Among the reviews there seems to be a debate. Some say the ending was frustrating for being open-ended. Others say that it was reflective of real life - too often the parents of missing children never know and the story revolves around the trials of the family.
Those who are frustrated are right, the apologists wrong, and here's why.
Throughout the series we are given glimpses of the first few hours after Amber's disappearance. Some of those glimpses are unknown to any of the characters in the series and will never be known. They turn out to be inconsequential, but nevertheless point of view is everything. We have revealed to us repeatedly things the characters do not know as we watch Amber walk away from her friend's house, travel into town, go to a shop, catch the train back, find her phone is stolen, miss her stop, get out at the next one and begin her walk home.
Most importantly, these are all presented at the end of each episode building up the 'So what really happened?' suspense.
You simply cannot allow yourself the point of view of an effective narrator who knows it all and then not tell us. You cannot use the techniques designed to lead people deeper into the series seeking resolution and then say 'Oh, it was never about that'. Both these aspects are cheating. The second is a con. The first is a fundamental narrative flaw because it doesn't say 'We don't know', it says 'We know but we're not telling you.' That reduces the whole thing to a dog story.
Add to that the fact the entire episode with the phone was inconsequential - a quarter of the entire series - and didn't even give us sufficient development in the main characters to justify it.
It wouldn't have taken much for the writers et al. to either bring closure, or to stick to the narrative techniques whereby it's clear that no closure may indeed be the outcome. But to tell us, in effect, that there will be a resolution and then not to provide it is sloppy if not downright shoddy.
Those who are frustrated are right, the apologists wrong, and here's why.
Throughout the series we are given glimpses of the first few hours after Amber's disappearance. Some of those glimpses are unknown to any of the characters in the series and will never be known. They turn out to be inconsequential, but nevertheless point of view is everything. We have revealed to us repeatedly things the characters do not know as we watch Amber walk away from her friend's house, travel into town, go to a shop, catch the train back, find her phone is stolen, miss her stop, get out at the next one and begin her walk home.
Most importantly, these are all presented at the end of each episode building up the 'So what really happened?' suspense.
You simply cannot allow yourself the point of view of an effective narrator who knows it all and then not tell us. You cannot use the techniques designed to lead people deeper into the series seeking resolution and then say 'Oh, it was never about that'. Both these aspects are cheating. The second is a con. The first is a fundamental narrative flaw because it doesn't say 'We don't know', it says 'We know but we're not telling you.' That reduces the whole thing to a dog story.
Add to that the fact the entire episode with the phone was inconsequential - a quarter of the entire series - and didn't even give us sufficient development in the main characters to justify it.
It wouldn't have taken much for the writers et al. to either bring closure, or to stick to the narrative techniques whereby it's clear that no closure may indeed be the outcome. But to tell us, in effect, that there will be a resolution and then not to provide it is sloppy if not downright shoddy.