Cora

And Still, She Scrubs at the Stain That Will Not Fade

Overview:

Two women, Eun-su and Hui-su, collide with a rotten system of abusers and bystanders, and their grief mutates into a messy, moral revenge. After Eun-su helps Hui-su kill the monstrous Jin-pyo, they clumsily bury the body, rope in a lookalike (Jang Kang), and sink into a paranoid spiral of blackmail, escapes, and police manipulation led by Jin-pyo’s conniving family. The mid-season detour into thriller clichés (kidnappings, fixers, repeated escapes) muddies the show’s initial, powerful study of complicity and trauma, but the finale pivots back: confessions, a trial, and a bittersweet exile. It’s brutal, messy, sometimes sloppy, but, at its best, a fierce look at what silence costs and what it takes to finally act.


________________________________________

Commentary:

As You Stood By is a haunting psychological thriller and social drama that dissects the lingering scars of domestic abuse, complicity, and moral cowardice. It follows two women: Hui-su, a once-bright illustrator now trapped in a violent marriage, and Eun-su, her long-lost friend burdened by guilt for staying silent. Their reunion sets off a spiral of blood, guilt, and redemption that blurs the line between survival and sin.

This show is a bold, unflinching dissection of how violence festers in silence, and how the systems meant to stop it often become accomplices instead. It begins as a slow-burn psychological drama about women surviving abuse, but evolves, sometimes gracefully, sometimes clumsily, into a sprawling story about guilt, power, and the morality of revenge. It’s part domestic thriller, part moral reckoning, and part elegy for women who are told to “endure.” What stands out most is how deeply it understands its characters: each woman carries her trauma not as a badge, but as a shadow that twists every decision she makes.

The cinematography is cold and claustrophobic. The writing leans heavily on symbolism, all recurring motifs reflecting guilt, denial, and rebirth. The direction isn’t flashy, but it’s deeply empathetic. There’s an understanding of silence, of stillness. You feel the weight of what isn’t said as much as what is.

The performances are the show’s soul. Lee You-mi gives a devastating, career-defining performance as Hui-su – fragile, unpredictable, and painfully real. Every glance, every pause, captures a woman teetering between despair and defiance. Her counterpart, Eun-su, is a woman torn between moral conviction and complicity, trying to make peace with the choices she didn’t make soon enough. Together, their dynamic is electrifying: sisterly, tense, tender, and at times devastating. Their chemistry is electric – tender, volatile, and revolutionary. Their friendship becomes a survival pact, and their choices, however violent, feel like the only escape from a world that refuses to protect them.

At its heart, the series isn’t about the murder itself but everything that festers around it: the silence, the denial, the bystanders who look away. Each character embodies a different form of complicity: Hui-su’s mother-in-law, who normalized her own abuse, the sister-in-law cop who shields her brother, and Eun-su who convinces herself she’s powerless. The title says it all: people who “stand by” are part of the crime. What makes the show so haunting is how it refuses to draw clean moral lines. Every character is guilty of something, whether it’s direct violence or the quieter sin of doing nothing, exposing not just personal failure but a culture built on endurance and denial.


________________________________________

Likes:

What I loved most was the emotional honesty. The show doesn’t sanitize abuse or romanticize vengeance; it depicts both with harrowing realism. The early half builds tension through empathy rather than spectacle, you don’t watch it to be entertained; you watch it to understand. When Hui-su’s pain finally finds its voice, it’s not in a grand monologue but in quiet gestures, the way she can’t look at her own reflection, the way she stops flinching only when she’s too exhausted to care.

I also admired the thematic consistency. Every subplot, from the corrupt cops to Mrs. Jo’s marriage, circles back to one question: what happens when society decides that women’s suffering is normal? Even the side characters contribute to this mosaic of systemic apathy. Officer Choi’s investigation, Jin-young’s obsession, and the power struggles within the force all underscore the same rot, that power protects itself.

And yes, the finale. The ending lands beautifully despite its improbable logistics. The idea of Hui-su, Eun-su, and So-baek rebuilding their lives in Vietnam could have felt like escapist fluff, but instead it plays as something gentler, an image of possibility. The show doesn’t promise redemption; it promises survival. Hui-su painting again, Eun-su surfing... these are metaphors for endurance, not erasure. They’ve lived through hell, and though they can’t undo their pasts, they can finally stop running from them. It’s a breath after suffocation. The silence that once meant fear now means peace. It’s a tender ending that rewarded me with emotional release, even if reality would probably never allow such neat closure.


