I'm Still Here - Ending Explained

"I'm Still Here" follows a non-linear structure based on memory. After Rubens Paiva is abducted by the military in 1971, he is never seen by his family again. The film reveals through implication and sound design—rather than graphic depiction—that he was tortured and murdered shortly after his arrest. Eunice and her daughter Eliana are also detained; while Eliana is released after a day, Eunice is held for 12 days and subjected to psychological torture, hearing the screams of other prisoners but never learning her husband's fate.

A significant plot point is that the government denies having Rubens in custody, publicly claiming he escaped and fled the country, a piece of "fake news" that tortures the family for years. Financially crippled because she cannot access her husband's assets without a death certificate, Eunice is forced to move her family from their beloved home in Rio to São Paulo. The narrative jumps forward to 1996, showing Eunice as a successful lawyer who finally receives official confirmation of Rubens's death, though his body is never found and his killers are never prosecuted due to Brazil's Amnesty Law.

The film's ending jumps to 2014. Eunice is now elderly and suffering from severe Alzheimer's disease, cared for by her children. In a profoundly moving final scene, her son Marcelo plays television coverage of the Brazilian National Truth Commission, where the details of his father's torture and murder are finally being publicly acknowledged. Despite her advanced dementia, a flicker of recognition and emotion crosses Eunice's face, suggesting that on some deep level, the truth has reached her. The film concludes with on-screen text detailing that Rubens Paiva was killed between January 21-22, 1971, and that the military officers responsible were never brought to justice.

While the film's narrative is a direct, fact-based account, different interpretations arise from its focus and ending. One perspective is that the film is less a political thriller and more a psychological study of grief and the ambiguous nature of loss when there is no closure. The focus is not on the investigation into Rubens's murder but on the emotional toll of "not knowing" and the family's struggle to function within a void.

Another interpretation centers on the final scenes featuring Eunice with Alzheimer's. Some viewers see this as a deeply tragic irony: a woman who dedicated her life to fighting against forgetting ultimately loses her own memory. A more optimistic reading, however, suggests that even as her personal memory fades, the collective memory she helped build—the historical truth of the regime's crimes—endures. Her fight was successful precisely because the story can now be told and remembered by others, even when she no longer can. This frames her personal tragedy not as a defeat, but as a testament to her legacy's strength.