "dreaming" his wife, child and the disaster then it's impossible for them to be "on the same page." The only way they can be on the same page is if the last scene is real.


You're basically just making up rules to fit a desired outcome though. Like the guy last year who said b/c there was a reflection in the final scene, it had to be real. "Reflections can't happen in dreams." Sorry, made up rule.

Curtis and his wife "being on the same page" in the dream would be symbolic of the two finally accomplishing that in real life, which makes perfect sense as this is the climactic moment in the movie.


So it would make no sense that the writer added in a random fake scene that is not "real" or "Curtis’s delusion" that is supposed to represent a metaphor for Sam's complete understanding of what Curtis goes through.


'Nother made up rule. It's perfectly conceivable that a film could have a single metaphorical scene at the end, and you haven't demonstrated that there's some universal impossibility to that.

The strongest argument for the ending being a dream or a metaphor though is that the film just makes the most sense that way. It presents a meaningful message about a family going through a high stress ordeal. Curtis and his wife struggle greatly with his mental illness but are finally together at the end. The storm (said illness) is still there, but they make eye contact and there is a sense of calm rather than the dread which we felt earlier. It's a perfectly written ending, and it can function equally well as a dream or a metaphor.

Not on board with that? That's okay too, but what's the alternative theme? "Crazy guy really was right about apocalypse all along"? Do you really think that's the message this movie is trying to get across? Because to me that doesn't have nearly the same forcefulness and articulation.

reply

I'm not making up any rules. I'm merely going by the guidelines the film established. I believe I explained those guidelines clearly in my first post. For example, in the X-Men movies Magneto can control metal. That is obviously impossible in the real world but it’s a rule the movie established. Now if all of a sudden he could move earth randomly in the movies that would be considered unbelievable.

The premise is the same for this movie. Everything I explained was established by the movie, I didn’t make up “rules”. There's no need to have a "symbolic" scene to show that they were on the same page at the end. The movie made that painfully obvious in the scene where Curtis and his wife see the psychiatrist. In fact, if the last scene was a "dream" or "metaphor;" then almost every single rule that the movie established beforehand would be broken. (See the pattern of Curtis's dreams in my previous post) It would be the equivalent of Magneto being able to move earth for the convenience of the plot.

Interestingly, your "strongest" argument for why it had to be a dream or metaphor has to do with your personal opinion. You stated that that’s the only way it makes the most sense. I disagree. While that ending presents the most meaningful message as you said, it makes the LEAST sense based on the rules established by the movie and the authors own words. In fact, everything you stated that the last scene represents can easily be seen in the scene with the psychiatrist.

reply

I'm not making up any rules. I'm merely going by the guidelines the film established.




everything you stated that the last scene represents can easily be seen in the scene with the psychiatrist.


Being a very visual film it would not have been complete if it had ended after the psychiatrist visit. The last scene gives us that visual closure of Curtis' nightmares being resolved. Again, the storm is still there but there is now a sense of calm and hope as the two are going to deal with it together.

reply

Being a very visual film it would not have been complete if it had ended after the psychiatrist visit. The last scene gives us that visual closure of Curtis' nightmares being resolved. Again, the storm is still there but there is now a sense of calm and hope as the two are going to deal with it together.


It's not "two" it's "three". As Hannah sees the storm first. Shannon's character has vivid "dreams" which is odd as people with schizophrenia usually have less elaborate dreams (although the feeling of being pursued persists). It is unusual to feel pain in a dream that persists afterwards. While not solid clues per se, I think it all leads to the ending that Shannon was perceiving some kind of natural disaster.

I like the quoted text in the opening post of this thread, and agree that Jeff Nichols intended for a moment of unified realities. Shannon looks back completely unsure, but is instantly reassured by his wife that they are all seeing the same thing (Hannah included, who never sees the danger first in the dreams).

I believe the calm view of things you mentioned, mirrors the way she stuck by her husband even as his condition became apparent. "Are you leaving me?" is the first question Shannon asks Chastain outside their home. Expecting one thing, and receiving a definitive resolution to their problem from his wife instead. As the revelation is made to her (and the audience) her resolution to stay together does not change, but adapts to include her husbands visions in an instant.

reply

The strongest argument for the ending being a dream or a metaphor though is that the film just makes the most sense that way.


