I thought it was a very educational work, but the ending... spoiled the meaning of the show. The camera focuses on a seemingly perfect, but somewhat tired marriage, trying to explore whether women have other possibilities besides wives and mothers. As said in the play, women have many desires, but unfortunately the screenwriter narrowed this desire to "sex", as if sexual freedom and women's freedom can be equated. I think this is not the case. Women's freedom is full of physical freedom, but it is more important Spiritually independent, thoughtful women are very attractive. As a doctoral student at Columbia University, does the heroine have no other pursuits in life? Maybe the audience will say that there are many aspects to the heroine's life, and the play only focuses on the part about body desire, but the whole play is in the husband and the relationship. Repeated entanglements between exes, this is really not what Kochi women should show. The heroine can choose to give up the fantasy of the ex and return to the traditional housewife role, or divorce, experience crazy happiness with the ex, or even reach an agreement with her husband to raise the children together, but not interfere with each other's lives, But the heroine didn't do that. On the one hand, the female protagonist emphasizes that she loves her family, and the departure of the male protagonist will break her heart. On the other hand, she misses her ex and cannot forget that romantic time. I understand this feeling. The script was created from a female perspective, which naturally and meticulously depicts the feelings of women that are hidden in their hearts. I can even accept that the heroine loves two people at the same time. However, the heroine has never had a clear idea and made a decisive choice. This kind of portrayal of women as such is not the slander of women by men, but the self-dwarfing of women (the writers and directors are all women), It's not surprising that the ending was so badly scolded.
View more about Sex/Life reviews
