This movie is very intentional, very well thought-out and planned. It is very beautiful visually, the characters are relatable and not plastic . The problem I have is with the ending.
Throughout the movie, we see the protagonist get hit and physically abused by her husband, escalating as the movie goes on. We see how the cycle of violence continues from father to son, how inconspicuous abusers seem at first and how oblivious love can make us to signs. The daughter is dating a man who shows those signs, however, although she is extremely aware of her mother's abuse, she blames her for it and also chooses to ignore her potential husband's signs, as her mother's situation inspires no hope in ever escaping abuse. In this society, abuse is turned into a fact of life that is blamed on the victim, rather than predatory behavior by abusers. I think this is a very good portrayal of such themes.
However, despite society's apathy, our protagonist blows up the soon-to-be groom's family cafe with TNT (?!?!), nullifying the engagement, as her husband was accepting the marriage only because of economic benefit. As such, her daughter is freed(?) from her abusive fiancee. Such a radical and extreme act, it praised by the movie, we are meant to understand that this is morally correct and hopeful. Not only that, the protagonist plans her escape from her abuser with an old flirt!
So far, radical actions that only make sense if you view women's liberation as more important than currently held social norms and property, are praised.
Due to some unfortunate events, our protagonist is not able to escape with her old flirt, however, we see her pursue another plan. It is not clear to us what that is, but it is implied that it is just as serious and dangerous as the last one. A friend of her even said, "if you do escape, make sure he doesn't catch you. He will kill you this time." and it seems she is correct. Her abuser is rushing to find her, while rolling up his sleeves, once he gets a whiff of her plan. However, our protagonist, makes it! With luck on her side and her daughter's help she managed to...
Vote?
I get the movie is dramatizing the first elections where women were allowed to participate and highlighting just how important of a historical moment it is. It makes sense that a vote would be given exaggerated value.
However, the previously set precedent doesn't go anywhere. Our protagonist still has to go home, her abuser still wants to kill her, the women around her still only passively disavow the abuse, while doing nothing to actively stop it (not blaming them, just pointing this out!) . In my mind, the protagonist dies, soon after. A wall of people may have stopped her abuser outside the voting location, however I read it as spontaneous and momentary as a vote. It happens once every 4 years or on a special occasion. In this film, abuse is not a special occasion, neither does our protagonist have the luxury of waiting 4 years.
I find it weird that the ultimate escape and hope is maybe one of the most passive political actions one can take. Especially, since the way we are usually taught history often hides the violence and radical actions used. Like in the film, suffragettes are often portrayed as non-violent protestors who were ultimately redeemed with the right to vote, ending their struggle. That is not true though. The suffragettes killed people, they often used violence. The right to vote was maybe the end all be all for some middle to upper class members of the movement, but the majority of women still struggled and struggle to this day. If they didn't, feminism wouldn't have a reason to exist.
So why does our protagonist, who we see to be a working class person, become content with voting? To me, it seems like a projection of middle-class choice feminism onto a historical context. A happy ending is convenient for the movie, but not historically accurate.
Throughout the movie, we see the protagonist get hit and physically abused by her husband, escalating as the movie goes on. We see how the cycle of violence continues from father to son, how inconspicuous abusers seem at first and how oblivious love can make us to signs. The daughter is dating a man who shows those signs, however, although she is extremely aware of her mother's abuse, she blames her for it and also chooses to ignore her potential husband's signs, as her mother's situation inspires no hope in ever escaping abuse. In this society, abuse is turned into a fact of life that is blamed on the victim, rather than predatory behavior by abusers. I think this is a very good portrayal of such themes.
However, despite society's apathy, our protagonist blows up the soon-to-be groom's family cafe with TNT (?!?!), nullifying the engagement, as her husband was accepting the marriage only because of economic benefit. As such, her daughter is freed(?) from her abusive fiancee. Such a radical and extreme act, it praised by the movie, we are meant to understand that this is morally correct and hopeful. Not only that, the protagonist plans her escape from her abuser with an old flirt!
So far, radical actions that only make sense if you view women's liberation as more important than currently held social norms and property, are praised.
Due to some unfortunate events, our protagonist is not able to escape with her old flirt, however, we see her pursue another plan. It is not clear to us what that is, but it is implied that it is just as serious and dangerous as the last one. A friend of her even said, "if you do escape, make sure he doesn't catch you. He will kill you this time." and it seems she is correct. Her abuser is rushing to find her, while rolling up his sleeves, once he gets a whiff of her plan. However, our protagonist, makes it! With luck on her side and her daughter's help she managed to...
Vote?
I get the movie is dramatizing the first elections where women were allowed to participate and highlighting just how important of a historical moment it is. It makes sense that a vote would be given exaggerated value.
However, the previously set precedent doesn't go anywhere. Our protagonist still has to go home, her abuser still wants to kill her, the women around her still only passively disavow the abuse, while doing nothing to actively stop it (not blaming them, just pointing this out!) . In my mind, the protagonist dies, soon after. A wall of people may have stopped her abuser outside the voting location, however I read it as spontaneous and momentary as a vote. It happens once every 4 years or on a special occasion. In this film, abuse is not a special occasion, neither does our protagonist have the luxury of waiting 4 years.
I find it weird that the ultimate escape and hope is maybe one of the most passive political actions one can take. Especially, since the way we are usually taught history often hides the violence and radical actions used. Like in the film, suffragettes are often portrayed as non-violent protestors who were ultimately redeemed with the right to vote, ending their struggle. That is not true though. The suffragettes killed people, they often used violence. The right to vote was maybe the end all be all for some middle to upper class members of the movement, but the majority of women still struggled and struggle to this day. If they didn't, feminism wouldn't have a reason to exist.
So why does our protagonist, who we see to be a working class person, become content with voting? To me, it seems like a projection of middle-class choice feminism onto a historical context. A happy ending is convenient for the movie, but not historically accurate.