The Plague Movie Ending Explained

The American Dream is a pseudo-incentive to keep working, despite the bleak economy, unsurvivable minimum wage, class division, capitalist authority, and never-ending debts. James Truslow Adams, the writer who coined the term “American Dream” in 1931, proposes a vision for the Americans as–

“That dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement.”

With that collective optimism, people worked, but only a select few bore the fruits. Ultimately it led to the great depression in 1929, where lives were less worthy than a loaf of bread.

The Grapes of Wrath, The 1939 novel by John Steinbeck, narrates the horrors of the great depression in America, where families were uprooted from their homes in the pursuit of the American dream in California, only to realize the harsh realities of the haves and the haves not.

The Plague, a 2006 movie written and directed by Hal Masonberg, harps on the elements of American society through the eyes of children. Here is one interpretation of the ambiguous ending–

The Plague: Plot Summary

The movie begins in 1983 with David waking up his 9-year-old kid, Eric, for school. Even after numerous calls, Eric does not respond; David goes to him frustratingly to wake him up, only to find his kid unconscious and foaming from the mouth. He rushes him to the hospital only to realize the horrifying reality that every kid in the city is experiencing the same thing. But an even more bizarre issue was that the epidemic affected only the kids below nine. This happened every generation, where kids suffered through the undetermined “plague.”

Cut to a decade later when the kids are teenagers but still in a catatonic stage. At the same time, some children are kept in the shut-down school in a comatose state, where they experience seizures twice, same time every day. Dedicated nurses and medical professionals monitor the children whose parents abandoned them because it is below their means. However, David still takes care of Eric at their home.

The year is now 1993, and Tom Russel is back in town after being arrested for a crime. He encounters his ex-girlfriend Jean, who works for the town’s police department. Clearly, both ended their relationship on sour terms. David takes in Tom when he can’t find a place to live.

But one day, a nurse on her usual rounds enters a terrifying nightmare as all the comatose kids suddenly woke up and stare her down. Before she could make a sound, she was viciously attacked. Back in David’s house, Tom tries to find Eric, but he is missing from his room. Tom hurriedly checks up on David, but to his horror, David is bludgeoned to death with his face wholly annihilated.

Turns out all the kids have woken up in a catatonic state but are now out for the blood of all the adults in the town. The rest of the movie is just a “zombie-like” chase and escape with the main adult gang that includes– Tom, Tom’s friend Sam, Jean, Kip, and Claire.

Kip and Claire are interesting characters because they narrowly escaped the plague since they were just a few days older than 9. And they can only survive so far because the raging children cannot distinguish them as adults and consider both as their own kind.

So after all the plot-plot, the movie ends with only two main adults remaining– Jean and Tom. Tom is the final one who confronts the children who have surrounded them. He whispers to Jean to remember some of her happiest memories and closes her eyes. He then tells the children that “he is ready.” But when Jean opens her eyes, she is the only one present there.

Why Was It Called The Plague?

So basically, the movie suggests that the future generation is affected due to the actions of the present age. The Plague refers to the degrading society, and children are at the wrath of it. In the movie, these kids seem to be taking the adults’ souls as a symbol that they have sold their dignity to modern slavery.

The plague might also reference the demoralized, below-the-means lifestyle the next generation would have to endure.

There can be several interpretations of this contagion metaphor. Let us know what you think in the comments section below.

What Was The Significance Of ‘The Grapes Of Wrath’ Book

The book can be seen many times throughout the movie– once when David is reading it, then Tom, and in the final scene when Jean is reading the book on her porch.

In 1987, America went through Black Monday, another reflection of the Great Depression. The book might signify the repeating history and how we are ruining the lives of our future generation as a society.

The movie takes place around that timeline, portraying the aftermath of an economic downfall.

The Plague Movie Ending Explained

The movie harps on several religious implications. The Grapes of Wrath book also has a Christian subtext. In one scene, we see the pastor telling the children that he is not yet ready. This infers that he knew something that no one else knew. When he handed over his diary to Tom, the last entry baffled him. Tom could not interpret how to stop these children. One of the excerpts said–

“He went out in the wilderness to find his own soul, and he found he didn’t have no soul that was his. He says he found that he got just a little piece of a great big soul. He says the wilderness ain’t no good cause his little piece of a soul isn’t no good unless it was with the rest and was whole.”

Tom tries to figure out what the last entry means when epiphany strikes him that the children are mirroring emotions as the adults would show them.

That is why he asked Jean to channel her innermost optimism toward the future so that the children trust her.

By the movie’s end, we see the children surround Jean’s house, and she simply goes back in, leaving her door open. It is an indication that the children can trust her.

The inference is not apparent, but it’s fair to say that the movie might want to warn the adults to mend their ways, or else the future would be dystopian or apocalyptic.

What are your interpretations of the ending? Do you think the producer, Clive Barker, haphazardly released the movie outside the director’s vision?

Is there a profound meaning behind the film? Let us know in the comments section below.