I must agree with one of the other reviewers that said that the conclusion was kind of out of left field. I also have to disagree with some of the other reviewers that seem baffled by plot points that were clearly laid out in the movie, even explicitly stated by the character, such as Aizyk's confusion about the wife's motivation.
Regarding the characterization, I found the reviews like the latter misleading/biased with respect to what the film shows and wants to convey.
In terms of the husband, prior to the finale, it shows us a person that does take care of the house and contribute by buying groceries, cooking, cleaning and taking care of the child. Obviously, like in any family, he doesn't do it 100% of the time and sometimes the wife also spends time with the kid (though is rarely at home, therefore hardly most of the time), in particular the scene where she cleans up the room is clearly depicted as a sort of venting/overcompensation where she tries to detach herself from her betrayal and start anew (this is also shown from the change in tone towards the husband: prior to that, she mocked him for having lost his job and being unable to find a new position with comparable level of status, and makes fun of him for being a "housewife", channeling society's prejudicial view of husbands doing housework, but now she talks about them and the child).
On the wife's side, the relationship with her lover is clearly shown as unhealthy, with the latter not respecting her boundaries and invading her family life, at many points almost consciously trying to expose the affair that she wants to keep hidden. He turns into something of a stalker, trying to pressure her into leaving her husband, something that she clearly does *not* want to do. In that respect, with reference to Aizyk's confusion about her actions, she explicitly states in the movie that she wants to stop seeing her lover (in the scene where she is cleaning up), there is really no ambiguity about whether she wants to end her marriage (she does not). On the other hand, it's also made perfectly clear why she gets pissed off at her lover for the toothbrush and gifts: she does *not* want him to approach her family, she wants him as a lover, but clearly established the boundary that he should not think about breaking up her marriage and getting into a real relationship with her, a boundary that he does not respect -he acts, indeed, almost as if he wants to be caught-.
In that respect, between him and the husband, the latter is the one that seems concerned about what she wants, even going as far as proposing to try setting up a business, asking whether she is happy, etc., indicating a willingness to change in ways that she would appreciate, and even asking her about whether she likes what he is doing during sex. While they have less chemistry in that respect than when she is with her lover, it's clearly not because her husband is selfish and her lover selfless. On the contrary, the latter is the one that ignores her wishes and tries to impose his will and force her to give up her marriage when she clearly doesn't intend to, and pesters her when she wants to break things off, acting possessive, whereas the husband, contrary to what Aizyk and other seem to imply in their review, seemingly accepts her affair and merely wishes for her to behave like a good mother (I have seen other commentators say that it's because he feels emasculated by his inability to get a position comparable to his previous job, but frankly he does not seem to resent his condition, if anything it's his wife sharing such societal prejudices and using them to shame him, but he does not seem to believe that he needs to earn more than her, or that taking care of the home demeans him, he proposes to pursue a new business more as a way to please her and meet her in the middle, when they are trying to reconnect).
And, ultimately, this is why the ending is so out of left field. Seeing the increasingly stalkerish behavior of her lover, one would have expected him to be the one to kill her when she leaves him, when he realizes that he is unable to make her leave her husband. And paradoxically, this is exactly what the policy seems to believe. In fact, contrary to what Aizyk's and other reviews seem to suggest, the husband clearly does not pre-meditates this act as a revenge for the infidelity, and on the contrary seems to accept the situation passively, as already mentioned (some commentators claiming due to being self conscious about his lack of a job, though I didn't perceive this supposed feeling of inferiority on his part).
No, what triggers the murderous act is the wife drugging the child and leaving them alone when her lover threatens to come to her home and make a scene, forcing her to go meet him. Fortunately, the husband returns home in time and manages to get the child to the hospital and save their life.
Now, as another commentator said, this is not exactly the most realistic of reactions, because one would suppose that, given that the mother drugged the child, abandoning them at home alone and endangering their lives (thankfully, again, the husband came back soon enough to bring them to the hospital), in order to go meet her lover (albeit under duress when the latter continued to call her home and threatened to go to her home, potentially exposing her), he would have not had much of an issue getting custody. There is a question as to whether he is the real father, but contrary to what Aizyk's review seemed to imply, the claim that he is her lover's is something he makes unilaterally, and coupled with his insistence on buying gifts and introducing himself into her family life despite her protests (contrary to what said in that review, it's perfectly understandable why she would be put off by this insisting behavior against her explicit wishes), in a self delusional attempt to convince himself that he is her child's father, as part of his obsession with her and his determination to break up her family -him keeping the ring and wanting to force her into leaving her husband, while she wants to keep this strictly as an affair, and ultimately wants to break things off, which precipitates things, with his threat and her drugging and abandoning the kid to meet him before he shows up at her house uninvited, against her will-.
