Essays, Not Rants! 157: On Finales
So Parks and Recreation
ended a few weeks ago bringing an end to a particularly great show that I got into far too late
. The finale was especially wonderful, elegantly tying a bow on seven years of stories.
Rather than having some big hoorah, though, the episode has the former Parks Department take on an utterly inconsequential task (getting a swing in a park fixed) before going their separate ways. With the whole season serving as an effective wrap up to the current proceedings, there was no need for there to be a big artificially succinct Final Big Moment.
makes fixing the dumb swing matter by flashing forward with each character to see where they are in the future.Parks
is far from the first; How I Met Your Mother
did it in their finale first year. I’ve talked about my many qualms
with it narratively, but it was a structurally solid technique. We got some closure on characters and know what Ted ended up doing, even if it went against everything that’d been built up thus far. But Parks
goes further and arguably does it better by going to several different spots in the future for each main character (and even some lesser ones). We find out many of the key points events happens to them in the years afterwards. Some of their bigger decisions are prefaced with vignettes showing off key character moments and their growth. At the end of it all there’s this strong sense of resolution.
If anything, Parks
errs on telling us almost too much. It seems nearly as if we know everything
that happens to these characters in the future. Little is left to the imagination, we know
Andy and April have kids, we know
Ron ends up happily in charge of a National Park, and we know
that either Leslie or Ben became president. By the time the finale ends we’re left knowing that we’ve heard just about all the stories there is to tell about these people.
Which makes me wonder what we want out of a finale to a show. There’s something fun about an ending that implies the adventure continues: look at Serenity
(effectively the finale to Firefly
) which has since spawned a couple comics, or even Chuck
which remains open-ended enough for more to happen. But an ending like Lost's
which firmly closes the door on anything else isn’t bad either. So what makes an ending satisfying?
I think closure is what really matters. The ending of Serenity
left a few balls up in the air while still resolving some subplots, like Simon and Kaylee’s romance and what happened to River. But even though we knew Mal wasn’t quite out of the woods and that the crew as a whole were a little worse for the wear, we’ve got this sense of finality. This
adventure is over; even if there’s more to come, for now the major issues are resolved.What’s important is that the ending fits the story
works so well because the show has always been bittersweet. Lost
is fundamentally mythic and Chuck
was always about a romance and family. Parks’
fits because the show’s format has always been a little meta, so showing what happens ten to forty years down the line isn’t out of place. Lost
couldn’t have Parks’
ending and it couldn't be the other way round either.
It’s hard to get endings right. Don Quixote’s
ending allowed for some guy to write a sequel, so when Cervantes wrote an actual
sequel he had Don Quixote die at the end so no one would write another allowing him to have the
final word on his knight errant. How I Met Your Mother
undid (at least) a season’s worth of character development with its finale so even though we knew what happened to the characters we felt a little cheated out of our investment. Parks and Recreation
had its cake and ate it too; we know that things work out for everyone in their own way, and we’re okay with that. We’re invited to fill in the blanks (is Leslie or
Ben president?), but we’re told things are alright. And that’s good enough.