Now who's making up rules to fit a desired outcome?

reply

Except my only desired outcome is to read a movie in a way that makes the most sense. Big difference between wanting to see a specific narrative vs wanting to see what's really there.

reply

“The strongest argument for the ending being a dream or a metaphor though is that the film just makes the most sense that way. It presents a meaningful message about a family going through a high stress ordeal. Curtis and his wife struggle greatly with his mental illness but are finally together at the end. The storm (said illness) is still there, but they make eye contact and there is a sense of calm rather than the dread which we felt earlier. It's a perfectly written ending, and it can function equally well as a dream or a metaphor.”

🎯💯

reply

@griffon652. I always thought it was theory #3.Which is why I gave it such a high rating(8) and whenever it came on cable.I would watch it often.However about three weeks ago I read the same thing you posted here.When I read what the director said I thought it ruled out my theory.In theory#3 all three of them have to die on the beach.I don't consider the three main characters being killed on the beach as a possibility of hope.Everything that you point out that seems to make it clear theory#3 is right.Is the same thing I thought until I read what the director said about there being the possibility of hope.Obviously you view what he said as making the case for theory#3.I don't see it that way because of the reason I already pointed out.I changed my opinion of this movie after reading what the director said about Take Shelter.I don't like it as much anymore.

reply

I read carefully the thread and I thank you all for your inputs.
I am part of those who believe, before and after I read both your notes and the director's, theory #3 is the right one.
I believe that Sam being quite and just saying "okay" is her way to admit her husband was right since the beginning. I believe they both went through a lot, all together as a family, and they are now strong enough to face the worst. Also, this peaceful attitude toward the apocalypse could also be the result of a sort of relief because they now know the truth by "seeing the same thing". They will die for sure, but it's okay because they are together and understand eachother at last.
Thank you for reading and sorry for my English.
Jaaah from Paris.

reply

Honestly, I never had any idea that there were people with conspiracy theories around this one. To me, since first ever viewing it was crystal clear that the ending is real. If you watch it for what it is, there really shouldn't even be any other explanation. It's again funny to me for so many people to assume zebras when hearing hoof beats.

reply

Amen

reply

I just watched it for the first time last night and agree with you that it is Theory #3.

The main reason I think it is real is that the daughter does the sign for "storm" before Shannon's character sees it approaching. But, he is not present at the scene earlier in the film when Chastain's character teaches her this word in sign language. Therefore, it could not be one of his hallucinations since he didn't have that information.

reply

[deleted]

I don't understand how people are arguing against the fact the ending could be real, for why would a little girl mimick 'tornado' for no reason?
However, in regards to it all being part of schizophrenia there are other indicators bar what we are drawn to, when he sits on the bed doesn't he say to his wife "in a little bit" as if she's just asked him to come to bed? She never though! Or maybe I imagined that, that would be ironic haha!
My own theory of the movie is that it was made to show how quick we are to diagnose, treat, medicate those who could "possibly" need it before we even investigate thoroughly to see if they actually do!

reply

Ultimately, it was designed to be whatever we can imagine it being since it was left ambiguous. I believe the plainest explanation is the right one.

It was another dream, except instead of a dream of fear it was a dream of hope and solidarity.

His fear of being hurt or losing everything (his world) transformed by his wife’s resolve. Her nod meaning “ok, we can do this.” She is standing between him and the storm, with him not against him. That is what he is telling himself in his dream. He is saying she sees it and is not afraid.

It was himself acknowledging a trust within his family. The storm being mental illness and all the components of that life event that they will and are going through.

So much about this movie is about people and the communication between them. Even the choice of a deaf daughter screams a focus on family communication. The different ways we communicate, and the power that is lost and anxiety that is created when we don’t.

One thing I am not certain whether he actually has mental illness in the way his mother did or rather it was the fear of developing her specific illness that contributed to an anxiety disorder. Were those schizophrenic symptoms or panic attacks? Childhood trauma, age, money stress, a deaf child all compounding into a climax, a storm. Lots of things go on in the mind of a thirty something family man.

He started off so focused on whether he had schizophrenia that he didn’t consider perhaps it was something else. His hallucinations shown to us amounted to simple (bangs, pops) auditory hallucinations – applicable to anxiety. Not visual though we are tempted to think so with the birds in a few scenes. His compulsive behavior also applicable to anxiety. The one kicker is that he didn’t make the connection between the irrational doomsday dreams, while at the same time being aware of and fearing he had a severe mental illness. It was easier to accept the world was ending than stand back and put two and two together. It’s a dichotomy in the story.