All things considered, in terms of realism, it would have been more believable that this ended in a divorce (not likely, given that she didn't want to leave her husband, seemed intent on breaking things off with her lover, and her husband apparently would have accepted her infidelity as long as it didn't put their child in danger), or, given her lover's stalking and threats, into him killing her because she wanted to break off the affair and refused to be with him as anything more than an affair on the side (as she consistently did during the movie). At some point I also thought she might choose to commit suicide, from her drunken behavior when her lover forced to go meet her and she drugged the kid.
Ultimately, I believe that this was exactly what the writer/director intended, however: to make the "stalker chose to murder his lover when the latter refused to abandon her family for his sake" narrative that the police becomes convinced of actually believable: the external world believes this *exactly* because it would have been a believable ending to the viewer that knows what went on behind the scenes as well -by contrast, the up until that point calm and mellow husband wouldn't be suspected at all given his seeming acceptance of the situation and generally mellow behavior-. I guess that it's kind of a double edged sword, because the "official narrative" is indeed so compelling that one kind of gets the idea that it would have been a more believable outcome -one is kind of left wondering why: a combination of a desire to protect the child he saw endangered, coupled with a suspicion on their birth that made him unsure about his ability to be there in her life and protect her? But really, the wife didn't seem to have any intention of leaving him and taking the kid, and the narrative that it was the lover's child is something that only the latter pushed and, while not really disproved, was possibly and maybe even likely a piece of self delusion by someone unable to let go of the idea that a lover that didn't want to be with him in a stable relationship really ought to have married him... and, again, even had they divorced, something she didn't appear to want, what would have been the change that she would have gotten custody, when she drugged and abandoned the kid, and her lover forced her to do so by threatening her into meeting him, thus putting the kid in danger? I mean, the husband even had the records from the hospital when he arrived and rescued the kid: as other commentators said, the reaction does seem out of character and lacking a clear reasoning, which is rather hard to overlook given the premeditated nature of the murder, which would imply the need for an actual reason/motive, and couldn't really be attributed to a spur of the moment decision-.
Regarding the characterization, I found the reviews like the latter misleading/biased with respect to what the film shows and wants to convey.
In terms of the husband, prior to the finale, it shows us a person that does take care of the house and contribute by buying groceries, cooking, cleaning and taking care of the child. Obviously, like in any family, he doesn't do it 100% of the time and sometimes the wife also spends time with the kid (though is rarely at home, therefore hardly most of the time), in particular the scene where she cleans up the room is clearly depicted as a sort of venting/overcompensation where she tries to detach herself from her betrayal and start anew (this is also shown from the change in tone towards the husband: prior to that, she mocked him for having lost his job and being unable to find a new position with comparable level of status, and makes fun of him for being a "housewife", channeling society's prejudicial view of husbands doing housework, but now she talks about them and the child).
On the wife's side, the relationship with her lover is clearly shown as unhealthy, with the latter not respecting her boundaries and invading her family life, at many points almost consciously trying to expose the affair that she wants to keep hidden. He turns into something of a stalker, trying to pressure her into leaving her husband, something that she clearly does *not* want to do. In that respect, with reference to Aizyk's confusion about her actions, she explicitly states in the movie that she wants to stop seeing her lover (in the scene where she is cleaning up), there is really no ambiguity about whether she wants to end her marriage (she does not). On the other hand, it's also made perfectly clear why she gets pissed off at her lover for the toothbrush and gifts: she does *not* want him to approach her family, she wants him as a lover, but clearly established the boundary that he should not think about breaking up her marriage and getting into a real relationship with her, a boundary that he does not respect -he acts, indeed, almost as if he wants to be caught-.
