The Ending Of The Platform Explained
video description
1) The girl could not have survived unattended, that is made clear by the displays of violence. She died long ago.
2) Her mother lost her marbles after losing her. Hence her sporadic behaviour.
3) The whole movie displays hallucinations to prepare you for the final one: The discovery of a girl on floor 300. Likely a body which led to hysteria.
4) The likely ending seems that the panacotta remained on the platform and reached the kitchen. At which point a self-absorbed and perfectionist executive chef failed to see 'the message' and simply saw a marginally damaged dish with a hair on it.
5) A clear message would have been total fasting or near that, and the majority of the food sent back up. A clearer message for Mr Head Chef up there too focused on the little things.
Date: 2020-07-14
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 9
yaman
Maybe the way you interpret the ending; whether the child (hope) was actually there and the hero (you) died believing that your death wasn't in vain and that things would change since the message was sent, or the child (hope) was an illusion and your death was in vain because the dish (the message) you protected ends up going to the top and misinterpreted and in the end making no actual difference but just a mere change (firing the cook) in the system which looks like you've dealt with the cause of the problem while the actual problem was much deeper and is still the same. Maybe the ending is just a self reflection, whichever you choose to believe is your actual view on society.
reply
Maybe the way you interpret the ending; whether the child (hope) was actually there and the hero (you) died believing that your death wasn't in vain and that things would change since the message was sent, or the child (hope) was an illusion and your death was in vain because the dish (the message) you protected ends up going to the top and misinterpreted and in the end making no actual difference but just a mere change (firing the cook) in the system which looks like you've dealt with the cause of the problem while the actual problem was much deeper and is still the same. Maybe the ending is just a self reflection, whichever you choose to believe is your actual view on society.
reply
ava
i dont understand the child being a part of the message but i think that they tried saving the dessert as a way to escape and get out of the situation their in, by protecting it they think that the chefs will understand and stop the system or whatever. but the chefs dont see it as a sign, they think no one ate it because theres a hair in it while in reality people at the bottom levels wouldve killed for that food even if it had a million hairs in it. the rich privileged ones did not understand the struggle of the poor ones and did not understand the message, therefore the protagonist died and everything continued in the horrendous way it was.
reply
i dont understand the child being a part of the message but i think that they tried saving the dessert as a way to escape and get out of the situation their in, by protecting it they think that the chefs will understand and stop the system or whatever. but the chefs dont see it as a sign, they think no one ate it because theres a hair in it while in reality people at the bottom levels wouldve killed for that food even if it had a million hairs in it. the rich privileged ones did not understand the struggle of the poor ones and did not understand the message, therefore the protagonist died and everything continued in the horrendous way it was.
reply
abhishek
The truth is there is no child and the protagonist dies. In the middle of the film there is a scene where the cook finds a dessert that has not been eaten because of a hair in there, but that's not true, that's the dessert that's left on the last floor by the protagonist before dying, and it has not been eaten because he protected it. So he died for nothing because the ones on floor 0 didn't understand the message. This is right because how otherwise the child could have survived at level 333 for a month without food. The protagonist was delusional about the child in the same way as the old man and cancer lady.
reply
The truth is there is no child and the protagonist dies. In the middle of the film there is a scene where the cook finds a dessert that has not been eaten because of a hair in there, but that's not true, that's the dessert that's left on the last floor by the protagonist before dying, and it has not been eaten because he protected it. So he died for nothing because the ones on floor 0 didn't understand the message. This is right because how otherwise the child could have survived at level 333 for a month without food. The protagonist was delusional about the child in the same way as the old man and cancer lady.
reply
NiCoOo
It bugs me how the little girl got in with her mom in the first place. Could it be possible that imoguiri granded miharu the wish and felt guilty plus the cancer that's why she chose to end her life in the cell. I know that in the film she didn't mention this but it's very plausible right? some argued that the little girl doesn't exist but baharat saw it too which means it's not goreng's illusion it's real. I guess in the end it's all up to viewer's interpretation
reply
It bugs me how the little girl got in with her mom in the first place. Could it be possible that imoguiri granded miharu the wish and felt guilty plus the cancer that's why she chose to end her life in the cell. I know that in the film she didn't mention this but it's very plausible right? some argued that the little girl doesn't exist but baharat saw it too which means it's not goreng's illusion it's real. I guess in the end it's all up to viewer's interpretation
reply
ChaZ-E
The child is a metaphor of _hope_. Notice the protagonist looking up when he's with the child, he sees a ray (of hope) and not the platform/tunnel. He talking with the (dead) old man further confirms he was hallucinating.
The dessert (The Message) went up and was never understood by the chefs (Admin team) as they couldn't interpret it, as the Admin is rich and they can never understand the poor. Govt. needs to get in the shoes of poor.
reply
The child is a metaphor of _hope_. Notice the protagonist looking up when he's with the child, he sees a ray (of hope) and not the platform/tunnel. He talking with the (dead) old man further confirms he was hallucinating.
The dessert (The Message) went up and was never understood by the chefs (Admin team) as they couldn't interpret it, as the Admin is rich and they can never understand the poor. Govt. needs to get in the shoes of poor.
reply
BryceGTV
It sucks! I hate movies that end with no resolution! I know its trying to artistic and deep but I am over it. In the end the movie had no point. Now I just want to forget that I even saw it. It sucks be cause the movie was awesome until it just stopped. I have a personal rule that I can't give a movie without a resolution anything higher than 1star. An hour and a half wasted!
reply
It sucks! I hate movies that end with no resolution! I know its trying to artistic and deep but I am over it. In the end the movie had no point. Now I just want to forget that I even saw it. It sucks be cause the movie was awesome until it just stopped. I have a personal rule that I can't give a movie without a resolution anything higher than 1star. An hour and a half wasted!
reply
benjamin
The fact that there's so many interpretations means it's done it's job which is to provoke us into finally thinking what the hell are we living for? It forces us to think of everyday injustices that we ignore just to protect what little we have. To remind us we are NEVER doing anything for ourselves. Someone else is benefitting from our struggles.
reply
The fact that there's so many interpretations means it's done it's job which is to provoke us into finally thinking what the hell are we living for? It forces us to think of everyday injustices that we ignore just to protect what little we have. To remind us we are NEVER doing anything for ourselves. Someone else is benefitting from our struggles.
reply
TheAaronmcmahon11
Everyone in America does eat. Anyone can apply for EBT or Food Stamps. It's third world countries that actually deal with this. Sure the movie could be a metaphor for whatever the viewer interprets. But in America, even those at the very bottom get food. We are very blessed to live here.
reply
Everyone in America does eat. Anyone can apply for EBT or Food Stamps. It's third world countries that actually deal with this. Sure the movie could be a metaphor for whatever the viewer interprets. But in America, even those at the very bottom get food. We are very blessed to live here.
reply
For
original film. man. the movie had nothing to do with netflix until netflix brough the rights for it. It is not a a netflix original film. Indeed, as 99% of spanish movies, it was paid by spaniard's taxes. Movie had gathered many prizes already before netflix bought it. hardly a netflix original film.
reply
original film. man. the movie had nothing to do with netflix until netflix brough the rights for it. It is not a a netflix original film. Indeed, as 99% of spanish movies, it was paid by spaniard's taxes. Movie had gathered many prizes already before netflix bought it. hardly a netflix original film.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
