What Does the End of The Killing of a Sacred Deer Mean?

The Killing of a Sacred Deer follows Martin, a teenager, whose father died on the operating table of surgeon, Steven. As revenge, Martin supernaturally curses Steven's family, making them sick, and presents a cruel ultimatum: sacrifice one of your family members to make up for killing my dad, or watch your entire family die.^{[1]
X
Expert Source

Lexi Amoriello
Film Expert

Expert Interview} In this article, we’ll break down the potential ways you might interpret this odd film.

The Killing of a Sacred Deer Explained

Download Image

The Killing of a Sacred Deer is a complex and strange film about revenge, morality, and the failures of the US medical system. The film’s intentionally impersonal acting and semi-supernatural plot result in an intentionally confusing and nuanced film that’s open to various interpretations.^{[2]
X
Expert Source

Lexi Amoriello
Film Expert

Expert Interview}

Section 1 of 9:

A Summary of the Film

Download Article

Martin curses Steven's family and Steven kills his son to end the curse. The entire crux of the film’s conflict comes down to Martin cursing Steven Murphy's family and haunting him with an impossible quandary: Steven must kill (aka sacrifice) one of his family members to make up for the death of Martin’s father—who died on Steven’s operating table when he was performing surgery on him. If he doesn’t, his family will continue getting sicker until all of them die. We never learn how Martin manages to "curse" the family, but the effects were real. Here are the key moments of the ending:^{[3]
X
Research source}
- Steven kidnaps Martin and beats him nearly to death after his family members start to get sick, but it doesn’t change anything. Martin says he still needs to kill a family member to end the curse. In fact, it might doom his entire family if Steven kills Martin.
- Steven decides to tie his family up with duct tape in their living room. He puts a bag over the head of each family member (Anna, his wife, Kim, his daughter, and Bob, his son). Then, he pulls his hat down over his own face and spins randomly in a circle with the shotgun.
- Steven randomly pulls the trigger but he misses a family member. He repeats the process again and misses. On his third attempt, he shoots and kills his son, Bob.
- The family begins to get healthier after Bob dies, eventually going back to normal. The final scene takes place in a diner where Steven and Martin used to meet. The Murphy family (minus Bob) is finishing a meal. Martin walks in, sits at the bar, and the family finishes eating. Then, they silently get up and walk out into a bright streetscape as the camera fades to black over Martin.
  - It’s important to note that the final scene takes place in slow motion over extremely dramatic operatic music.

Section 2 of 9:

What does the ending mean?

Download Article

There is no single “correct” interpretation of the film’s ending. The ending of The Killing of a Sacred Deer is really no different from the rest of the film—it’s confusing, odd, shot like a sweeping epic from the 70s, and performed as if the entire cast is disassociating on ketamine. All of this is to say that the film isn’t like The Sixth Sense or Whiplash where there’s a very clear cut theme and sequence of events at the end—Killing is a deliberately ambiguous film with no single message.^{[4]
X
Research source}
- This isn’t to say that the ending of the film is meaningless (just the opposite, in fact). It simply means that there are multiple interpretations that work equally well. Many of those interpretations may also be true at the same time, so it’s not like most readings of the film are even mutually exclusive.

Section 3 of 9:

Critical Reception of the Ending

Download Article

The ending of the film was just as divisive as the film itself. Most critics found The Killing of a Sacred Deer to be a rewarding, albeit very challenging, watch. The bizarre cinematography and open-ended material left many viewers and critics confused, but it was a good type of confusion for most. That said, some viewers found the ending to be frustrating in its ambiguity.^{[5]
X
Research source}
- The film currently sits at 79% on Rotten Tomatoes with 281 reviews, so roughly 4 in 5 professional critics found the movie worth watching.^{[6]
  X
  Research source}

Section 4 of 9:

