I really can't stand this. When I saw BJ confessing to the two that he didn't know who the father of the child was, I was even more embarrassed than the Italian waiter who was there...
No wonder Hugh Grant was dissatisfied with the script and stopped acting at the end
... ... Colin Firth and Dempsey who took Hugh Grant's class are really good orz
-- I was so intuitive...
However, at the end of the film, it is not clear who the father is. (Although everyone says that it is Mr. Darcy's, but even if it is Jack's child, out of respect for BJ's choice, it is not impossible for Darcy who married BJ to be raised? "I love her", the director probably also wanted to reserve space for discussion), making
it particularly Plato's ideal country (children belong to the city-state, men don't know who their children are, so everyone will treat all children as their own) Or whether there is communism - it doesn't matter who the father is, if you give birth to a child, everyone can raise it together.
So I scrutinized it suspiciously, and I was shocked to realize that the topmost idea was actually an idea subtly generated after being immersed in a male-dominated society for a long time.
Why not do a (potentially harming baby) genetic test to find out who the father is? !
How can you be so embarrassed to let one of them, who is not the father of the child, pay for the whole process to help you have a child? ! And so on, the idea of who the father is more than the new life.
As long as we accept the idea that "the smooth birth of a new life is more important than finding out who the father is, and as long as it is the child of someone I love, I must fully support her", then we can look at the problem from a new, feminist perspective. . It is understandable why the two men were able to put the results aside and cooperate to help BJ give birth. It can also make you resist the urge to flip the table when you see the end of the film and you are not sure who the father is. You can also notice the hot issues of minority and feminism discussed in the film, such as homosexuality and adoption, out-of-wedlock pregnancy, dismissal from pregnancy, single mothers & fathers, and ethnic minorities.
It's just that the concept of "life itself is higher than who this life comes from", the two men in the film can accept it so easily and try their best to be consistent with their words and deeds. ). This makes idealization out of reach, and one wonders how long it will take for such an idea to become widely accepted.
In addition, this film is not really radical, BJ made a choice at the last minute and married Mr. Darcy. And it also gave a conservative ending with indicative bias (given facts such as marriage and name that tend to default to Darcy's child) for fans who insisted on knowing who the father was. BJ has neither been an unmarried mother nor lived a multi-partner life of two men and one woman. Just looking at the beginning and the end, she just got married and had children in hilarious laughter. How much is more orthodox, 2333333 I
heard that the filmmaker has made three endings. And the final decision to release the ending is simply to say to the audience, don't worry, we don't have world-shattering ambitions, we just save the choice of who to marry until after the child is born.
If there is no hint of who the father is through a little plot at the end, they are not married and they have started a cohabitation life of two men and one woman, then it is worth taking a breath for the director's boldness.
View more about Bridget Jones's Baby reviews
