The recent finale of “The Patient” has left millions of viewers reeling. The show, a psychological thriller about a therapy client who takes his therapist hostage, ended with a deeply tragic twist. Creator Joel Fields has defended the decision, stating that the ending was the only way to true justice for both characters. But is a tragic ending always the most satisfying? And, more importantly, did Fields achieve his intended impact?
Traditionally, television drama tends to favor happy endings or at least some form of resolution. This preference stems from audience expectations built over decades of programming. But “The Patient” deliberately defied this trend, opting for an ending that is undeniably bleak.
This isn’t unusual in television, especially in genres like crime dramas and thrillers. Shows like “Breaking Bad” and “The Wire” achieved critical acclaim for their unflinching portrayals of morally complex characters and their descent into darkness, often leaving audiences with a sense of ambiguity and unease.
In these cases, the tragic ending serves multiple purposes: it amplifies the sense of realism, reflecting the harsh truths of the world depicted on screen. It also forces viewers to confront difficult questions about morality, choices, and the consequences of action. “The Patient” doesn’t shy away from these themes. The show delves into the depths of human nature, exploring the complexities of trauma, manipulation, and the struggle for control.
The debate surrounding “The Patient’s” ending highlights a fundamental tension in contemporary storytelling. Do audiences crave resolution, or are they increasingly open to stories that challenge expectations and explore the darker side of human experience? Does “The Patient’s” bleak conclusion ultimately enhance the narrative, or leave viewers feeling unsatisfied and frustrated?
What factors influence your perception of a show’s ending? Do you prefer resolution or ambiguity? Is there a difference between a tragic ending and a genuinely satisfying one?
