Blog

SPOILERS! Discusses the two narratives and ending of Anantaram (1987).

I really connected to the first story and got to know Ajayan a lot. I knew a fair amount about him, how he feels about Suma and how he acts around those close to him. However, after watching the second story, I was confused about whether to try and make sense of everything or just enjoy knowing there is more to Ajayan’s story.

The additional information changes the relationships. Whilst I don’t think we are meant to solve it like a riddle, it is interesting to think that maybe we aren’t getting the whole story from either. Maybe he is remembering real events but manipulating some of them to make more sense of his feelings.

I think there are a few points in the film to consider.

Why Two Stories?

In the first half of the film, we learn about Ajayan’s development and how he starts to develop feelings for his foster brother’s wife, Suma. This puts him in a tricky situation. I started to realise that a lot of the story was from Ajayan’s perspective.

He starts again.

We learn more about his childhood, the servants in the house and his feelings towards Nalini. There is some repetition, but the whole tone of the story is different. After initially thinking it would make more sense, it actually raised more questions.

This is what makes the film interesting. Ajayan isn’t simply correcting a few details but giving us a new perspective on his life.

Adoor Gopalakrishnan has explained that the two stories show us that Ajayan is both an extrovert and an introvert, and that they combine to make one person.

This helps us to understand the difference between the two stories. However, it also makes me wonder how reliable both stories are.

As they show us two sides of the same person, maybe the differences are due to how he sees himself. The second story doesn’t necessarily replace the first one but gives us another version of the person telling it.

Suma and Nalini

This is when I started to think that the two stories may have a more personal connection.

It is impossible to ignore that Shobana plays both Suma and Nalini. Although we are introduced to them differently, they both feature in Ajayan’s life and raise similar questions.

I kept thinking that Nalini must be the version of Suma that he wished he had met.

There is a big difference between the two situations. In the first story, Suma is his foster brother’s wife, meaning he is in a tricky situation. However, in the second story, Nalini seems like someone he could have a relationship with.

With her, he can imagine a different outcome, and his feelings come with fewer complications.

This seems intentional. Perhaps he is changing the situation to help himself remember how he felt. I find this interesting as it creates a link between the two stories through his feelings.

Maybe they are two different relationships, but his feelings are the same.

However, I cannot confirm that Nalini is a figment of his imagination. There isn’t enough evidence in the film to prove this. If I were to say she is a fictional character, it would be too simple.

I think his feelings have affected how he portrays the two women. Whilst they may be two different characters in the stories, they seem very closely related in his mind.

Can We Trust Ajayan?

Something to note is that we are only getting Ajayan’s perspective of the stories. We are not getting an unbiased view of what happened. This means it is difficult to know how much of his story is based on his memories and how much comes from his interpretation.

Whilst we may think the second story is the more complete one due to the extra information, this is not necessarily the case. People can have clear memories but still misinterpret what happened, especially when those memories involve feelings.

His feelings, loneliness and childhood affect how he sees those around him. As this is a personal story, there may be bias, whether intentional or not.

I don’t think he is intentionally trying to trick us.

Perhaps he isn’t lying. He may just struggle to make sense of what actually happened and what he wished had happened.

This is why I struggled to decide which story to believe. Whilst they give us different impressions of the same person, they don’t match up. However, they do tell us something about how he sees his life.

The title is often translated as ‘Thereafter’. I like that the title reflects the theme of the story moving forward, but there are parts of his past that are left unresolved.

Every time I started to think I understood more about Ajayan, there was something else to consider. Perhaps this is why I don’t think we should take either story as the final say on his life.

Final Scene – Counting

I found the ending quite significant as it goes back to when Ajayan was a child. We see him counting the steps by the water. He counts the odd numbers when going down and the even numbers when returning.

Whilst it is a simple scene, I wondered why they chose it as the ending. I can see how it could be a reference to the two stories. They are two different sequences but relate to the same person and experience.

However, we don’t get the full picture.

I like that we see him as a child again. We have focused on him as an adult throughout the film, so it gives us a fresh perspective on him. He hasn’t had the relationships and conflicts we have discussed throughout the film.

