-- What does Marianne remember to do? I don't think I missed something, and please point it out if it's obvious, but I didn't think it was meant to be obvious. The question is why not. Bookwriter David Ives introduces a minor mystery that seems not to matter all that much (what the seemingly emptyheaded Marianne intended to do) that takes on greater weight when she announces in her monologue at the end of the show that she "just did it." By this time, Marianne has become the show's central character, and its most sympathetic one. Is she going "off-script," not playing her designated role in the play? Does it not matter what it was, that it's just that she did something for herself? Did Ives write himself into a corner?
-- Where does "Inferno" go at the end? What does it mean? Denis O'Hare's character in the second act, the butler who is actually a revolutionary trapped with everyone else, vanishes at the end. Everyone else either departs "normally" or is back looking for brunch. But "Inferno" just quietly exits the stage. I saw someone on Reddit comment that he appears to walk over something at the side of the stage, but I didn't notice this. What happens to him? His character was in many ways the most problematic in the second act for me, as he seems easily defeated by the rich folks and just seems rather pathetic, but is there more to it than that? (O'Hare, in a radio interview, says he knows what happens to his character but doesn't reveal it.) As there isn't a direct analogue between his character and those of either of Luis Bunuel's films, there doesn't seem to be an obvious answer.
-- What happens to the main characters at the end? The conclusion is similar to that of The Extrerminating Angel, suggesting that they're trapped again. But the second act isn't nearly as dark as the film. It felt like the ending was up to the viewer's interpretation. It's possible that I missed a hint because I was sitting in the side seats, so I didn't catch the actors' facial expressions as they ran forward before the blackout.
-- This is less a question than an observation: David Hyde Pierce's bishop is perhaps the biggest departure from the comparable character in The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie. In the film, the seemingly harmless bishop shoots and kills a dying man without hesitation after learning the man killed his parents. Pierce’s bishop is not a murderer; he's a charming man going through a spiritual crisis that's resolved happily by the end of the show. My conclusion is that Ives' attitude toward organized religion is a lot less hostile than Luis Bunuel's. Or, like much of the rest of the show, it's not nearly as dark as it could have been. Ives, and Sondheim (whatever his contribution remained in the final product), pulled their punches a bit. It didn't detract from my enjoyment of the show, as Ives (along with director Joe Mantello and, whatever his role before his death, Sondheim) aimed for a satire a lot lighter than the original films, and especially The Exterminating Angel. It was less unsettling than the original films, for better and for worse.