Overall it is a beautifully complex film within a simple premise. Consider the scene with him in the shelter reading about mental illness. There are so many layers to that one scene. I also loved that we are shown computers (Internet) in the library, yet he goes to the books. It does a great job of showing instead of telling.

It wasn’t a sci-fi or horror. There is nothing supernatural about this film. Nothing that actually establishes or demonstrates a supernatural event or ability. Even the birds were performing a natural function within nature – swarm behavior. Perhaps he had never noticed it occurring but that didn’t make it supernatural.

reply

Yabber blaster, that is a great interpretation. I also like to believe that the last scene is a dream/metaphor.


To the OP, one flaw with your theory is that you didn't account for how much money that beach vacation would have cost. There are many clues showing that this family was nearly broke....not very likely that they would have been able to afford a vacation with all of their problems.

reply

I mostly agree with your interpretation. The last scene is a metaphor for the family deciding to remain a family, acknowledge the illness, and deal with it.

I do argue that he had schizophrenia because the psychiatrist recommended spending time away from his family in an institution. Anxiety and panic attacks are not that uncommon. I've never heard of anyone being institutionalized for them.

I don't think the birds were actually swarming. Remember at the construction site that his coworker didn't see the birds or the storm.

reply

I appreciate the OP put so much thought into what they wrote - but i strongly disagree. If it's real, then it really just craps on the entirety of the rest of the film for a cheap M. Night Shyamalan kind of twist ending… which sadly is what American audiences have been trained to believe is the ONLY way to end a movie .. as evidenced by how many people here are sure it is real.

It's metaphor .. you are tripped up over whether or not they "see" the storm. The director gave you the biggest clue you need .. it's not that they see the storm, but that they see each other. In the opening shot, Curtis is alone against the storm… in the closing shot, he is with his family in the storm. The storm is going to hit no matter what, but throughout the movie, he has faced it alone and all have suffered.. in the end, the are going to face it together, and the message is that THIS is what family is for.

You really want to crap all that away for the sake of a schlock "ohhhhhhh, it was really coming all along!?"

reply

I like this explanation.

The previous dreams was only him, as he felt he was facing his issues alone.

But once he was forced to face reality (open the door by himself during the real storm) he understood they were with him and his illness.

His new dreams reflected the new understanding. That they looked at the camera and she was in the kitchen cooking was us seeing his dream as the family being together.

No way they would take a vacation instead of spending the money on her surgery.

Of course them sitting in the psychiatrist's office may have been a dream as well, since that referenced the taking of the vacation.

reply

It can be construed as another one of his dreams, except in this last dream everyone is on the same page. You are right this breaks the behavior of all previous dreams but maybe that's the point, there is a significant breakthrough and he is no longer alone fighting his demons.

Not differentiating between the real apocalypse and mental illness, I think is a cop out ending. To me it's ambiguous only to be cool or "edgy". It does not add to the movie, it detracts.

Mental illness is the most difficult illness to deal with in a family, there is much ambiguity and no easy answers in a relationship with someone who lives in a different reality through no fault of their own.

If they had Curtis at the end wake up from the beach scene in his bed, it would be clear the potential apocalypse of his mental illness was now something internally he understood as not facing alone. Similar to how his daughters deafness was being handled in a loving way by the family. Throwing in, "it could be the Biblical apocalypse too" completely undermines all of that since he was not mentally ill after all.

The authors contention that the point of the movie was "the're ending up on the same page" is just stupid since a major conflict was whether he was mentally ill or not. The family accepting mental illness vs. accepting he was a prophet of the Apocalypse is two totally different unrelated "ending up on the same page" scenarios.

If a writer is going to tell a story, they need to tell the story after they have made up their mind which story they are telling.

reply

Can't you see? Yes, the major conflict of the film is whether he is sick or not. And the final tells us the answer doesn't matter! This film is about sensations and not about facts!! Visions, dreams, etc, it's just the plot, just the story, the landscape behind! What really matter in this film is sensations. Otherwise the final would be completely different . What the director's said, confirms all of this.

reply