This made me think about how his memories started. Perhaps we have focused so much on understanding the adult Ajayan that we have forgotten about him as a child.

The ending brings us back to him. This almost makes me think that the two stories are an attempt to understand his life from two different perspectives.

Whilst I cannot confirm that the odd and even numbers mean anything specific, assigning them a definite meaning would go beyond what we can take from the film. However, it is hard to ignore that they could be a reference to the two stories.

I wouldn’t take this as evidence, but it fits with how I have interpreted the film.

I like this ending as it leaves questions. It doesn’t tell us which story to believe or fully explain what happened.

Which Story Is True?

Overall, I don’t think it is particularly useful to know which story is true. Both stories are Ajayan’s attempts to make sense of his life. They show us how he sees himself and those around him from different perspectives. Although the stories may be based on real events, his feelings will have affected how he sees them. This means we can’t easily trust either story.

For example, Suma and Nalini seem to show us two different possibilities for Ajayan, but his feelings are very similar. He could be remembering two different relationships, changing how he sees one experience or mixing his expectations with his memories. The film allows for this.

Whilst I am still slightly unsure about Nalini, I don’t think we need everything to match up. The more I tried to work it out, the less interesting the film became.

I prefer to look at the two stories as parts of Ajayan’s identity rather than spending the whole film trying to work out what is real and what may have been imagined.

This is why I like the ending. There are two different sequences showing two different stories, but they come from one person. Maybe neither story is completely reliable, but they give us a better understanding of Ajayan.

We don’t need to pretend everything matches up.

If you enjoyed this style of storytelling, I would recommend reading my article about the ending of Kaun? (1999). This is a very different film, but I had a similar experience. I went back to previous scenes and questioned how much I actually understood.

I still don’t have a clear answer as to which story is true. Perhaps this is the point. Ajayan can tell his story many times, and each version may tell us just as much about his feelings as it does about what actually happened.

SPOILERS! Discusses the ending and biggest twists in Kaun?

I have a couple of issues with the ending of Kaun? (1999). Once you know who the killer is, it makes you look back at the film with knowing eyes. You pick up on her reactions, phone calls and the fact that she didn’t react too well to knocking at the door. Although some parts do make a bit more sense, there are still many unanswered questions.

Although it’s a great twist to find out she is the serial killer, I don’t feel the most interesting questions are how she was able to trick everyone. I felt the whole time how much of her actions were really planned out. Was she putting on an act all along? Or are we just giving her too much credit because we know the ending?

Why did she seem the obvious victim?

When Sameer first arrives, he doesn’t give much reassurance. He keeps asking for Mr. Malhotra and then Qureshi comes in and claims to be a police inspector with a gun. This means we have more questions.

The woman seems like an innocent character compared to the two men. She is alone, scared and definitely doesn’t want strangers in her house.

This is where I think I got confused. I was so focused on trying to figure out why the men were there that I didn’t really consider that she could be hiding something.

When we find out about the serial killer in the news, we start looking for someone who fits the image of a dangerous stranger. Sameer and Qureshi are much more obvious choices.

However, it doesn’t need to be a perfectly hidden plot twist. All it needs to do is make us look elsewhere.

Were her actions planned?

This one is a bit tricky!

Once we know who the killer is, it’s easy to look back at her actions and assume she was faking them. Her scared expressions, hesitations and odd reactions all seem like they were planned.

However, was this really the case?

Although she may have used the situation to her advantage once the men started acting suspiciously, I don’t feel confident that she planned every moment that happened that night.

Actually, I think this is a better interpretation. She could have been a dangerous person but still reacted unpredictably. She doesn’t need to be the perfect criminal.

It also makes Urmila Matondkar’s acting more interesting. When I watched the film without knowing the ending, I interpreted her expressions a certain way. Once I knew the ending, I was looking for signs she was hiding something. However, I’m not sure if they were there.

The phone

One thing I noticed much more when I watched the film again was the phone.

She seems to be speaking to her mother throughout the night. Whilst this seems like a natural reaction to being scared, Sameer finds out that the phone line was disconnected.

This is a very specific detail.

