The Dinner (2017) Ending Explained
tl;dr: The Dinner (2017), directed by Oren Moverman, is a tense psychological drama about two couples who meet for dinner to discuss how to handle their teenage sons' involvement in a horrific crime. The ending reveals their moral compromises, fractured relationships, and the devastating consequences of their choices. The film concludes with no clear resolution, leaving the audience to grapple with questions of guilt, privilege, and the lengths parents will go to protect their children.
Detailed Explanation of the Ending:
The climax of The Dinner occurs when the two couples - Stan and Barbara Lohman (Richard Gere and Rebecca Hall) and Paul and Claire Lohman (Steve Coogan and Laura Linney)—finally confront the truth about their sons' involvement in the murder of a homeless woman. After hours of tense conversation, evasion, and psychological manipulation, it becomes clear that Paul and Claire are willing to protect their son at any cost, even if it means lying, bribing witnesses, or destroying evidence. Stan, a politician running for governor, initially wants to do the "right thing" by turning their sons in, but his moral stance crumbles under pressure. Barbara, who seems emotionally fragile, ultimately sides with Claire, revealing the deep-seated dysfunction within both families. The film ends with the parents choosing to cover up the crime, ensuring their sons face no legal consequences.
Unresolved Questions & Possible Answers:
1. Do the boys ever face justice for their crime?
- Possible Answer: No-the parents' decision to protect them suggests they will never be held accountable.
- Alternative Interpretation: The film implies that their guilt will haunt them, becoming a form of internal punishment.
What happens to Stan's political career?
- Possible Answer: He likely wins the election, as his complicity in the cover-up proves he prioritizes image over morality.
- Alternative Interpretation: The scandal eventually surfaces, ruining his reputation.
How does Paul's mental health deteriorate after this?
- Possible Answer: His already unstable psyche worsens, leading to further self-destruction.
- Alternative Interpretation: He rationalizes his actions, becoming even more cynical.
Does Claire's ruthlessness come from past trauma?
- Possible Answer: Yes-her cold pragmatism suggests deep-seated psychological damage.
- Alternative Interpretation: She was always morally bankrupt, using her son's actions as an excuse.
Is there any redemption for these characters?
- Possible Answer: No-the film suggests they are irredeemable, trapped in cycles of denial and selfishness.
- Alternative Interpretation: The ambiguity leaves room for future moral reckoning, though unlikely.
Personal Opinion on the Ending & Film:
The Dinner is a brutal examination of moral decay, privilege, and parental amorality. The ending is deliberately unsatisfying, refusing to offer catharsis or justice, which makes it both frustrating and effective. The film forces the audience to sit with the discomfort of its characters' choices, making it a challenging but thought-provoking experience. Steve Coogan's performance as Paul is particularly gripping, embodying a man whose intellectual arrogance and mental instability make him both pitiable and detestable. The lack of resolution underscores the film's central theme: some moral dilemmas have no clean answers, and the price of protecting the guilty is often the corruption of the protectors.
Final Thoughts:
While The Dinner is not an easy watch, its unflinching look at ethical compromise and familial betrayal makes it a compelling drama. The ending lingers, forcing viewers to question what they would do in a similar situation. The film's power lies in its refusal to provide closure, leaving the audience to wrestle with the uncomfortable reality that, in the real world, justice is often sacrificed for self-preservation.