yayagi5785

Just my two cents, but I felt that the writer created a situation where it made absolute sense for the lover to kill the wife, while I never felt that the husband doing it would fit his personality or his goals and motivations. I guess this was done intentionally to surprise the viewer, and also to make it plausible for the police to believe the lover, and not the husband, was the culprit. But for the same reasons, it really makes the way this all went down at the end seem implausible for me, once I take a step back.

The lover was a creepy stalker that was obsessed with FL, and repeatedly tried to pressure her to divorce from her husband, which she didn't want to do. He threatened to expose their affair with his behavior, and he also called her at home against her wishes. It would have therefore made absolute sense for him to have been the one to kill her.

The husband was knew of and accepted the affair. He merely wanted his wife to be a good mother. One might ask whether this could be squared with her having an affair, and it turned out that it could not: she drugged her kid and left the toddler alone at the apartment while she run off to meet her lover. Fortunately ML found the kid in time and brought him to the hospital. After which he committed the murder.

It's clear that this was set up this way because the writer wanted to create a bait and switch for the viewer, and surprise them, while also making it plausible for the police to believe the lover, not the husband, committed the crime. However, while the movie succeeded on both accounts, for the exact same reasons it made the husband behave in a way that was frankly implausible when one takes a step back and consider their respective characters, goals and motivations.

The husband, could have easily gotten a divorce, gotten custody of the kid (if drugging your infant child and abandoning him alone at home while you run off with your lover, and the kid ending up to the hospital, is not enough for him to get sole custody, I don't know what is) as well as alimony (because he was the partner in an economically disadvantageous position). It made absolutely no sense for him to instead choose to commit murder.

I think because the writer set up a situation where indeed, in terms of their personalities and motivations, the version believed by the police was more plausible than what actually happened... which is kind of a double edged sword, because while that surprised the viewer and made it likely the police would be fooled, it also meant that really, the most plausible way for it to go down would have been the scenario the police believed, and not what actually happened.

I did feel that the writer created a situation where it made absolute sense for the lover to kill the wife, while I never felt that the husband doing it would fit his personality or his goals and motivations. I guess this was done intentionally to surprise the viewer, and also to make it plausible for the police to believe the lover, and not the husband, was the culprit. But for the same reasons, it really makes the way this all went down at the end seem implausible for me, once I take a step back.

The lover was a creepy stalker that was obsessed with FL, and repeatedly tried to pressure her to divorce from her husband, which she didn't want to do. He threatened to expose their affair with his behavior, and he also called her at home against her wishes. It would have therefore made absolute sense for him to have been the one to kill her.

The husband was knew of and accepted the affair. He merely wanted his wife to be a good mother. One might ask whether this could be squared with her having an affair, and it turned out that it could not: she drugged her kid and left the toddler alone at the apartment while she run off to meet her lover. Fortunately ML found the kid in time and brought him to the hospital. After which he committed the murder.

It's clear that this was set up this way because the writer wanted to create a bait and switch for the viewer, and surprise them, while also making it plausible for the police to believe the lover, not the husband, committed the crime. However, while the movie succeeded on both accounts, for the exact same reasons it made the husband behave in a way that was frankly implausible when one takes a step back and consider their respective characters, goals and motivations.

The husband, could have easily gotten a divorce, gotten custody of the kid (if drugging your infant child and abandoning him alone at home while you run off with your lover, and the kid ending up to the hospital, is not enough for him to get sole custody, I don't know what is) as well as alimony (because he was the partner in an economically disadvantageous position). It made absolutely no sense for him to instead choose to commit murder.

I would agree that his actions didn't really make sense if you step back and think about his personality and his goals. To me it would have made much more sense had he simply divorced her and taken the kid (if he cannot get full custody after what the wife did to their infant child, I don't know who could), plus alimony (because he was the economically weaker party). I mean, obviously I understand him wanting to get her away from the child after what she had done to the poor infant, but surely that would have been a very easy win, legally speaking, with the hospital record and everything else.

Honestly, I felt a bit like after watching GoT, where I felt that some decisions were made for shock value and instead of going "okay, I see where that could have come from, I was being led by the nose all along", I was more like "okay, that was surprising, but taking a step back it still didn't really make any sense to me".

I really felt like the writer had set up a scenario where, because of their personalities and motivations, it would have made absolute sense for the lover to kill the wife, while I never felt that the husband doing it would fit his personality or his goals. I guess this was done intentionally to surprise the viewer, and also to make it plausible for the police to believe the lover, and not the husband, was the culprit. But for the same reasons, it really makes the way this all went down at the end seem implausible for me, once I take a step back.