________________________________________

Dislikes:

The middle stretch, especially the introduction of the Jang Kang subplot, feels like narrative filler masquerading as escalation. Up until that point, the show’s tension came from moral stakes; afterward, it relies too heavily on physical chaos. Suddenly, we have kidnappings, car chases, and half-baked conspiracies that feel out of sync with the show’s emotional core.

Jin-young’s descent into full-blown villainy is another misstep. She devolves into a one-note antagonist. Her actions, such as manipulating police records, imprisoning people in her home, covering up murders, border on cartoonish. It’s frustrating because her earlier complexity hinted at something richer: a woman torn between justice and obsession. By the time she’s driving a car stuffed with a corpse off a highway, the show has traded psychological realism for pulp.

Jeong-suk’s late-game meltdown, while emotionally potent, also strains believability. Her killing of Jang Kang, which can be a shocking moment on paper, feels more like the writers trying to tie up loose ends than a logical evolution of her character. Up until then, she’s never been violent. The sudden brutality reads as shock-for-shock’s-sake, not an earned catharsis.

And then there’s the issue of tone. The early episodes maintain a delicate realism, but the final ones flirt with soap opera extremes. The emotional throughline, like Hui-su’s healing and Eun-su’s redemption, gets muddied by unnecessary chaos. A few narrative threads (like Jin-pyo’s embezzlement case or Officer Choi’s sudden removal) are wrapped up too neatly or forgotten altogether. It’s almost tragic, because the show had everything it needed to end perfectly about two episodes earlier.


With all that said, I'd give this drama a 7 out of 10.

Read More

MORALITY GOES TO DIE

OVERVIEW:

Long story short, Dear X is a wild, morally messy rollercoaster that dazzles and frustrates in equal measure.

Ah-jin is a magnetic, ruthless antihero shaped by trauma, manipulating everyone around her while the plot bends over backward to accommodate her every move. Jun-seo and Jae-oh are tragically underutilized, their sacrifices both heartbreaking and narratively convenient.

The series swings wildly between psychological drama, revenge thriller, and melodrama, with hallucinations, plot coincidences, and deus ex machina undermining tension.

Themes of fame, trauma, and power are provocative but unevenly executed. It’s audacious, addictive, and infuriating. In short, brilliant in concept, sloppy in execution.

__________________________

IN DETAIL (SPOILERS!):

Dear X is audacious, messy, infuriating, genius-adjacent and morally combustible all at once, like a luxury car driven headlong into an emotional canyon and somehow kept running long enough to scorch an entire season. It's the kind of show that makes you want to both stand up and throw things at the screen, because it gives you brilliant, combustible sparks and then squanders them in the most theatrical, convenient ways possible.

First, let's give credit where credit is due: the show knows how to make a character you simultaneously adore and want to strangle. Baek Ah-jin is one of the more intoxicating antiheroes in recent memory: born of trauma but quickly weaponized by it, she moves through the world with surgical cruelty and a weird, almost clinical charisma that reads as both survival tactic and pathological strategy. The writers are brave (or reckless) enough to let her be monstrous and magnetic in equal measure, to have her engineer humiliations, run loan-sharking schemes, orchestrate public demolitions of rivals, and still make the audience intermittently root for her. That tension, between empathy for a childhood shaped by abuse and repulsion at the adult who monetizes that trauma, is the show's strongest engine.

But brilliance and cruelty do not excuse fundamental storytelling malpractice, and that's where Dear X pivots from compelling to exasperating. The show relies on coincidence and deus ex machina as if they were production values: someone is always there to find a beanie in a toilet, a manager conveniently records a parking-lot altercation, a CEO is arrested at the perfect dramatic moment, a documentary drops mid-awards speech, and a mysterious billionaire cleans up every smear with the casual flick of a legal pen. This isn't suspense so much as plot logistics on steroids. Suspense is earned; consequences must be built. Instead, the plot often travels via the convenient device rather than by character necessity.

Police investigators are caricatures of corruption and corruption-of-convenience. Detectives accept bribes with flimsy internal-rescue arcs, evidence is found or deleted at warp speed, and legal procedures evaporate at a moment's notice to serve spectacle. If the show is trying to indict institutional failure - and sometimes it does, depicting entertainment industry blackmail, bribery, and the weaponization of media - then it undermines its own critique by having these institutions bend and yield exactly as the plot requires. Real corruption is messy and resistant; on screen, it is theatrically punctual. The result is that tension frequently dissolves into the next manipulative beat rather than settling into a believable pattern of escalation and fallout.

