UnaSpenser

please mark this as a spoiler. you've revealed the core suspense of the story. thanks!

I thought they did an amazing job of maintaining that suspense. Even in the end, I was like, "wait. what?" They were masterful at ambiguity. For instance, what, exactly, did Bora see when they were in that field? Its never explicitly stated. We see light and we see her looking at the pattern in the field. Neither of which are proof of anything. So, did she see more? Or did she impose the concept of aliens onto what she saw, because the girls had beens obsessed with them?

I rarely can sit down and binge a drama all the way through. This was an exception. Its hard to pinpoint what made it so captivating. Quirky characters. Insertions of silly humor. Good suspense. (Right up to the end, the writers could have given us a different outcome. So, as a viewer, I really didn't know which way it was going to go.

[TLDR; it's simply entertaining. Never boring and maintains suspense well.]

I rather enjoyed all the ambiguity, which stretched all the way through the final moment. Also, its a story with a lot of heart, though not the smarmy kind.

It was a well executed story of a lot of moving parts; characters coming at the central plot point from so many directions, with so many different motivations. The writers did a good job of keeping them all in their lanes (no moments of "wait, they wouldn't know that!" of "but, they would have known that!") and wending their way to the final intersection.

I appreciated how no character was just thoroughly evil or a perfect hero. While it gives us the cult story arc and you get thoroughly creeped out by the leader dude, he's not as evil as he could have been made out to be. He's despicable, without being de-humanized. The potential leading man/hero was just a an average due, competent, but not a superstar, at his job, doesn't really play much of a role in the leads solving the mystery, and doesn't turn out to be a romantic interest.

In fact, the lack of romance is a huge bonus for this story. It stays focused on the core mystery and leaves all the characters to be seen for who they are and immersed in their own interests.

The entire cast did a great job with their respective roles. I don't think I had a single moment of feeling pulled out that magic space of storytelling, because a character who was spoiled by poor acting. That's rare.

the FL is never happy. The entire drama is her pouting and fretting - over internet comments. wtf? its the 2020s. Everyone has had enough experience with the toxic absurdity of the internet to know that there is nothing you can do about it and you shouldn't take it seriously. Like, why even read them? She's so depressing and her character is so monochromatic.

The ML isn't a whole lot better. Because it's XK, we get a bit of "glimmer in the eye" humor. But, he's just the "teacher" throughout.

The characters have no development. And no one really cares about a faux e-sports tournament. Plots are either supposed to be unraveling some kind of surprise or leading us through character development.

This is like some classroom lecture trying to teach us all about...something..... with simplistic, unchanging characters. Maybe the big mystery here is "will she ever actually laugh and have fun?!"

Perhaps. The beauty of a lot of the dialogue was that it was so ambiguous. For me, given the homophobic comments she made, it felt like that disgust was always simmering and she had that one moment of being genuine about it. It felt as if, even way back, she sensed the relationship potential between In and Siam and she was determined to prevent it from happening. She targeted Siam and used In's lack of confidence and his fear to force Siam to do the "normal" thing.

I could be reading into it, of course, but she gives off that vibe. The "I'll smile and pretend that I'm okay with people who are not hetero, but really I find it disgusting." I've known so many like that.

The characters seem like representatives of different factions/demographics. Mol is the dominant homophobic culture. In is all the victims. Wang is the current progressive movement.

They couldn't really formulate that with a man in her role, since the crux of the story was a spouse killing himself because he couldn't be accepted for who he was; leaving the other spouse - which then had to be the wife - behind. So, I don't feel that its a typical misogynist turn at a horrible female character. It was a construction which didn't leave an option there.

I think that depends on where you're from. Many places across the globe still have very blatant and violently homophobic cultures. Even those where things have progressed still have strong homophobic streaks. In Thailand, this is a big political topic, as I understand it. Still a monarchy. Still no rights for anyone who is not heterosexual. Still a heavily homophobic culture.

Yeah. Everyone has their different styles they prefer. Though, I did feel a lot here. Mol made me sick to my stomach. In was exquisitely frustrating and Wang was so fruitlessly ardent. I might not have enjoyed those feelings, but I definitely had feelings happening while watching them.