The lover was a creepy stalker that was obsessed with FL, and repeatedly tried to pressure her to divorce from her husband, which she didn't want to do. He threatened to expose their affair with his behavior, and he also called her at home against her wishes. It would have therefore made absolute sense for him to have been the one to kill her.

The husband was knew of and accepted the affair. He merely wanted his wife to be a good mother. One might ask whether this could be squared with her having an affair, and it turned out that it could not: she drugged her kid and left the toddler alone at the apartment while she run off to meet her lover. Fortunately ML found the kid in time and brought him to the hospital. After which he committed the murder.

It's clear that this was set up this way because the writer wanted to create a bait and switch for the viewer, and surprise them, while also making it plausible for the police to believe the lover, not the husband, committed the crime. However, while the movie succeeded on both accounts, for the exact same reasons it made the husband behave in a way that was frankly implausible when one takes a step back and consider their respective characters, goals and motivations.

The husband, could have easily gotten a divorce, gotten custody of the kid (if drugging your infant child and abandoning him alone at home while you run off with your lover, and the kid ending up to the hospital, is not enough for him to get sole custody, I don't know what is) as well as alimony (because he was the partner in an economically disadvantageous position). It made absolutely no sense for him to instead choose to commit murder.

In short, I will admit that the movie did surprise me, but not in a "in hindsight, I see how I was taken for a loop and this was obviously going to happen" kind of way, but in a "no, I still think that, taking a step back, this makes no sense whatsoever" kind of way. Kind of like some moments in the last seasons of Game of Thrones.

I mean, imho ML's actions were completely implausible, it would have made much more sense for him to get a divorce, get custody of the child (I mean, if what FL did to the kid doesn't allow him to get full custody, I don't know what would), plus alimony (because he was the economically weaker person).

The lover was set up as an absolute creep and a stalker, and that's why it's a surprise twist and the police drinks it all up, but for the same reason, once one takes a step back one realizes that really, it's because the alternative doesn't really make any sense.

To be honest, I think that the movie did a perfect job of setting up a scenario where the lover was believed by everyone to be a killer.

He did come off to me as obsessed with FL, and trying to pressure and manipulate her into getting a divorce, which she didn't want to do, even behaving in a way that threatened to reveal their affair, and calling her at home against her wishes.

Then FL drugged her infant child and left him alone in the apartment while she went to meet her lover. Thankfully her husband came back in time and brought the child to the hospital.

I did get the impression that the lover was much more into FL than she was into him, and more than willing to self servingly pressure her without any consideration for her desires or need for space. She seemed more caught in an addictive pattern, and in an unhealthy spiral that hurt her both emotionally and physically. Nothing about that seemed even remotely healthy (in addition to the toxicity and dysfunction associated with an affair "by definition", such as betraying and deceiving your spouse/the father of your child).

ML was a complete one-eighty., because he seemed to know and accept the affair, and it would have made absolute sense for him to get a divorce and get sole custody (if you cannot achieve that when your spouse drugged and abandoned your infant child and you had to bring them to the hospital... I mean, it should have been a slam dunk), plus alimony (because he was the economically weaker partner).

I felt that the director set up a situation where it made absolute sense for the lover to have been the murderer, while it made no sense for the husband to do that, given his personality, outlook, history and goals and motives... which made the surprise twist successful, and explains why the police is fooled, but also made his actions implausible once one takes a step back.

Well, I think that I have much more ambivalent feelings about the two lovers (to me, their relationship was rather toxic and dysfunctional, they clearly wanted very different things and I found him to be a creep, more on that in a spoiler block), but I do 100% agree that sex was central to contrasting the passion of the affair vs the mechanical nature of sex with the husband, etc. "Show, don't tell", like in any good movie.

In terms of the broader question, I am 100% in agreement with you, and frankly, the guy's own quotes clearly make the point:

1. "Articles were written as if those nudes scenes mirrored my personal life.". -> this is clearly "journos" (in quotes because I cannot bring myself to consider them actual journalists) publishing slanderous articles for money, and apparently being intellectually incapable of distinguishing acting from reality.

