David Koepp, the screenwriter of Disclosure Day, has defended the ending of Steven Spielberg’s new film, which has irked some viewers.
Even though Disclosure Day surpassed expectations by opening with $44 million at the domestic box office, Spielberg’s latest feature appears to be dividing audiences, just as many predicted. Critics have largely given it a positive reception (a score of 74 out of 100 on Metacritic), but audiences seem less thrilled so far (5.1/10 on Metacritic). At the same time, with its aliens and whistleblowers premise, the director and screenwriter David Koepp took some risks, particularly in the storytelling and, more specifically, in the ending.
The screenwriter, reuniting with the filmmaker for the first time since Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, took pains to explain this choice, and defend it at the same time. So, heads up, since from here on out we’ll spoil everything.
THE FINAL JUDGMENT
At the end of Disclosure Day, Margaret and Daniel manage to reveal the secret documents to the entire world, and also meet In Vivo 17, an alien released years earlier by Hugo Wakefield (Colman Domingo). At that moment, the alien speaks to Daniel and he repeats it into Margaret’s ear, who steps in front of the camera to share it with the viewers.
She then asks everyone to listen, as the end credits are about to roll. That ending was therefore poised to divide, or frustrate viewers who wanted to know the details of the famous message.
David Koepp spoke with several outlets, notably Den of Geek, and according to him, the audience has all the information necessary to grasp its full meaning:
“The last line of the script was already in my very first draft. As I was writing and approaching the ending, I knew she [Emily Blunt] was going to turn toward the camera. So I wanted her to say something, and I wrote the first word of the sentence because I found it to be very meaningful. She says ‘Listen,’ because the space boy has just told us a lot of interesting things, and she says: ‘Listen to one another,’ which is the heart of the message.”
The writer also spoke with Entertainment Weekly:
“It seemed logical. I think the film’s goal is to disseminate the information and reveal the truth. So we wanted to stay true to that and avoid deviating from our initial objective. The mission of the film wasn’t to find out whether aliens can dance, but rather whether the information has been disseminated. That’s where we set the boundary.”
The actor Josh O’Connor also shared his take with Entertainment Weekly:
“I think Steven himself would say the film’s ending is open to interpretation, and I hope audiences bring their own feelings and theories, which they can relate to their lives and experiences as they see fit… In the U.K., the U.S., and across Europe, we’re living through a period of change where, in my view, immigrants and other groups are often made scapegoats. There’s often a real lack of understanding, a lack of humanity in the way people talk to one another, in listening to communities and individuals. And to me, that’s what the ending of the film is about.”
These discussions echo last year’s debates around House of Dynamite, which also chose to leave the central question at the heart of its plot unresolved. But in the case of Disclosure Day, the film (and Spielberg’s filmography) leaves enough clues scattered throughout for the audience to infer the message themselves, not as enigmatic as one might think. All through the film, the trajectory points toward a benevolent form of life toward humanity, toward learning or relearning how to communicate, to consider the other, and to not fear the unknown—whether among the heavens or on Earth.
So we know, at least in broad strokes, what Emily Blunt’s character is about to tell the world; to say it aloud would have merely spelled out what the film spent more than two hours showing us.
