Argobot Posted May 14, 2015 Yeah, it's definitely left ambiguous but I assume it was cannibalism. The set up was just too involved for it to have been something simple as murder. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BobbyBesar Posted May 14, 2015 I wonder if there's an intentional parallel between the cannibalism aspect being pointedly left out of the story, and what Don pointedly left out of his own story. And whether the implication is that everybody at the table recognizes the horrors that are unsaid in both cases. Seems like a bit of a reach though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gormongous Posted May 14, 2015 I assumed that it was about cannibalism as well because one of the first details he gives is that they were starving and how he later describes one of the soldiers as 'skin and bones' or something like that. Maybe the story was supposed to be veiled though? Yeah, it's definitely left ambiguous but I assume it was cannibalism. The set up was just too involved for it to have been something simple as murder. Okay, reading an account of the scene in this IMDB thread, of all places, I'm convinced that the ambiguity is intentional. It shouldn't take two hours for four men to dig a pit and get shot, but it's surprisingly quick for four men to get carved up and eaten. One of the two happened, but neither is presented in an entirely plausible way, which leads me to lean towards the darker outcome. Anyway, like another commenter said: One of the themes of the episode was cannibalism, people feeding on others. Duck fed on Pete, Betty on herself, Andy on Don, Floyd on Germans. I won't even mention what was for dessert (girl in cake). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Argobot Posted May 14, 2015 I like the theme of feeding off others, both literally and figuratively, if only because it supports the cannibalism theory! Also, Weiner has a great interview with the NY Times today about how little he cares what the audience wants from the finale and it's all kinds of wonderful: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/arts/television/matthew-weiner-the-creator-of-mad-men-prepares-for-another-fade-to-black.html?ref=arts&smid=tw-nytimes Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mangela Lansbury Posted May 14, 2015 Yeah, it's definitely left ambiguous but I assume it was cannibalism. The set up was just too involved for it to have been something simple as murder. It wasn't ambiguous at all to me. The Germans were malnourished and stranded and they couldn't feed and clothe them, so they made them dig their own graves and murdered them. It's a little fake Holocausty and gross in a hokey and kind of expected way. It was the least interesting part of the episode for me, so maybe I just tuned out and missed something. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Woodfella Posted May 14, 2015 How did everyone read the WWII vet's story about the Germans. I assumed he ate them but other reactions I've read online make it sound like he only killed the Germans. I thought the implication was that they ate them too. I need to watch it again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
melmer Posted May 18, 2015 I took it as they killed them as they wouldn't be able to keep them as prisoners and feed them as they were starving. They couldn't share what little food they had with prisoners. That final episode was incredible. I couldn't wait for the episode thread Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
antikewl Posted May 18, 2015 Where's the new episode thread? I HAVE OPINIONS! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
antikewl Posted May 18, 2015 Also, yes, I assumed cannibalism. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
