Originally Posted by equanimus
Regarding mahAnadhi, it's debatable whether the ending is tonally inconsistent or not. I don't think it functions like a regular "happy ending" in any sense. In fact, it's radically matter-of-fact in a sense. Remember, the film cuts to several years later. What makes us think they should still be wallowing in misery? In fact, that's precisely the mode in which standard tearjerkers work. If this were a regular melodrama, there would have been a more definitive full stop put to the lives of at least some of the characters. Krishna himself descends into a sort of madness and violence but is able to seek redemption in some ways. Also, Kaveri carries on with her life, which is a radical departure in every sense.
And the idea that it's a "picture postcard" ending doesn't hold water at all. Firstly, does it really look like an afterthought? I'm not sure. The film ends where it began, with Krishna's children taking the plunge this time into what life has in store for them. It is not designed to make us 'forget' the past; on the contrary, it is designed to remind us of it. Even in a formal sense, it doesn't play out that way. The film doesn't employ handy techniques like closing with the image of a happy smiling family or something to that effect, but actually cuts to a bird's eye view of the river, pans across the bridge where they are standing and moves away from them and flows along with the river and fades out with a panoramic view of the river bank. As I see it, it is more of a hopeful footnote to the epic arc of the film. The grandchild here is the Parikshit figure who is 'born' at the end of the epic and would carry forward the story. The film offers a closure that is squarely in the tradition of Indian mythology where nothing quite ends in and of itself.