2. " When I told my mother that I had to show some skin in the movie I was filming, she asked me if my breasts would be exposed and I told her yes. She then started crying.": -> a different situation from the slanderous journos to be clear, but if you tell me that your are steeped in such a mindset of shame where the very notion of your daughter showing a nipple on camera is enough to provoke a tearful nervous breakdown, then maybe the issue is the fact that you are reacting as if you discovered she was a career criminal, when her actions didn't hurt anyone at all, rather than her making her own choices.

Frankly, the solution was not for her not to act in the scenes she wanted to act in, but for the journos not to publish slanderous drivel, and for her mother to at minimum accept that her daughter had a different view of things and was an adult woman that needed to live her own life, and it at all possible to consider that maybe showing a nipple on screen shouldn't lead to her breaking down in tears as if her daughter had done something to hurt or deceive another person.

On the more general point, I do think that even just "shock value" would have been a perfectly good reason to have such scenes in the movie, in that respect I don't really see sex and graphic murder as different.

Incidentally, I don't quite understand why this is an issue for this movie, because while kdramas are rather puritanical about sex, afaik kmovies were pretty okay about it, with Kim Tae-RI acting in movies like The Handmaiden which are much more risque than anything she would ever do in a kdrama.

I think that there are two separate issues here: on one hand, the issue of coercion, on the other hand, whether sex scenes are "gratuitous" or serve an actual purpose in the context of the movie (I think that even shock value could be such a purpose, both for graphic sex and for gruesome murder).

For example, Last Tango in Paris would absolutely be a different movie without the sex scenes. And obviously, one can distinguish the issue of whether is should be censored for such sex scenes (it shouldn't) in and of themselves, under the premise that every actor had consented to the scenes, and the issue of not getting the proper consent for some scenes (which I am sorry to say was apparently the case in the case of this work).

Basically, censoring the work of art because of the sex, a big no, and not getting proper consent from the actress, also a big no.

I would say that Lust, Caution was also a movie that would have been completely different without the sex scenes. I mean, viewers in that comment thread might think that it wouldn't, but it definitely would: one just needs to look at Chang's source material to understand why.

Now, this does not mean that explicit sex scenes are always necessary to make a point. For example, you have works like Mr. Sunshine where there is very little skinship and romanticism is very powerfully conveyed. The same goes for Wong Kar-wai's work.

I would say that Happy End was definitely a case where the sex scenes were pretty necessary. In that respect, I don't really understand the polemic, because I think that while in kdramas depictions of sex tend to be rather puritanical, my understanding is that this is very much not the case in korean movies. For example, Kim Tae-Ri in The Handmaiden, etc. So I am not sure why this would be a problem with Happy End. But then again, I am not exactly an expert on Korean movies.

I do tend to agree with other commenters when it comes to netizens bullying celebrities on the internet and the lurid articles written about them, and leading them to suicide being the issue, rather than celebrities being able to act in whatever scene they choose to.

I mean, this should be absolutely obvious from the quote above:

1. "Articles were written as if those nudes scenes mirrored my personal life.". That's clearly the "journalists" fault for publishing such scandalous and slanderous drivel, and apparently not being intellectually equipped to understand the difference between one's performance on set and one's personal life.

2. " When I told my mother that I had to show some skin in the movie I was filming, she asked me if my breasts would be exposed and I told her yes. She then started crying.": this is admittedly a different matter from the slanderous articles mentioned above. But I do understand the concept of maybe her having some old fashioned, puritanical views, this does not mean that her feeling such shame about the fact that her daughter's nipple could be viewed on screen that she would start crying as if her daughter had been caught in the process of committing a crime, say, is a worldview that ought to be necessarily shared by her daughter and pandered to. Said another words, I wouldn't see any issue with her telling her mom that she didn't share her perspective and she felt she didn't do anything shameful by exposing her nipple on camera.

That is not to say that everyone ought to have the same level of comfort and the exact same boundaries or lack thereof, but citing some slanderous and unfair articles, or a worldview so ashamed about sex and nudity that merely showing a nipple on screen would prompt a tearful breakdown does not exactly make the point that the right thing to do would have been to refrain from acting the scene. Clearly, the thing to do would have been for the "journalists" not to publish slanderous articles, and for her mom to accept that her daughter is an adult living her own life and might not share her perspective, or ever consider whether to break down in tears over the fact that she would show her nipples on screen was a rational reaction. Again, she didn't hurt or deceive anybody.

I really don't get how the reference to Monica Bellucci is supposed to be a negative comparison: Bellucci is clearly a very successful and accomplished actress.

