Waiting for the Barbarians Ending Explained
TL;DR:
Waiting for the Barbarians (2019), based on J.M. Coetzee's novel, ends with the Magistrate (Mark Rylance) abandoned and broken after his futile attempts to resist the Empire's cruelty toward the indigenous "Barbarians." The film concludes with him alone in the snow, symbolizing his moral isolation and the Empire's inevitable collapse under its own corruption. The ambiguous ending leaves questions about the fate of the Barbarians, the Empire's future, and whether the Magistrate's small acts of defiance mattered. The film critiques colonialism, violence, and the futility of resistance in the face of overwhelming oppression.
Detailed Explanation of the Ending:
The ending of Waiting for the Barbarians is a haunting meditation on power, guilt, and the cyclical nature of oppression. After the Magistrate tries to help a Barbarian woman (Johnny Depp's Colonel Joll had tortured her) and challenges the Empire's brutality, he is imprisoned, humiliated, and ultimately discarded. In the final scenes, he is left alone in the frozen outpost, watching as the Empire's soldiers retreat-not because they've defeated the Barbarians, but because their paranoia and violence have rendered the land uninhabitable even for them. The Magistrate, now a ghost of his former self, stares into the distance, suggesting his realization that the Empire's cruelty is its own undoing.
The film's conclusion is deeply symbolic. The Magistrate's isolation mirrors his moral awakening-he is too compassionate for the Empire but too complicit to fully join the Barbarians. The snow-covered landscape represents both purity and desolation, underscoring the idea that the Empire's reign has left nothing but ruin. The Barbarians, who were always portrayed as an ambiguous, almost mythical threat, never arrive in force, revealing that the real "barbarians" were the colonizers themselves. The Magistrate's final moments are steeped in irony: he spent the movie waiting for an external threat, only to realize the threat was internal all along.
Unresolved Questions:
1. What happens to the Barbarians?
- The film implies they survive and outlast the Empire, but their future is uncertain.
- They may reclaim their land or simply vanish into myth, as the Empire's fear of them was always exaggerated.
Does the Empire collapse?
- The soldiers' retreat suggests its decline, but the film doesn't confirm its total fall.
- The cycle of violence may continue elsewhere, as empires rarely die quietly.
Was the Magistrate's resistance meaningful?
- His actions were futile in the short term but may have planted seeds of doubt in others.
- His suffering could be seen as a necessary step toward moral clarity, even if it changed nothing.
Personal Opinion:
The ending is a powerful, if bleak, commentary on the inevitability of colonial failure and the loneliness of moral courage. Rylance's performance elevates the Magistrate's despair into something transcendent, making his fate deeply moving. However, the film's pacing and abstract symbolism might frustrate viewers seeking closure. I admire its refusal to offer easy answers-it's a movie that lingers, forcing you to sit with its uncomfortable truths. While not a traditionally satisfying conclusion, it's one that feels true to the novel's spirit and the harsh realities of history.
Final Thoughts:
Waiting for the Barbarians doesn't provide a heroic resolution because its message is that heroism is often futile in systems built on oppression. The Magistrate's ending-alone, freezing, but perhaps finally free of illusions-is the only honest conclusion possible. The film's greatness lies in its refusal to soften the blow, leaving the audience as unsettled as its protagonist. It's a challenging watch, but its themes of complicity and resistance resonate long after the credits roll.