A few days ago, I posted a review of that cult classic of Christmas horror, Krampus, an exploitation of the recently popular Austrian Advent bogeyman. As I said before, I think the movie is a missed opportunity, a chance to delve into some intriguing lore that instead sticks to the familiar conventions of B-grade horror movies.
The ending of the film, however, is wonderfully ambiguous, so much so that it has led to some online arguments. I refrained from discussing the ending in my review, but I’d like to do so now. I will give the customary spoiler warning, though I will add that nothing I’m about to describe will surprise you.
Synopsis
At the movie’s climax, young Max (Emjay Anthony) faces Krampus after monsters have devoured or dragged away the rest of his family. Max finds Krampus reveling with his evil elves and the Yule goats and preparing to fling Max’s final remaining relative, one of his cousins, into the pit of hell, which Krampus opens up in the snowy ground.
Max had earlier torn apart his letter to Santa Claus and wished his family would disappear, the event that triggered Krampus’s wrath in the first place. Upon confronting Krampus, Max declares, “I take back my wish,” and demands, “Give me my family back.”
Krampus at first appears moved, but then he and his servants laugh derisively. Krampus picks Max up and flings him into the fiery pit.
In the scene following, Max wakes up and falls out of bed, suggesting it may have all been a dream. He goes downstairs to find his family happily enjoying Christmas morning, no longer sniping at one another but getting along as a good family should. None of them, apparently, have any memory of being attacked and killed by the servants of the Krampus.
Max opens a present to find a tree ornament inscribed with the famous greeting, Gruβ vom Krampus. The camera focuses on each member of the family as voice-overs recall their terror from the previous night. Their smiles disappear, and their aghast expressions suggest that they all are recalling what happened—and that it was not just a dream.
The camera pulls back, leaving the exterior of the house and then revealing that the house is inside a snow globe inside Krampus’s workshop, surrounded by hundreds of other, similar snow globes. Krampus’s minions leap at the camera for a final, mild jump scare. Then the end credits roll with some Christmas music, including a version of “Silver Bells” with lyrics about Krampus.
Interpretation
The internet gives us two possible interpretations of this final scene. One is that the family is in hell, being forced forever to enact the happy Christmas celebration that they refused to have in life. Krampus has exacted judgment, and they will pay for eternity. They are inside a snow globe because they are trapped forever.
The second is that the snow globe is not a prison but rather a means for Krampus to watch them. The family has actually learned from experience and has grown closer. Although they seemed to have died throughout the film, they have actually been given a second chance. Krampus, however, is keeping an eye on them, poised to exact further vengeance if necessary.
Arguments for Interpretation 1
The first possibility is unpalatable to me personally, but that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t what the filmmakers intended. Basic storytelling rules suggest that Max’s brave decision to confront Krampus should have had a positive effect, but Krampus laughs him off and throws him into hell anyway.
This is not unlike various other horror films, which often follow normal story conventions and then reverse them in a final scene. The teenagers appear to have defeated Freddy Krueger in A Nightmare on Elm Street, but then Freddy nabs another victim out of nowhere. In the underrated remake of Invaders from Mars, the young hero wakes up to find it was all a dream—but then the Martians invade for real immediately afterwards.
Bruce Campbell, probably more familiar with this kind of cheap twist ending than most, deliberately skewers it in his film My Name is Bruce. He depicts the stock B-horror “twist” ending, but then in rapid fire presents alternate endings he thinks would be superior.
Since Krampus follows so many other stock conventions, it is reasonable to suppose that its ending is meant to depict the family as defeated and damned in spite of Max’s final act. I dislike this interpretation because it renders the whole movie pointless: Over the course of the film, we watch the survivors grow closer and overcome their differences because of adversity, and then we watch Max do something that should stem the tide and bring a reversal. But it would not be unusual for a horror movie to twist this around in a final scene.