Then there’s the ethical problem of trauma-as-plot-device. Ah-jin’s childhood: her mother’s alcoholism, abuse, abandonment and the split-family dynamics, are wrenching, real, and could have been treated with surgical empathy. But the series repeatedly turns suffering into a bespoke toolkit for social manipulation: scars, stolen diaries, suicide-inducing setups, prescriptive hallucinations, and a staged Victorian-level of theatrics that occasionally feels exploitative rather than explanatory. There is a fine line between showing how trauma shapes a person and using trauma as an aesthetic instrument to justify villainy; Dear X often crosses it.

Ah-jin is fascinating because she refuses to be a one-note "trauma excuse," but the storytelling sometimes leans on her backstory as a magic wand that allows her to get away with ever darker behavior without convincing psychological groundwork. The hallucinations and mental breaks (her laughter in a 911 call, the recurring domestic flashbacks, the sudden memory lapses) are evocative at moments and cheap at others, because they are alternately used to humanize, exculpate, or increase suspense depending on what the script needs that episode. Make a choice: either commit to a rigorous psychological portrait with consistent rules, or lean fully into melodrama with the understanding that you're playing in a heightened reality. Straddling both creates tone whiplash.

Character dynamics are another area where the show oscillates between sharp observation and lazy shorthand. Jun-seo is heartbreak rendered in ink. His devotion to Ah-jin is tender, terrible, and ultimately self-annihilating, but the show never quite lands his internal reasoning beautifully enough to justify the final act. His transformation from steady, loving anchor to impulsive driver over a cliff is narratively poetic but emotionally undercut; the script expects us to accept that the man who discovers such monstrous complexity in the person he loves would choose an impossible, fatal rescue without more interrogative time. The result is a tragic gesture that was earned stylistically but not entirely at the granular emotional level.

Jae-oh is hands-down the best-written minor protagonist: loyal, morally anchored, and brave in a way that makes his death feel genuinely criminal from a storytelling standpoint. Killing him off to catalyze Ah-jin's rise and to manufacture footage that can be used as leverage is narratively cold-blooded, and the show does it without sufficient moral digestion. Jae-oh's death is used as evidence, leverage, and viewer manipulation rather than a sorrow whose ramifications are comprehensively explored. The show treats his sacrifice as both tactical and tragic, but never as a human life that should make the remaining characters' consciences noisier and more complex.

This is emblematic of a recurrent problem: characters are used as levers too often, sacrificed to prove points or to create flash-bang reveals, rather than allowed to break, heal, or grow in messy human ways.

The depiction of women is a mixed bag. On one hand, we get a gallery of powerful, flawed women: Mi-ri the CEO who weaponizes files, Le-na whose pettiness is sharpened into career sabotage, Kyung-suk whose warmth becomes collateral, Sung-hee the school nemesis turned pawn. On the other hand, much of this tapestry reads as catty, backstabbing folklore that feeds into tired stereotypes about female rivalry in patriarchal industries: women hurt women because they must. The series tries to rebalance this with nuanced suggestions: Mi-ri's greed is explicit, Ji-sun's opportunism is grotesque, but it fails at times to give non-Ah-jin female characters enough interior life beyond what they represent for Ah-jin's trajectory.

The men aren't immune from caricature either: Do-hyuk, the glossy billionaire villain, reads too easily as the "rich psychopath buys everything" trope; In-gang is the tragic soft man who exists to be ruined; the grandfather and various father-figures often serve as either abusers or victims without the messy shades between. The show’s commentary on fame and the entertainment industry rips with teeth: longstar’s shackles files, the CEO's expedient betrayal, the immediacy of online shaming... these are incisive. The way Ah-jin manipulates public perception by drugging the narrative, releasing controlled leaks, staging romances, speaks to a contemporary understanding of cancel culture, PR arms races, and how star-making infrastructures can both protect and destroy the people within them. But the critique never fully lands because the show then mirrors the same industry behavior it tries to condemn: it beats the audience with spectacle instead of giving us sustained investigative clarity.

The documentary bombshell released during Ah-jin's award acceptance is a genius televisual stroke. It is raw, humiliating, perfectly staged, but its impact evaporates too quickly because the series moves on to the next escalatory stunt rather than letting the consequences of that exact moment breathe: reputational damage, legal torpedoes, public introspection, fans' ambivalence, the internal dissolution of a company... these things deserve space, not a montage.

