RandomDeinonychus wrote:He gives her things because he wants her to feel like she owes him, and everything he does for her he says they discussed previously when she can't remember it. For instance, why would you offer a friend a job when they were obviously drunk and then act like you thought they would remember it the next day?
Two problems. One, there's never any characterization that justifies him immediately wanting to make her "feel like she owes him." He's helpful from the moment they coincidentally cross paths. Second, it's entirely plausible
he made these offers over drinks without realizing how much she was overdoing it. People make plans and discuss things over drinks, and if someone forgets, that's on them.
All the things you point out in the early parts of the film are basically benign except
in the event that this guy is evil and scheming from the very beginning to possess and control her. And that takes us back to the problem of characterization and motivation. Throughout your post, you dance around this, and we're going full Carousel at this point. Even the actors have conceded in interviews that we really don't learn much about why this character is this way. This is why I say he's lacking nuance--he's a walking stereotype of an evil, controlling man but with hardly a shade of nuance to make him a person
. And later, once he's totally jumped the shark, there's not enough of an anchor in characterization for perceptive viewers to believe the extreme lengths he goes to. Again, it's cartoonish. Pair his ludicrously over-the-top actions with the glaring lack of characterization, and you have one of the worst-written characters I've ever seen in film. Truly bad.
At the very least, he should say, "Hey, do you remember us talking about you working for me last night?" But no, the film very clearly has him guilt her into holding up an agreement they made when she was in no shape to agree to anything.
I didn't recall any such guilting going on. Regardless, again, she's responsible for what she says and does when drunk as is everyone else in the world. And if she changes her mind the next day, she's responsible for asserting that like any other adult on Earth. But oh, that's right. The movie lets her completely off the hook for everything by distracting viewers with a one-dimensional bully. I guess they got you.
Even the "good" things he does for her are just how possessive and potential abusive people behave: they try to win you over with gifts so they can get you to feel beholden to them.
Boy, that's a twisted way of looking at the world.
Yeah, no, there was definitely nuance.
He honestly believes the world owes him something
Based on what in the film?
that Gloria in particular owes him something,
Which is shown in the film how? And what is the rationale for why he thinks Gloria in particular
owes him? This is the big question. As I said before, if they'd had a passionate relationship in the past and he felt it was unfinished, or...?
and as soon as he is given actual power he decides to use it to right the way he feels he has been "wronged
Not shown in the film. You seem to have this evil type of man in your mind that you've internalized from somewhere and are using it to fill in the many, many gaps in this character.
Okay, I admit it's been at least a month since I watched this film, but there are clues from the beginning that he feels entitled to her in some way. He mentions following all her exploits since she left, which she is surprised by--that sounds a lot more intense than merely following her Facebook or otherwise casually checking in on her.
It's actually a lot less intense than that. She was a writer for a major publication. It has
been a while since you saw the film, huh? As a writer from a small town myself, I can tell you it's not that bizarre for classmates to look at your pieces if they're online.
And, again, the film calls out toxic masculinity (which, again, does not mean "men are toxic" but means men being forced to perform to a level of masculinity that is actually harmful to them and others) but completely fails to also call out white feminism (the behavior by some women that indicates that feminism is only important if it benefits white women).
Well here's what's been filling in those gaps in the logic of the film. Personally, I think it's lazy writing--and more than a little bit sexist--to substitute trendy feminist pseudo-psychology for male character writing and development. And speaking of masculinity, would have been nice if any of the other characters had been at all
masculine in positive ways. Notice how the film gives us only two types of men: pure evil for no reason and pure creampuffs, and the only notable (and not drug-addicted) people of the latter type just happen to be sexually available for our heroine's taking. What did they mean by this? Really jogs the noggin.
There is basically one line pointing out how Westerners view disasters like what befalls Seoul, and then the rest of it is about Gloria using the deaths of hundreds of faceless Koreans to get over her personal issues. Even the one speaking role for a Korean person involves the woman immediately shifting her focus from the terror her country has been facing to listen to Gloria's problems.
Except she really doesn't work through any issues at all. Before the metaphor works and she's able to link her own drunken behavior and its consequences with the "Colossal" consequences in Seoul, responsibility is essentially shifted to the bad man.
But I mean, if you want to feel bad about erasing the presence of a culture, notice how Vigalondo hijacked kaiju concepts and stylings, blatantly, cynically exploited Japanese characters for his promotions, and then set the film in Korea. Couldn't even give a small nod to the actual culture that gave his film its only distinctive elements.
This stinker gets worse the more I think about it.