In that respect, between him and the husband, the latter is the one that seems concerned about what she wants, even going as far as proposing to try setting up a business, asking whether she is happy, etc., indicating a willingness to change in ways that she would appreciate, and even asking her about whether she likes what he is doing during sex. While they have less chemistry in that respect than when she is with her lover, it's clearly not because her husband is selfish and her lover selfless. On the contrary, the latter is the one that ignores her wishes and tries to impose his will and force her to give up her marriage when she clearly doesn't intend to, and pesters her when she wants to break things off, acting possessive, whereas the husband, contrary to what Aizyk and other seem to imply in their review, seemingly accepts her affair and merely wishes for her to behave like a good mother (I have seen other commentators say that it's because he feels emasculated by his inability to get a position comparable to his previous job, but frankly he does not seem to resent his condition, if anything it's his wife sharing such societal prejudices and using them to shame him, but he does not seem to believe that he needs to earn more than her, or that taking care of the home demeans him, he proposes to pursue a new business more as a way to please her and meet her in the middle, when they are trying to reconnect).
And, ultimately, this is why the ending is so out of left field. Seeing the increasingly stalkerish behavior of her lover, one would have expected him to be the one to kill her when she leaves him, when he realizes that he is unable to make her leave her husband. And paradoxically, this is exactly what the policy seems to believe. In fact, contrary to what Aizyk's and other reviews seem to suggest, the husband clearly does not pre-meditates this act as a revenge for the infidelity, and on the contrary seems to accept the situation passively, as already mentioned (some commentators claiming due to being self conscious about his lack of a job, though I didn't perceive this supposed feeling of inferiority on his part).
No, what triggers the murderous act is the wife drugging the child and leaving them alone when her lover threatens to come to her home and make a scene, forcing her to go meet him. Fortunately, the husband returns home in time and manages to get the child to the hospital and save their life.
Now, as another commentator said, this is not exactly the most realistic of reactions, because one would suppose that, given that the mother drugged the child, abandoning them at home alone and endangering their lives (thankfully, again, the husband came back soon enough to bring them to the hospital), in order to go meet her lover (albeit under duress when the latter continued to call her home and threatened to go to her home, potentially exposing her), he would have not had much of an issue getting custody. There is a question as to whether he is the real father, but contrary to what Aizyk's review seemed to imply, the claim that he is her lover's is something he makes unilaterally, and coupled with his insistence on buying gifts and introducing himself into her family life despite her protests (contrary to what said in that review, it's perfectly understandable why she would be put off by this insisting behavior against her explicit wishes), in a self delusional attempt to convince himself that he is her child's father, as part of his obsession with her and his determination to break up her family -him keeping the ring and wanting to force her into leaving her husband, while she wants to keep this strictly as an affair, and ultimately wants to break things off, which precipitates things, with his threat and her drugging and abandoning the kid to meet him before he shows up at her house uninvited, against her will-.
All things considered, in terms of realism, it would have been more believable that this ended in a divorce (not likely, given that she didn't want to leave her husband, seemed intent on breaking things off with her lover, and her husband apparently would have accepted her infidelity as long as it didn't put their child in danger), or, given her lover's stalking and threats, into him killing her because she wanted to break off the affair and refused to be with him as anything more than an affair on the side (as she consistently did during the movie). At some point I also thought she might choose to commit suicide, from her drunken behavior when her lover forced to go meet her and she drugged the kid.
Ultimately, I believe that this was exactly what the writer/director intended, however: to make the "stalker chose to murder his lover when the latter refused to abandon her family for his sake" narrative that the police becomes convinced of actually believable: the external world believes this *exactly* because it would have been a believable ending to the viewer that knows what went on behind the scenes as well -by contrast, the up until that point calm and mellow husband wouldn't be suspected at all given his seeming acceptance of the situation and generally mellow behavior-. I guess that it's kind of a double edged sword, because the "official narrative" is indeed so compelling that one kind of gets the idea that it would have been a more believable outcome -one is kind of left wondering why: a combination of a desire to protect the child he saw endangered, coupled with a suspicion on their birth that made him unsure about his ability to be there in her life and protect her? But really, the wife didn't seem to have any intention of leaving him and taking the kid, and the narrative that it was the lover's child is something that only the latter pushed and, while not really disproved, was possibly and maybe even likely a piece of self delusion by someone unable to let go of the idea that a lover that didn't want to be with him in a stable relationship really ought to have married him... and, again, even had they divorced, something she didn't appear to want, what would have been the change that she would have gotten custody, when she drugged and abandoned the kid, and her lover forced her to do so by threatening her into meeting him, thus putting the kid in danger? I mean, the husband even had the records from the hospital when he arrived and rescued the kid: as other commentators said, the reaction does seem out of character and lacking a clear reasoning, which is rather hard to overlook given the premeditated nature of the murder, which would imply the need for an actual reason/motive, and couldn't really be attributed to a spur of the moment decision-.