Log inSign up

Am Schluss des Films sind alle glücklich.

Am Schluss des Films sind alle glücklich.
At the end of the film everyone is happy.
Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching German grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning German now

Questions & Answers about Am Schluss des Films sind alle glücklich.

What does am in Am Schluss stand for, and why not im Schluss?

Am is a contraction of an dem:

  • an dem Schluss → am Schluss

Similarly, im is in dem:

  • in dem Film → im Film

Both an and in can refer to time, but German uses fixed combinations (set phrases). For “at the end” (in a temporal sense), the normal expression is:

  • am Schluss
  • am Ende
  • zum Schluss

You would not say im Schluss in standard German for “at the end.” So the choice of am here is mostly idiomatic: am Schluss is simply the established phrase.

What’s the difference between am Schluss and am Ende (and zum Schluss)?

In many contexts they can all mean “at the end,” but there are nuances:

  • am Schluss des Films
    Focuses on the final part/closing section of a process or story. Very natural for films, books, speeches.

  • am Ende des Films
    Also very common. Slightly more general and can be more literal: “at the end (point) of the film.” Often completely interchangeable with am Schluss des Films here.

  • zum Schluss
    Literally “toward/for the end,” often used like “finally / in conclusion”:

    • Zum Schluss des Films sind alle glücklich.
      “At the end of the film, everyone is happy.” (also fine)

In your sentence, you can also say:

  • Am Ende des Films sind alle glücklich.
  • Zum Schluss des Films sind alle glücklich.

All three sound natural; am Schluss and am Ende are probably the most neutral.

Why is it des Films and not der Film or dem Film?

Des Films is in the genitive case, which often corresponds to English “of the film.”

The structure is:

  • der Schluss – “the end”
  • der Schluss des Films – “the end of the film”

In German, des Films tells you that the “end” belongs to / is part of the film. That’s what the genitive does.

For the noun Film (masculine), the definite article changes with case:

  • Nominative: der Film
  • Accusative: den Film
  • Dative: dem Film
  • Genitive: des Films

So des Films is exactly the correct form for “of the film”.

Could I say am Schluss vom Film instead of am Schluss des Films?

Yes, you will hear:

  • Am Schluss vom Film sind alle glücklich.

This uses von + dative (vom = von dem) instead of the genitive:

  • vom Film ≈ “of the film”

Differences:

  • Am Schluss des Films
    – grammatically more standard/formal, preferred in writing and careful speech.
  • Am Schluss vom Film
    – colloquial, very common in everyday spoken German.

Both are understood and correct in informal conversation. For writing (essays, exams, subtitles, etc.), des Films is the safer, more “correct” choice.

How do I know that Film is masculine, and what are its forms?

The gender of Film is masculine. In dictionaries you’ll see:

  • Film (m) or der Film

Gender is mostly something you simply have to memorize. The full declension:

Singular (der Film)

  • Nominative: der Film – Der Film ist spannend.
  • Accusative: den Film – Ich sehe den Film.
  • Dative: dem Film – Ich folge dem Film kaum.
  • Genitive: des Films – Das Ende des Films ist schön.

Plural (die Filme)

  • Nominative: die Filme – Die Filme sind lang.
  • Accusative: die Filme – Ich mag die Filme.
  • Dative: den Filmen – Mit den Filmen habe ich ein Problem.
  • Genitive: der Filme – Die Titel der Filme sind ähnlich.

In your sentence, we use des Films (genitive singular).

Where is the article for Schluss? Why don’t we see something like der Schluss in the sentence?

The article for Schluss is actually hidden inside am:

  • an dem Schluss → am Schluss

So the underlying structure is:

  • An dem Schluss des Films sind alle glücklich.

Then we contract an dem to am, which is completely standard:

  • am Schluss des Films sind alle glücklich.

So Schluss does have an article (dem), it’s just fused with the preposition an.

What is the grammatical function of des Films in this sentence? Is it an object?

Des Films is not an object. It is a genitive attribute that belongs to the noun Schluss.

Structure:

  • Am Schluss – prepositional phrase: “at the end”
  • des Films – genitive attribute: “of the film”

Together: Am Schluss des Films = “At the end of the film”.

The main clause is:

  • (Am Schluss des Films) sind alle glücklich.
    Verb: sind
    Subject: alle
    Predicate adjective: glücklich

There is no direct or indirect object in this sentence.

Why is the verb sind so early in the sentence and not at the very end?

In German main clauses, the finite verb must be in second position. This is the “Verb-second” (V2) rule.