Ways to Interpret the Film

Download Article

1
Moral balance has finally been restored. This is perhaps the simplest and most obvious reading of the ending: Steven has fulfilled his debt to Martin by killing his son and the world is allowed to return back to normal. Martin and Steven have no need to continue interacting so the family doesn’t even talk to him in the final moment. Both parties go their separate ways, and the film is ultimately a tale about the importance of paying your debts.^{[7]
X
Research source}
- One of the essential questions surrounding the film is the following: Is “an eye for an eye” an appropriate moral framework for life? With this reading, the answer to that question seems to be an astounding “yes.”
2
Steven has finally learned to relinquish control. Throughout the film, Steven does basically everything in his power to try and get out of Martin’s godlike power over his family. He tries beating him, paying him off, convincing him to go after someone else, and so on. By finally bringing himself to fulfill Martin’s “challenge,” Steven has demonstrated that he’s learned he’s not an all-powerful patriarch and the film can end.^{[8]
X
Research source}
- This reading makes a lot of sense if you interpret Martin’s semi-supernatural abilities as a kind of divine power meant to teach the hero of the story a lesson.
3
Steven is actually the villain of the film. This is a fun read because it turns the framing of the film on its head. We actually follow the film’s plot from Steven’s point of view—the camera follows him the most, he’s the key protagonist, mechanically speaking, etc. But, consider this: Martin is the character whose father was killed, and Steven is probably responsible. What if Killing is secretly a formal exercise in how perspective influences our understanding of morality?! What if Martin is the hero who finally gets the revenge he rightly deserves?^{[9]
X
Research source}
- Is Steven responsible for killing Martin’s dad? We are never given very concrete information on this, but a few clues indicate Steven probably performed the surgery drunk.
  - Steven drinks when he’s on call for surgery.
  - Steven’s wife, Anna, chides him for drinking when he has a surgery scheduled the next day.
  - There are several scenes where Steven drinks to relieve stress.
  - Matthew, Steven’s coworker, hints that Steven might have had a drinking problem in the past.
- There’s a relevant phenomenon called “narrative empathy.” Narrative empathy (alongside a technique called forced perspective) is the process by which readers or viewers of a work come to sympathize with someone just because they’re following their story. This is how viewers can feel bad for bad guys, like Tony Soprano or Light Yagami. These characters were not good people, but you care about them because it’s their story!^{[10]
  X
  Research source}
4
It’s an allegory for the failures of our medical system. The US medical system has some problems, to put it lightly. If it is true that Steven is responsible for killing Martin’s dad, it’s notable that he is never fired, reprimanded, demoted, or even given a consequence for his indiscretion. In this way, the ending of the film reads as kind of darkly comedic moment where a medical professional finally receiving a consequence is so rare that it’s treated with a nearly-religious gravity.^{[11]
X
Research source}
- This is supported by the fact that the film opens with Steven giving a monologue about how surgeons can’t kill patients—only anesthesiologists can. Ironically, Matthew—the hospital’s main anesthesiologist—gives the same speech but says anesthesiologists can never kill patients—only surgeons can.
  - This kind of silly irony echoes how silly it is that Steven can’t be held accountable for anything just because he’s a doctor.
5
The “haunting” has been transferred from Martin to Steven. If you’ve ever seen It Follows, this interpretation kind of holds a similar reading. It’s possible that Martin’s supernatural powers come from the fact that he’s got a debt to settle. Now that Steven has been forced to kill his child, the power has moved from Martin to Steven. This would explain why the final shot of the movie depicts Martin as a normal kid drinking a milkshake while Steven leaves the restaurant and enters an oddly bright street with a strange look on his face.^{[12]
X
Research source}
- In this way, the film can kind of be read as a morality play about the dangers of pursuing revenge in the name of “justice” and how that process creates an infinite loop of pain.
6
Martin isn’t supernatural and the film is just a simple revenge tale. Another way to read the ending of the film is that Martin is just a normal kid who has successfully poisoned a family and tricked someone into killing their child. After all, we never learn how he manages to curse them, we just know that they start to get sick. In that way, the ending is kind of comedic: Steven thinks he has successfully escaped a supernatural child who makes people’s eyes bleed at will when in reality he was tricked by a kid seeking revenge.
- There are a few hints regarding this reading. The family’s illnesses accelerate after several of Martin’s visits to their house, which implies there’s something about him being around that makes everyone sick.
7
Martin is the devil sent to exact retribution on Steven. The diner where Martin goes to eat all the time is called The Blue Jay. In American folklore, the blue jay is Satan’s bird.^{[13]
X
Research source} The final shot of the film shows Steven and his remaining family members leaving the restaurant in bright light as the camera slowly shows Martin being enveloped in darkness, as if he’s remaining in this pit of hell. There are also several upside-down crosses that appear throughout the film, which is a common symbol for Satan.^{[14]
X
Research source}
- The song that plays during the final scene of the film is also notable for this reading. The song is part of St. John’s Passion, written by Bach. Given that the song is about Christ’s death, it reinforces this interpretation quite powerfully.

Section 5 of 9:

What is The Killing of a Sacred Deer based on?

