Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Spoilers for the ending of It Was Just an Accident. The final footsteps do not confirm that Vahid’s feared interrogator has returned. Director Jafar Panahi says the sound is meant to shock us into that possibility, then recede—leaving room for another, more hopeful one: that the interrogator may have changed, and that the cycle of violence could eventually end. The film leaves both readings open.
What happens in the final scene?
Vahid is a mechanic and former political prisoner who believes he recognizes Eghbal as the man who tortured him. But the prisoners were blindfolded, so they identified their interrogator through sound rather than sight. That history makes the identification uncertain: Vahid and the other former prisoners must decide what to do with a captive whose identity they cannot establish with confidence.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
![It Was Just an Accident (The Criterion Collection) [Blu-ray]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41+knXEhw-L._SL160_.jpg)
|
It Was Just an Accident (The Criterion Collection) [Blu-ray] | $32.28 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
The Fall | Buy on Amazon | |
| 3 |
|
The Boy Who Cried Werewolf | Buy on Amazon |
At the end, a familiar footstep sound returns. It first suggests that the feared man is there to arrest Vahid. Then the footsteps seem to move away. A white car enters the frame, but the scene does not settle whether the interrogator has physically returned or whether Vahid is experiencing the sound through fear and memory. Neither arrest nor safety is confirmed.
Why does Panahi end on footsteps?
Panahi has said that the script was built around a sound planted earlier in the film. He was initially unsure about the ending, but came to feel it had to finish with that sound. He removed dialogue and a visible physical reaction because either would explain what the sound should leave uncertain. In an interview with Slant Magazine, he described the film as built on sound and said he was trying to talk about violence rather than depict it directly.
#1 Best Overall
That choice makes sound do two jobs at once. It recalls the way prisoners had to imagine an unseen interrogator from what they heard, and it makes the audience share Vahid’s uncertainty. A footstep can feel like evidence of a threat without proving who is present—or even that anyone is present.
Is there hope in the ending?
Yes, but Panahi presents it as a possibility, not a confirmed outcome. In a February 2026 interview with The Atlantic, he described the footsteps as an initial shock followed by silence and a sound that seems to recede. He suggested that viewers might imagine the interrogator has been moved, even slightly, and might change. For Panahi, that small possibility offers hope that the cycle of violence could end.
Rank #2
The film does not establish that the torturer has reformed, or that the threat has disappeared. The hopeful reading lives beside the more frightening one: the sound may be a trauma returning, or a sign of danger. The ending’s force comes from refusing to decide between them.
How does the ending connect to the film’s moral dilemma?
Vahid and the other survivors face a question of justice under uncertainty. If they punish the captive and have identified him wrongly, their attempt to answer past violence becomes another act of violence. Even if their identification is right, the group is divided over what justice should mean. Film Comment describes the former prisoners as wrestling with bloodlust, grief, uncertainty and fear; Criterion likewise frames the film around trauma and revenge.
Rank #3
Panahi’s decision to withhold much of the violence from view reinforces that dilemma. Characters talk about what happened, while viewers must imagine it. The same limits that shaped the prisoners’ knowledge—what they could hear, what they could not see, and what they cannot be certain of—shape the audience’s judgment.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What context helps explain Panahi’s approach?
Panahi told distributor mk2 Films that the idea began with a question: what might happen if someone he met in prison were released and encountered a person who had tortured and humiliated him? He also connected his prison experience to the wider Iranian social context, including the Woman, Life, Freedom movement that began in fall 2022. His comments situate the film’s revenge dilemma in lived experience without turning its unresolved ending into a single political or literal answer. The mk2 Films press notes include his account.
It Was Just an Accident won the 2025 Palme d’Or at Cannes, as recorded by the Festival de Cannes. The Atlantic reported in February 2026 that the film had received two Oscar nominations; that is a nomination, not an Oscar win.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
