The Death of Stalin (2017) Ending Explained
TL;DR:
The Death of Stalin (2017) is a dark political satire that depicts the chaotic power struggle following Joseph Stalin's sudden death in 1953. The ending sees Nikita Khrushchev (Steve Buscemi) outmaneuvering Lavrentiy Beria (Simon Russell Beale), the ruthless head of the secret police, by rallying the Soviet leadership against him. Beria is arrested, tried in a sham court, and executed, while Khrushchev ascends to power. The film concludes with a chilling reminder of the cyclical nature of tyranny, as Khrushchev's triumph hints at future purges and instability. The tone remains bleakly humorous, underscoring the absurdity and brutality of Soviet politics.
Detailed Explanation of the Ending
The climax of The Death of Stalin revolves around the rapid unraveling of Beria's grip on power. After Stalin's death, Beria attempts to consolidate control by manipulating documents, ordering executions, and leveraging his position as head of the NKVD. However, Khrushchev, recognizing Beria's threat, secretly organizes a coalition against him. The turning point comes when Georgy Zhukov (Jason Isaacs), the powerful military leader, intervenes with armed troops, arresting Beria during a Central Committee meeting. This moment is both shocking and darkly comedic, as Beria-who moments earlier was gloating over his dominance-is suddenly dragged away, screaming in terror. The scene underscores the fragility of power in a regime built on fear.
Beria's downfall is swift and brutal. He is subjected to a kangaroo court where his own tactics of forced confessions and arbitrary justice are turned against him. The other leaders, including Khrushchev, Malenkov, and Molotov, gleefully participate in his humiliation, highlighting the hypocrisy of the system. Beria is executed off-screen, with a gunshot heard in the distance, symbolizing the abrupt end of his reign of terror. His death is not framed as justice but as another act of opportunistic violence, reinforcing the film's theme that the Soviet system perpetuates cruelty regardless of who holds power.
The film's final scenes focus on Khrushchev's rise, but his victory is hollow. As he stands triumphant, the camera lingers on the faces of the other committee members, their expressions a mix of relief and unease. The audience is left to wonder who will be next in the cycle of purges. A particularly haunting moment occurs when Khrushchev casually mentions rewriting history-a nod to the real-life Soviet practice of airbrushing disgraced figures from official records. This closing note emphasizes that while the players change, the oppressive machinery of the state remains intact.
Unresolved Questions & Possible Answers
What happens to the other members of the Central Committee?
- Possible Answer: Historically, many were purged or sidelined by Khrushchev in the years following Stalin's death.
- Alternative Interpretation: The film suggests they will inevitably turn on each other, as paranoia and self-interest dominate.
Does Khrushchev's leadership represent real change?
- Possible Answer: No-the film implies he is just another dictator, albeit less overtly brutal than Stalin or Beria.
- Alternative Interpretation: His cunning hints at a more pragmatic, but still ruthless, style of rule.
What is the fate of Stalin's family, particularly his daughter Svetlana?
- Possible Answer: Historically, she defected to the West, but the film leaves her future ambiguous, symbolizing the instability of all lives under the regime.
Why does Zhukov support Khrushchev?
- Possible Answer: Self-preservation; aligning with the winning side ensures his survival.
- Alternative Interpretation: Personal disdain for Beria's methods, though the film avoids idealizing any character.
Personal Opinion on the Ending & Film
The Death of Stalin masterfully balances satire with horror, using humor to expose the absurdity of authoritarianism. The ending is brilliant in its ambiguity - Khrushchev's win feels like a Pyrrhic victory, with no true heroes or moral resolutions. The film refuses to offer catharsis, instead leaving the audience with a sense of dread about what comes next. Director Armando Iannucci's decision to retain historical accents (like Buscemi's American accent) adds to the surreal tone, reminding viewers that this grotesque farce was real. While some may find the comedy jarring given the subject matter, the film's unflinching portrayal of political brutality makes its message unforgettable.
The final shot of the committee, now rearranged but still dysfunctional, is a perfect summation of the film's thesis: power corrupts, and systems built on violence will inevitably consume their architects. It's a stark, hilarious, and terrifying conclusion to one of the sharpest political satires of the decade.