Your sentence splits like this:

  1. First position: Am Schluss des Films (this whole phrase counts as one element)
  2. Second position: sind (the finite verb)
  3. The rest: alle glücklich

So:

  • Am Schluss des Films | sind | alle glücklich.

If you start with something else, the verb still stays second:

  • Alle | sind | am Schluss des Films glücklich.

But in a subordinate clause with dass, the finite verb goes to the end:

  • …, dass am Schluss des Films alle glücklich sind.

So in your original sentence, sind is early because German main clauses require the verb to be in second position.

Could I also say Alle sind am Schluss des Films glücklich? Does the word order change the meaning?

Yes, this is perfectly correct:

  • Alle sind am Schluss des Films glücklich.

The basic meaning is the same, but the emphasis shifts:

  • Am Schluss des Films sind alle glücklich.
    → Highlights when they are happy (the time: “at the end of the film”).

  • Alle sind am Schluss des Films glücklich.
    → Highlights who is happy (everyone, not just some characters).

German word order in the “middle part” of the sentence is fairly flexible, and speakers use that flexibility to shift emphasis rather than to change core meaning.

Why is glücklich not capitalized and why doesn’t it get an ending like -e or -en here?

Two points:

  1. Capitalization
    In German, nouns are capitalized, but adjectives are not.

    • glücklich is an adjective, so it stays lowercase.
    • A capitalized version would mean it’s used as a noun, e.g. das Glückliche.

  2. No ending after “sein”
    German adjectives only take endings when they directly modify a noun, e.g.

    • die glücklichen Leute (“the happy people”) → glücklich gets -en
    • ein glücklicher Mensch → glücklich gets -er

    After sein (and similar verbs like werden, bleiben), the adjective is used as a predicate, and it does not take an ending:

    • Alle sind glücklich.
    • Er bleibt ruhig.
    • Sie wird nervös.

So in sind alle glücklich, glücklich is a predicate adjective: no ending, no capital letter.

What is the difference between glücklich, froh, and zufrieden?

They all relate to positive feelings, but with different nuances:

  • glücklich
    = “happy”, often a stronger, more general happiness; can also mean “fortunate/lucky”

    • Am Schluss des Films sind alle glücklich.
      → They are clearly, genuinely happy.

  • froh
    = “glad”, often connected to relief or joy about a particular event

    • Ich bin froh, dass der Film gut ausgeht.
      → “I’m glad the film ends well” (relief, satisfaction about that fact).

  • zufrieden
    = “content, satisfied,” often calm, moderate happiness, not necessarily excited

    • Am Schluss des Films sind alle zufrieden.
      → Everyone is content; it turned out okay, but not necessarily a euphoric “happy ending.”

For a classic “happy ending” in a film, glücklich is the standard choice.

Why is alle used by itself? Shouldn’t it be alle Leute or alle Personen?

Alle can work as a pronoun (standing alone) or as a determiner (coming before a noun).

  1. As a pronoun (like “everyone / all (of them)”):

    • Alle sind glücklich.
      → “Everyone is happy.” / “They are all happy.”
    • Who “alle” refers to is understood from the context (characters in the film, here).

  2. As a determiner (before a noun):

    • Alle Leute sind glücklich. – “All the people are happy.”
    • Alle Kinder sind glücklich. – “All the children are happy.”

In your sentence, the context (a film) makes it clear that alle means “all the characters / everyone,” so adding a noun is not necessary and might even sound redundant.

The film ends in the past (it already finished), so why is the sentence in the present tense (sind) and not past (waren)?

German often uses the present tense to talk about the content of books, films, plays, etc. This is similar to English:

  • English:
    • “In the film, everyone is happy at the end.” (not “was”)
  • German:
    • Im Film sind am Schluss alle glücklich.

This is sometimes called the “narrative” or “literary” present.

You could say:

  • Am Schluss des Films waren alle glücklich.

That refers to a specific viewing event in the past (“When we watched it, everyone was happy at the end”), but for describing the story itself, present tense is the default.

If you wanted future:

  • Am Schluss des Films werden alle glücklich sein.
    “At the end of the film, everyone will be happy.”
Can I leave out des Films and just say Am Schluss sind alle glücklich?

Yes:

  • Am Schluss sind alle glücklich.

This is perfectly grammatical and natural. Then am Schluss just means “in the end / finally / at the end (of it all)”, with the context (conversation about a film, book, trip, etc.) telling you what “end” this is.

  • With des Films:
    → Am Schluss des Films sind alle glücklich.
    Very explicit: at the end of the film.
  • Without des Films:
    → Am Schluss sind alle glücklich.
    More general: at the (relevant) end, everyone is happy.

In many real conversations, speakers leave out des Films if it’s already clear what they’re talking about.