FWIW, my interpretation is

Olly is dead and the face on the frosted window was drawn by Tony. Presumably he had done the same thing in various other Russian towns and cities.

 

 

I don't think there is anything wrong with leaving it open for people to reach a different conclusion.

 

Yes that's what I thought too. But then there's the fact we were only ever told the Mayor's story. And why of course did Tony end up in Russia? It seems utterly random. The boy looked like Olly, and he seemed to recognise the drawings. But endings like this just annoy viewers. I would have rather been explicitly told that he had been murdered by the Romanian man, rather than hinting that perhaps he survived afterall.

Yeah if you're investing 8 hours of your life in a tv show, surely you'd expect a definitive ending :lol:

I read a comment that the uncertain ending without a feeling of closure for the viewer, is meant to reflect how Tony would feel as a parent, not believing his son to be dead but never finding him... he'd never have closure.

 

Although it was still quite a confusing ending even if that was the intention. Was that boy really Olly? It looked so much like it would be him. Why was Tony in Russia in the first place, what had convinced to go there in a bid to find him? Hmm!

Yes, a bit of an underwhelming ending which is ironic considering the quality of each episode's ending!

 

I guess the whole thing was never a 'whodunnit' in the same way that Broadchurch was and it was more about the lives of everyone involved. Yet it still was underwhelming to see the result of what actually happened to Olly. I do believe that was the actual ending and the bit in Russia was more about Tony still not being able to move on and clinging onto any of the smallest possibilities that Olly is still there. Travelling to Russia shows his determination too. It's more that he feels to blame because he had responsibility for Olly at that time and he could have stopped him from running off.

 

I'd like to believe that anyway because surely at 5 you would still remember your father and, even if you were confused, you would shout out to stop the police taking him away?

Edited December 18, 201410 yr by Reindeer Froot

I suspect a a 13-year-old who hasn't seen his father for eight years would be unlikely to remember him. It is even less likely that he would remember a picture he drew eight years ago.

 

The general summary of the ending, though, is a good one. I think that is what the writers were trying to portray.