The conclusion of 28 Years Later takes viewers by surprise, transforming the entire narrative. After nearly two hours filled with anxiety and turmoil, the film culminates in a frenetic, intense action sequence that leaves many in the audience bewildered. What just happened? What does it mean? While interpretations can vary, director Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland certainly have perspectives worth considering.
In this sequel, the protagonist, Spike, ventures outside his secure haven to navigate the treacherous mainland. Almost immediately, he finds himself on the brink of being hit by zombies, only to be rescued by a gang of jumpsuit-clad killers led by Jimmy, the now-adult boy we met at the film’s outset, portrayed by Jack O’Connell. You might recall that Jimmy was once glued to children’s programs like Teletubbies as the Rage Virus swept across the UK, witnessing the collapse of his family and struggling to survive ever since.
The timing of Jimmy’s character is significant. The name references Jimmy Savile, a figure notorious in British history for his heinous actions. Savile enjoyed decades of fame as a beloved media personality, especially for his work on shows like Jim’ll Fix It. However, posthumously, it was revealed he was a predator who victimized countless individuals. In the timeline of 28 Years Later, Savile’s misdeeds weren’t publicly known—his crimes came to light in 2012—thus the film cleverly comments on history and perception in a uniquely British context.
“He’s intertwined with pop culture, sportswear, and even the honors system,” Boyle shared with Business Insider. “It’s a strange blend of memories, a sort of reconstruction for followers.”
Garland elaborated, calling Jimmy a “trippy, kaleidoscopic figure.” The film portrays Jimmy as someone who idolizes Savile without ever uncovering the dark truth behind him, underscoring a twisted commentary on misperception.
Garland stated, “The trilogy’s core is about reflecting on the past while also looking to the future. It explores how we can build better worlds based on previous experiences, showing the tension between these perspectives. We often engage in selective memory, remembering only certain aspects, which can be misleading.”
In this unsettling narrative, history gets distorted through the figure of Jimmy Savile, setting up what’s to unfold. “[The ending] brings malevolence back into an area that was once compassionate,” Boyle explained to The Independent. “At the start, I requested Alex define the themes of our films. He indicated that the first is about family dynamics, while the second examines the nature of evil.”
What does the ending of 28 Years Later convey? The finale serves as a stark reminder of how quickly compassion can devolve into chaos.
Is it appropriate to draw parallels between fictional narratives and real historical figures? Absolutely. Films often serve as reflections of societal issues, prompting us to reconsider our understanding of morality and memory.
What can we learn from the depiction of Jimmy in 28 Years Later? The character sheds light on the dangers of idolizing figures without understanding their true nature and highlights the importance of scrutinizing the past.
Why does the film resonate with modern audiences? In an age of misinformation and selective memory, its themes remain relevant, making us ponder our own understanding of history.
As we dissect the unsettling nature of 28 Years Later, it becomes clear that the role of memory—both selective and collective—shapes our perception of the world. The film invites us to engage with these complexities, reminding us that our histories can be misleading.
For a deeper dive into pop culture’s reflections on society, explore more insightful content at Moyens I/O.