Bugonia Ending Explained: Cast & Director Break Down Shocking Twist

Warning: There are major spoilers ahead for Bugonia.Emma Stone, Jesse Plemons, and Yorgos Lanthimos break down the wild ending of Bugonia. The film revolves around Teddy Gatz (Plemons), who believes that high-powered CEO Michelle Fuller (Stone) is an alien known as an Andromedan. He kidnaps Michelle with the help of his cousin, Don (Aidan Delbis).

After she spends nearly the entire movie denying that she is an alien or simply placating Teddy in order to survive, Bugonia‘s ending shockingly reveals that Michelle is an Andromedan after all. She informs her fellow Andromedans that Earth is a lost cause and takes action to instantly kill every human on the planet.

While speaking with Entertainment Weekly, Plemons explains that this ending helped him appreciate that there is truth to some of the things both Teddy and Michelle proclaim throughout the story, while some of their other remarks are “objectively bananas” and highlight the “tunnel vision” that many people have in life. Check out his comments below:

The thing that I grew to appreciate more and more was the fact that throughout the film, Teddy says some things that, from an objective standpoint, you can look at and think that’s true, and then he’ll follow that up with something that is objectively bananas and insane.

And the same thing goes for Michelle. It felt very, very close to the very myopic ways in which a lot of us can go through life, where there is very little room for multiple ways of thinking or for multiple things to be true at once. We get this tunnel vision.

When it comes to the death of Teddy, who seemingly dies from his own homemade bomb, Stone is asked if Michelle could have used her alien teleporter to trigger the explosion. She believes that Teddy died entirely by his own hands and goes on to praise the character’s severed head as an “incredible” and “really disgusting” work of prosthetic art:

Yeah, I mean, I always assumed it was Teddy, really. There was a friction situation, and he got stuck, and that thing was a homemade [bomb].

I’m going to be honest with you. I think [Teddy’s decapitated] head was one of the most incredible pieces of prosthetic work I’ve ever seen. I’m being really serious. It was unbelievable. But stepping into that closet was really disgusting.

As for the meaning of Bugonia‘s ending, Lanthimos notes that some audiences see the conclusion as being extremely “dark and bleak” while others “find it hopeful.” He argues that how an individual reacts to the ending is a reflection of who they are and how they see the world.

I’ve noticed that some people say, “Oh, it’s really dark and bleak, the ending,” and then some other people find it very hopeful, because in a sense you don’t take it literally. It’s a film, and nature survives, and it kind of allows the hope of a second chance at everything restarting.

So some people see it this way instead of it all ended. So I think it says things about the viewer themselves, how they feel in the end. And I think sometimes it might change. If it sticks in their head, maybe they think about it [later] and go like, “Yeah, maybe it is hopeful. It’s not that bleak, actually.”

Bugonia is a remake of the 2003 South Korean movie Save the Green Planet! One of the key differences between Bugonia and Save the Green Planet! is that Earth is blown up in the original film. In Lanthimos’ remake, all humans are killed, but bees and other species and the planet itself are spared.

The original movie’s ending is unambiguously bleak, but Michelle’s appreciation for non-human life on Earth and the planet getting a second chance now feeds into the interpretation of Bugonia having a more hopeful conclusion.

Plemons’ perspective is less hopeful, with the film serving as a cautionary tale for the consequences of living with “tunnel vision” where there is no room for other ways of thinking or accepting multiple, complex truths at once.

Beyond the shocking plot twists, Bugonia‘s ending allows for many different perspectives, as seen by Plemons, Stone, and Lanthimos’ reactions. It is meant to be thought-provoking, to encourage discourse and reflection, and to stick with audiences after they finish watching.