When she is tidying up after the murders, she still pretends to be using the phone. This made me question if she was faking the phone calls as well.

Who was she speaking to?

This is one of the best hints. It makes us rethink an actual action. She may have wanted the men to think she had someone outside of the house to contact. This makes her look like an average woman wanting help.

It almost seems like an easy thing to do. Phone calls are something very common, so I didn’t really pay attention to it. However, once I knew the ending, it became one of the details I remembered.

Did she know what would happen when the men arrived?

I don’t feel like she had everything planned.

Sameer and Qureshi have brought their own issues into the house. They both have different stories and intentions, and neither seems very easy to deal with. Although she ends up killing them, this doesn’t mean she had everything planned.

It’s important to note the difference between someone who has planned everything and someone who can take advantage of situations.

I think she is more of the latter. She seems to be able to adapt to the situation. This could be scarier as you don’t think she has planned everything.

Also, most of the film takes place in the house. We don’t really know much about her life outside of it and the film doesn’t fully explain her motivations. Whilst I would have liked to know a bit more, it makes sense that they don’t tell us everything.

Just because we know who she is doesn’t mean we know everything.

Why does the last visitor matter?

Probably my favourite part of the ending is the final bell.

After she has sorted out the bodies and tidied up, another visitor arrives looking for Mr. Malhotra. This is almost exactly the same situation as the beginning.

However, we know what is in store…

We cannot be 100% sure the visitor will be killed, but the film doesn’t show us what happens after she smiles. However, it does seem like she is going to repeat her process.

What also stood out to me was that she looked directly at the camera. We have spent almost the whole film seeing her through the eyes of the other characters.

Her smile seemed like an acknowledgment. Finally, we know the truth and she is completely comfortable with it. Perhaps she knows how easily we were tricked.

The visitor has no knowledge. He is about to walk into what seems like a normal house.

What should we take from the ending of Kaun? (1999)?

Overall, I don’t feel like there is enough information given to fully explain why she made the decisions she did. We know she is the killer and the phone shows she was making herself look like she was in a fake situation. However, I wouldn’t make the assumption that everything she did was planned.

I think she is much better at taking advantage of people’s assumptions. Both Sameer and Qureshi gave us plenty of reasons to be suspicious and she distracted us.

The ending made me question my own actions. I was looking for a dangerous man and she didn’t really have to do much to keep me distracted.

As for the final visitor, I’m still questioning whether he is about to become another victim or whether they just want us to imagine.

Either way, I wouldn’t be very comfortable opening the door.

SPOILERS! Discusses the ending and biggest twists in Andhadhun.

My issue with the ending to Andhadhun is that it does leave me a little confused. However, it does leave you with a lot to consider. A walking stick, an empty can and a subtle movement. From the Andhadhun ending explained perspective, this makes me question everything Akash has told us. I think from the ending and how everything plays out, we can assume he may have gotten his sight back, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

Akash meets Sophie two years after the main events and tells her how he managed to survive. However, I wasn’t fully convinced by his story. Whilst it isn’t impossible to believe, Akash knows how to manipulate people and tell them what they want to hear. He has done it before, so why should we believe him?

What happens at the end?

Akash meets Sophie in Europe whilst playing music. He tells her that Dr Swami took him and Simi away in a car. Simi then killed Dr Swami. Later, Simi dies due to an accident involving a rabbit.

Akash says he survived by not taking up the opportunity to get his sight back via a transplant using Simi’s corneas. He is now living his life and playing music.

This does sound like a good explanation, however…

We don’t actually see any of this happen. We only hear it from Akash’s perspective. This is important as nearly everyone has something to hide in this film. I was left questioning whether he was telling Sophie the truth or what he wanted her to believe.

Not necessarily a lie, but I just couldn’t fully believe it.

Does Akash really have his sight back?

As Akash walks away, he is holding a walking stick with a rabbit engraved on it. He then hits the can out of his way.

My first thought was that he did give himself away. The movement looks very intentional, and it is hard not to link it to his sight. After everything we have seen him do throughout the film, this small movement makes me suspicious.