I am not very familiar with Do Yeon's full body of work, but my understanding is that she did not confine herself to erotic movies (not that there would have been anything wrong or immoral if she had) and had a wide range in terms of the characters she played.

I felt that the writer created a situation where it made absolute sense for the lover to kill the wife, while I never felt that the husband doing it would fit his personality or his goals and motivations. I guess this was done intentionally to surprise the viewer, and also to make it plausible for the police to believe the lover, and not the husband, was the culprit. But for the same reasons, it really makes the way this all went down at the end seem implausible for me, once I take a step back.

The lover was a creepy stalker that was obsessed with FL, and repeatedly tried to pressure her to divorce from her husband, which she didn't want to do. He threatened to expose their affair with his behavior, and he also called her at home against her wishes. It would have therefore made absolute sense for him to have been the one to kill her.

The husband was knew of and accepted the affair. He merely wanted his wife to be a good mother. One might ask whether this could be squared with her having an affair, and it turned out that it could not: she drugged her kid and left the toddler alone at the apartment while she run off to meet her lover. Fortunately ML found the kid in time and brought him to the hospital. After which he committed the murder.

It's clear that this was set up this way because the writer wanted to create a bait and switch for the viewer, and surprise them, while also making it plausible for the police to believe the lover, not the husband, committed the crime. However, while the movie succeeded on both accounts, for the exact same reasons it made the husband behave in a way that was frankly implausible when one takes a step back and consider their respective characters, goals and motivations.

The husband, could have easily gotten a divorce, gotten custody of the kid (if drugging your infant child and abandoning him alone at home while you run off with your lover, and the kid ending up to the hospital, is not enough for him to get sole custody, I don't know what is) as well as alimony (because he was the partner in an economically disadvantageous position). It made absolutely no sense for him to instead choose to commit murder.

I 100% agree (not saying that I think losing your job, having self worth issues or getting stuck in life, etc. means you are a loser, to be clear): the husband's actions really made no sense to me at all. It would have been much more plausible for him to get a divorce, get custody of the kid (given what FL did to him, it shouldn't have a hard task to accomplish), as well as alimony (because he was the economically weaker party).

The lover was a creepy stalker that was obsessed with FL, and repeatedly tried to pressure her to divorce from her husband, which she didn't want to do. He threatened to expose their affair with his behavior, and he also called her at home against her wishes. It would have therefore made absolute sense for him to have been the one to kill her.

The husband was knew of and accepted the affair. He merely wanted his wife to be a good mother. One might ask whether this could be squared with her having an affair, and it turned out that it could not: she drugged her kid and left the toddler alone at the apartment while she run off to meet her lover. Fortunately ML found the kid in time and brought him to the hospital. After which he committed the murder.

It's clear that this was set up this way because the writer wanted to create a bait and switch for the viewer, and surprise them, while also making it plausible for the police to believe the lover, not the husband, committed the crime. However, while the movie succeeded on both accounts, for the exact same reasons it made the husband behave in a way that was frankly implausible when one takes a step back and consider their respective characters, goals and motivations.

The husband, could have easily gotten a divorce, gotten custody of the kid (if drugging your infant child and abandoning him alone at home while you run off with your lover, and the kid ending up to the hospital, is not enough for him to get sole custody, I don't know what is) as well as alimony (because he was the partner in an economically disadvantageous position). It made absolutely no sense for him to instead choose to commit murder.

I don't think that some of that was factually true, and some rather important facts were omitted. My two cents are that all the characters did stuff that was crazy and a complete non sequitur, certainly including the husband.

I don't think that the movie goes into how the affair started or the reasons of the affair. Frankly, I have seen "being the breadwinner" being used as an excuse for an affair, let alone taken seriously if it ever was. There are plenty of couples where the two partners make different amounts of money, or one partner is a stay at home parent. This has absolutely no relation with the other partner having an affair, one simply does not follow from the other.

I don't know about "pressure"... it's not as if they were starving on the verge of poverty. Even if that was the case, it's not clear why it would make one feel inclined to treat their partner with no loyalty, honesty and respect (or why losing one's job would make one undeserving of them). And certainly it doesn't explain acting in such a way as to hurt your child (more in the spoiler block).

In terms of the husband, his actions were implausible to me: it would have made much more sense for him to try to get a divorce, get custody (given how the wife treats the child, he shouldn't have any issue getting it), and alimony (because he was the economically disadvantaged spouse and his wife held all economic power).