Arguments for Interpretation 2
The website Bloody Disgusting gives an impassioned argument for the second, more cheerful interpretation:
But how is it a happy ending if they’re all trapped in a snow globe? Well, they’re really not. The way I saw it, that was just Dougherty’s way of showing that those snow globes are Krampus’ portals to the real world. He has one for every family, and when they’re not respecting the spirit of the season, he strikes. He’s keeping tabs on every single family in the world, quite literally like an evil Santa Claus. He sees them when they’re sleeping. He knows when they’re awake. And he damn sure knows when they’ve been bad or good.
I mentioned horror movie precedents for the other interpretation, but there are precedents for this one as well. In particular, we have that most famous of Christmas cautionary tales that use horror conventions, A Christmas Carol. At the climax of the story, Scrooge seems to have no hope: He is done for, destined to die unmourned and suffer Marley’s fate. However, he then wakes up on Christmas morning to find he’s received a second chance, so he takes it. He changes. He becomes a good man, and everything the ghost of Christmas future showed him fails to come to pass.
Argument from Lore
Furthermore, I might add an additional argument in favor of this second interpretation, though I freely admit this is an argument the filmmakers likely never thought of. Before diving in, I repeat this caveat: My personal preferences have nothing to do with the actual intentions of the movie.
My argument is based on the very nature of Krampus and of characters like him. Krampus is first and foremost a bogeyman, and bogeyman always threaten punishment more than they actually deliver it. “Eat your peas or the bogeyman will get you” is a refrain uttered, in countless variations, by exasperated parents the world over. Of course, the bogeyman will not actually get you if you don’t eat your peas. It is the threat that is important; the punishment, at least in its fullest sense, never arrives.
This holds true for Christmas bogeymen. Although the father of the house might dress up as Knecht Ruprecht or Hans Trapp and deliver a few swattings to naughty children, and though a misbehaving child might actually get some coal or sticks in his stocking instead of candies and presents, the worst punishments that the bogeymen threaten never actually happen. Krampus might beat you sometimes, but he doesn’t drag you to hell. Hans Trapp doesn’t eat you. Frau Perchta doesn’t really slit you open and stuff you with straw. It is worth noting, too, that these bogeymen are often restrained by more benevolent characters: The Christkindl prevents Hans Trapp or Knecht Ruprecht from exacting the fullest punishment, and Krampus is in chains.
We might quibble over whether threatening children with bogeymen is a sound parenting technique, but whether you like it or not, it is a universal one. It is customary to frighten children with dire punishments when they are small, before they learn to love goodness for its own sake. But only a parent who is also a psychopath would actually bring the worst of these punishments to pass.
I’m inclined to interpret the movie in this light: Krampus is threatening, threatening direly, throughout the film. But in the end, everyone is okay, and they now have a chance to make it right. That better fits both the needs of storytelling and the role that Krampus plays in, shall we say, real life.
Argument from Religion
I will add something else, though I admit this was almost certainly not on the filmmakers’ minds: It is not widely admitted in popular writings on the subject, but Krampus is a Christian character. Essays about him tend to emphasize some (entirely speculative) pre-Christian roots, but even if those roots exist, the Krampus we know comes to us in a Christian context. Say, for the sake of argument, that Krampus really does hearken to some ancient, Germanic fertility god: What does that tell us about the demon-like figure who whips children before St. Nicholas arrives? It tells us nothing. Krampus and whatever pagan god might have inspired him have at best a superficial resemblance to each other.
So, keeping this in mind, I will say that redemption is central to Christianity. Max, at the climax of the film, repents. Since he has repented, throwing him into hell is the one thing that Krampus could not do—assuming that the film is preserving any of Krampus’s Christian character. In a Christian context, stubborn persistence in wickedness is the road to hell, but contrition is the way out. I refer again to my previous essay on Krampus: Inspiring contrition is the actual purpose of this character—and of all bogeymen—though that is often missed by today’s commentators.
But I acknowledge that my thoughts on the matter may not be those of the movie’s writers and director. The ending is undeniably ambiguous.
So what do you think?