Download Article

The film is based on an ancient Greek story, Iphigenia in Aulis. The Greek tale (and play written by Euripides) takes place right before the Trojan War. King Agamemnon angers the goddess Artemis by killing one of her sacred deer during a hunt. In retaliation, Artemis makes his ships impossible to sail. To appease Artemis, Agamemnon is instructed to sacrifice his eldest daughter, Iphigenia. The play ends (depending on the version) with Iphigenia willingly going to her death, or with a magical deer replacing her on the sacrificial altar.^{[15]
X
Research source} This is the origin of the film’s title, The Killing of a Sacred Deer.^{[16]
X
Research source}
- The characters also map quite nicely onto the characters from the play:
  - King Agamemnon = Steven
  - Artemis = Martin
  - Iphigenia = Bob/Kim
  - Clytemnestra (Agamemnon’s wife) = Anna
  - Menelaos (Agamemnon’s brother) = Matthew

Section 6 of 9:

What has the director said about the film’s meaning?

Download Article

The director, Yorgos Lanthimos, says the film is meant to be ambiguous. Lanthimos was asked point-blank about the meaning of the film in 2018. His immediate answer was, “I know as much as the viewer does. Maybe less.”^{[17]
X
Research source} His explanation is that, as the director, he’s so focused on the mechanics of the film that he might be prone to missing details, themes, or ideas that fresh set of eyes would miss.
- Lanthimos has said the ambiguity is intentional. In an interview with The Atlantic, he explained, “I think the initial thoughts were around the oddity of a very young person (Martin) trying to get revenge over something an older person has done. And that kind of dynamic, that a teenager can actually terrorize someone grown-up and mature. And, also, the themes of justice and the ambiguity of the situation we choose to put [Farrell’s] character in. He’s a doctor, and whether or not there was any fault, that kind of ambiguity, leading into impossible questions and dilemmas.”^{[18]
  X
  Research source}
- Lanthimos is famous for making uninterpretable films. None of his movies (Pretty Things, The Lobster, Dogtooth, et al.) are easy to interpret. He told the BBC, “Neither [myself or my writing partner] are interested in making a straightforward story.”^{[19]
  X
  Research source}

Section 7 of 9:

Why is the acting in the film so cold and stiff?

Download Article

The acting reflects the transactional nature of the movie. The core conflict of the film basically boils down to the question of who Steven is going to offer up as a sacrifice to fulfill the ultimatum. This contractual situation is reflected in the acting, which is extremely cold and unemotional.^{[20]
X
Research source} The lack of emotion also creates tension and helps to slowly build up the dread in the film.
- On top of all this, Lanthimos just has a propensity for getting weird performances out of his actors. The Lobster and Dogtooth are similarly stiff, while the performances in The Favourite and Poor Things are so emotive that they register as ridiculous.

Section 8 of 9:

Fun Facts about The Killing of a Secret Deer

Download Article

1
The heart surgery scenes are all real. Those aren’t fake hearts beating, those aren’t fake doctors, and the scalpels actually have edges on them. That’s right—the surgical scenes are real.^{[21]
X
Research source}
- Colin Farrell later described the experience as “so upsetting,” and “weird.” He closed by admitting that he “wouldn’t want to see it again.”^{[22]
  X
  Research source}
2
There is only one American actor in this film about US healthcare. The movie is actually set in Ohio and a lot of the interpretations of the film surround criticism of the US medical system, but only Bob—the young son—is played by an American actor. Colin Farrell (Steven) and Barry Keoghan (Martin) are both Irish. Raffey Cassidy (Kim) is British. Nicole Kidman (Anna) is Australian. Weird, right?^{[23]
X
Research source}
- It’s very possible that this was intentional. By relying primarily on foreign actors, the film becomes an even more potent criticism. It’s almost as if the actors remind the viewer that other systems are possible.
3
The characters were directed to act bored. The cold and stuff acting style stood out to audiences as an odd choice. Everyone in the film has proven themselves to be powerful and adept actors, but the acting in this film is extremely flat and disinterested. It creates the sense that everything is transactional and surreal in the film.^{[24]
X
Research source}
- Lanthimos is kind of notorious for giving bizarre direction notes. Actor Joe Alwyn described working with Lanthimos like “going to play” instead of going to work.^{[25]
  X
  Research source}

Section 9 of 9:

Final Thoughts

Download Article

There is no single “correct” reading for this film; instead, there are dozens of interacting and layered themes that drive the strange and comedic energy of the film. It’s an indictment against the US medical system, a vision of divine justice, and a deadpan comedy about the nature of family. Whatever reading makes the most sense to you is undoubtedly a valid option!