Yes. There's certainly a lot that is indicated but not fully explained in the witch's exit. And it's not as if it needs tons of explanation. I've usually inferred that this is an aspect of the Great Goddess, or perhaps of the daughter of the Great Goddess, of Mother Nature, of Kali, of Gaea/Earth, finally losing patience with mortals, and in her furious frustration (with their petty squabbles, wars, and essential blindness) forsaking them forever. And then, in the wake of that abandonment, they muddle through, fulfill on their not-wholly-perfect decision to murder the giant out of self preservation, and make their post-apocalyptic non-traditional family-community. It makes sense, but because the witch has been such a realistic character up to that point, the implication that she is a personification of Earth or of Goddess on such a grand style when she delivers "Last Midnight" comes a little out of left field and a little late in the story. And does she die? Or is it just necessary for the evolution of the human species that the supernatural (whether benevolent or not) be removed once and for all so they can face life squarely, with responsibility for their choices and actions.
I do wonder who the Witch's mother is. And If it's the Earth, well, then, that would make sense, but there's no indication that the Witch's "end" reconciles her with her mother or just ends her. I do think it's all helped if Rapunzel is dead. The witch has then been witness to having herself destroyed her own greatest love, because of some very human base emotions (jealousy, control, rage). We don't worry so much in "Rose's Turn" who Rose's mother is, though she's included in it, but the Witch's mother, more so than the witch, set everything in motion. And windering who that mother is, with no hint from Lapine other than the implication, because the witch is subsumed into the Earth that the mother might be "Earth" itself, leaves me hanging.
By the way, I didn't feel that the fuzzy visuals of the giantess did anything much to humanize her in the film. Not that that's necessary. And I wish Jack had been a little older, a little more bad-boy James Dean rather than child-archetype. He is one of the more unethical creatures in the story; maybe casting him as a child is meant to evoke a sense of his innocence.
|