Tonally, the series is stuck between revenge thriller, melodramatic soap, and psychological horror. Sometimes the tension works, like Jung-ho's moral confusion, the slow discovery of family secrets, the cramped feel of Ah-jin's apartment early on, but at points the show seems to revel in its own unhingedness rather than in narrative logic. When the script needs a big emotional hit, it doubles down on the most extreme move: a suicide, a public humiliation, a murder videotape. That makes for addictive viewing but robs the story of nuanced weight.

If the writers wanted to ask "how much can a person be forgiven if their survival mechanisms become weapons?" they could have used Jae-oh and Jun-seo to create sustained moral friction. Instead, they accelerate tragedy until grief becomes a spectacle.

The handling of guilt and accountability is particularly infuriating because the show loves theatrical reversals but is less interested in consequences that feel just. Mi-ri's arrest for bribery and embezzlement is narratively satisfying (that fall was overdue) but it's staged so conveniently that it reads less like justice and more like a plot-turn checkbox.

The legal system is a prop rather than a terrain to be realistically navigated: police interviews are scripted skirmishes, internal affairs investigations are theatre, and prosecutors don't appear to be bound by typical evidentiary standards. If the series had intentionally created a heightened legal world, that could work, but the complaint is that it sometimes pretends to be realistic and then bails into melodrama, which undermines the stakes.

Thematically, Dear X tries to do a lot: it wants to be a critique of fame, a study of trauma, a portrait of weaponized femininity, and a noir revenge epic. It occasionally achieves this synthesis: Ah-jin's ascent (and the moral levers she uses to climb) is a fascinating study in modern sociopathy, but it also spreads itself thin, leaving a trail of rhetorical detritus: dangling motivations, underexplored secondary arcs, and a few too many "mystery men in black suits" who appear when the writing needs a villainous standing army.

The show's most maddening structural sin is how it keeps escalating violence and spectacle without giving viewers time to process. Each episode is effectively a pitch for "what if we go harsher?" culminating in major sacrificial deaths that the show uses as both tragic punctuation and narrative tinder. They hurt because they should, and they are also tactically convenient: one creates evidence, the other seals Ah-jin's isolation. The problem is that isolation is then turned into a glamorous arc: Ah-jin marries Do-hyuk, accepts awards, becomes global, all while carrying corpses in her luggage.

The moral calculus of the series that allows a protagonist who orders hits, manipulates lovers, and watches people die to win the throne of fame is provocative, but the writers rarely force the rest of the cast, and therefore the audience, to hold them accountable in ways that feel commensurate with the crimes.

Finally, let's talk about pacing and alternatives. The show would be far stronger if it did fewer things deeply rather than many things theatrically. Give Jun-seo more interior time so his final choice lands as inevitable rather than ornamental. Let Jae-oh's integrity echo for episodes, let other characters wrestle with the fact that his death was instrumental, not symbolic. Commit to a realistic legal pathway: corrupt cops should have plausible motives, investigations should bleed across arcs, and the documentary revelation should trigger a slower collapse of institutions.

Stop treating physical injury and psychiatric hospitalization as dramatic props; if the show wants to explore mental health, it must do so with a consistent vocabulary and consequences, not as an on-off switch to generate sympathy or suspicion. And if the creators want to keep Ah-jin as an antihero, then keep the audience morally busy: show the emotional cost on her allies, force her into real reckonings that are messy, and don't reward her with glamour until she has paid a price that feels earned or at least painfully ambiguous.

All that said, I wouldn't change the spine of Dear X because its audacity is its lifeblood. It's a spectacularly imperfect beast: visually striking, emotionally manipulative, and narratively greedy, but it has the guts to make you feel dirty-satisfied. It's the kind of series that prompts brilliant critique because it gives a lot to critique: strong lead performance potential, a central idea that is darkly resonant, and a willingness to push boundaries in ways most mainstream dramas won't.

What it needs is restraint, moral rigor, and the courage to let consequences breathe instead of always escalating the volume. Let characters live with their choices, make the institutional critique stick by playing by its own rules, and stop treating trauma like a convenient plot engine. Make it less like a series of calculated set pieces and more like a study in how power devours everyone in its orbit, including the supposed architect of that power.


Thanks for reading!

Read More