However, a blind person can use a walking stick to find things and avoid obstacles. This doesn’t prove he can see.

If I had no prior knowledge of what had happened, I probably wouldn’t have assumed he had given himself away.

Overall, I don’t think the can proves anything. It leads you to think one thing, but then you start questioning yourself.

Did he really take up the offer?

This is the theory that I struggle with the most.

Earlier in the film, Dr Swami offers Akash the chance to get his sight back. However, it involves Simi’s corneas in a transplant. This makes Akash seem reluctant.

However, maybe he changed his mind?

If he did take up the offer, then this makes the ending quite dark. He could have gotten his sight back and continued to pretend to be blind.

This makes me feel a little uncomfortable. His initial lie was to help his music career, however, it becomes a survival tactic. If he is still pretending to be blind at the end, he hasn’t really changed his ways; he has just become more cautious.

Just because he survived doesn’t mean he has become a better person. Throughout the film, he has tried to get out of situations that could put him in danger. Whether he has a clear conscience is questionable.

However, there is a big issue with this theory. We never actually see him having the transplant. It could be possible, but we aren’t given any confirmation.

Why is the rabbit mentioned?

The rabbit is mentioned early on in the film. Then again when Akash is telling Sophie how Simi died. Finally, it appears again as the engraving on his walking stick.

I noticed this, however, I don’t think it gives us a straightforward answer. It makes the beginning and end link together in a more eerie way.

The rabbit plays a key role in how Akash survived, according to him. It gives his story a bizarre twist. However, we are left wondering whether he was truthful with Sophie, especially as the rabbit appears again.

Maybe the rabbit symbolises luck. Something unexpected happened, changing his fate and giving him a second chance at life.

However, I prefer to think it carries a slightly less positive message. It reminds us that we are still seeing the ending from Akash’s perspective. We don’t know what really happened, and this is what makes the ending stick with us.

The director has mentioned that the ending was intentionally left open. He has also discussed the rabbit and how it links to the idea of a blind animal being hunted. His comments in this interview with Scroll offer an interesting insight. I think this is a more believable explanation than treating the rabbit as a simple clue about Akash’s eyesight.

Is he lying to Sophie?

I think he is probably hiding something. However, I’m not sure everything he said was a lie.

Akash tells Sophie that he survived, didn’t take advantage of Simi’s death and is back to playing music. Overall, he looks like a pretty good guy.

If he did get his sight back, pretending to still be blind would help him avoid questions. He could keep his secret and appear as though he hadn’t sacrificed someone to regain his eyesight.

However, it could be that he is still blind. He may have come to terms with what happened and found a way to carry on playing. The movement could just be a normal action, and we are overanalysing it.

I don’t want to rule this out just because the other theory is more exciting. There are reasons to doubt Akash throughout the film, but nothing proves he is lying to Sophie.

Overall, I think this makes me question whether we have become too much like the other characters in the film. We are so determined to work out what Akash is doing that we assume everything he does must mean something.

What did the director mean?

Whilst I don’t think we should take what the director says as fact, his comments do help. They explain why the film leaves us with no clear answers.

In the interview with Scroll, Raghavan discusses the symbolism throughout the film, including the rabbit and the idea of a blind animal being hunted. This connects with how Akash spends the film trying to escape people who have power over him.

However, knowing what the image means doesn’t necessarily tell us whether Akash has regained his sight.

This is what makes the ending enjoyable. We can consider what the filmmaker intended without assuming that his comments settle every question.

So, what does the ending really mean?

My favourite theory is that Akash has regained his sight and chosen to continue pretending. The movement with the can supports this, and we know from his past that he isn’t always trustworthy. However, that still doesn’t make it certain.

We can’t be completely sure from the film. He could still be blind, and the movement with the walking stick might be exactly what it appears to be. We are probably overanalysing it.

Overall, I think the Andhadhun ending explained debate comes down to whether Akash has changed or whether he has simply become better at controlling what others think of him.

I think it’s the latter. It brings his story full circle, and it makes his survival feel less like a happy ending. It feels as though he is still putting on a carefully planned performance.

As for the can… I still think he could see it, but I can’t prove it.