And I recognize the type-writer throughout and that the score even mimics it at times, I believe, but I think as an excuse for occasional lapses into heavy-handedness and contrivances that only goes so far. Because even if my criticisms of the film's narrative are really pointing out shortcomings in Briony's character, it's still the authorial voice with which the film rests upon, so my satisfaction or dissatisfaction with it / her is going to naturally, and justifiably, I think, reflect any satisfaction or dissatisfaction I have with the film altogether, i.e., if Briony is prone to emotional manipulation--as her character certainly appears to be throughout (I'm drowning, he raped her, etc.)--to the extent that in unfolding her story these characteristics are still there, as it affects me, the audience, I still have a right to any discontent. It's a blurry line that brings up discussion of metafiction, which, when paired with an unreliable narrator, is a big headache that reminds me of literary seminars I've tried to forget.

Anyway, if "Atonement" is the title of Briony's novel, which McEwan / Wright are treating as a work of non-fiction within their larger work of fiction, also called "Atonement", then the final TV interview must be the work of McEwan / Wright. Subsequently, as I thought it was the largest misstep of the film, it cannot be saved by a kind of "Briony being Briony" argument. It's how McEwan / Wright chose to finish up this tale. It's them who choose for her to have a breakdown in the green room, to give her the isnt-it-fitting vascular dementia, and tidy things up otherwise . . . unless, of course, Briony was secretly working on a sequel.

I would also ask if the reveal of Briony at the TV station is really to say, "hey, see, this story was told by one of its characters with a biased POV", does that make it a kind of surprise ending, like The Usual Suspects or something? If so, then maybe it sabotages the film even more than I originally thought.