I think its important to recognize that each character was representative of a faction of society. Not to see them as individuals, per se. Mol represents the traditional homo-antagonistic culture. In represents all the victims of that - the social messaging which imprints self-loathing and terror. Want represents the movement for social transformation.

When I see them this way, I can see why it ends up being a supremely frustrating story. Not enough people who both believe in the right to self-determination and have the courage to speak truth to power, which leaves the overarching dynamic just as it always has been. The privileged just get keep on being their narcissistic, self-serving personalities with no one calling them out, for fear of angering the power demographic. A common dynamic in any society where oppression is happening. Or in an entrenched family dynamic. How many abusive parents are able to just get away with all their shit while no one says anything? How many misogynist men are able to get handsy with women or make sexualized commentary, while everyone in the room stays silent? How many racists are allowed to spew dog whistles while the people around them just smile? Mol is all of those people.

I think the hard part for the viewer, especially if we're not from Thailand and don't know what it would have been like to be gay 25 years ago, is that we don't get any information about exactly why he was so terrified. We have to assume that it was such a hostile, homo-antagonistic environment that it's not unusual for non-hetero people to end up feeling so scared and full of self-loathing. We get a bit of it from Mol's absolute comfort in telling him that he disgusts her and him feeling that he had to apologize to her.

It is my understanding that things have pretty horribly homophobic there, right up until very recently. I grew up with grandparents who were born in the early 1900s, in the US. I met friends of the family who had lived their lives knowing they were gay/lesbian, but never being able to actuate that. I was heartbroken, in my teens, when I was perusing through old photo albums in close family's house. I could see my "uncle" in his youth. So vibrant and beautiful and in some of them, it was clear that he was close to another man. I had always known his as a single man. And I suddenly knew why. He remained single until his death. He probably never once said out loud that he was gay. Social stigma can do that to you. (It was a little easier for women to end up living together and being seen as "friends" who just didn't happen to get married and helped each other financially by sharing a house. People around them knew they were couples, but no one ever said anything out loud. Such different times.

So, In isn't as loathesome to me, as to some who may not have lived through times when it was deadly to come out. When you would have been humiliated and every message from everyone and everywhere was that you were an abomination. In is the product of his society. The play format and the simplicity of having just the three actors meant that they were each being placeholder for a larger demographic. Mol was the traditional homo-antagonistic society, Wang was the up and coming rebellious, transformational movement, and In was all the gay men who have come before and have been repressed and tortured, driven insane and to suicide.

The ending had to be what it was, because they each were representative and those factions of society still exist.

"I would do anything for you to be happy" Um. No you won't. She was masterful at gaslighting herself.

he's still in college, too. its pretty common for children to hold the idea that they just have to get through college and then they'll start building their own life.

the key to the story was how he was refusing to accept the internalized homophobia. he wanted to know what happened to his dad, because he suspected. he needed to meet In, so that he could have a first hand experience of what the life of someone with such deeply ingrained self-loathing looks like. he can survive the three more years of college, because he has the awareness, now, of exactly what it is he's fighting and what he needs to filter out from his mother's input.

We don't know how many years in the future he is narrating from, though. I appreciated the vagueness of that. It allows the viewer to grapple with their own sense of what could or could not happen. What kind of beliefs to we hold about the possibilities for In? Do we think he'll just live out a lonely life, or will he hit some point where he can't stand it any longer and he determines he needs to allow himself to be activated? Would that take 5 years? 10 more years?

Its an interesting question for me, as I have grappled with personal repression due to a parental/family dynamic. I'm so many things that my parents couldn't grasp. (Both in respect to gender and sexuality.) But, the thing I had the hardest time allowing myself to be has nothing to do with anything like sexuality or gender identity. It had to do with my artistry as a musician. I won't go into the story. I bring it up, because In is about 40? Or in his 40s? I was in my mid 50s before I could shed the chains that had been locked onto me. I'm 59, now and just this year feeling free and comfortable. So, I can imagine In finally breaking out 15 years or so down the line. But, that's really just a self-reflection. Each viewer will have their own reflection. If they are younger, they may not have a sense of it. If they are older, it may depend on what they have managed to overcome or to witness other overcome.

I loved the sort of vagueposting of that bit of the narration; leaving each viewer with themselves and their own world views.

This is exactly what I got from it. A look at how homophobia - with its repression and forcing people to be "normal" - wreaks permanent and multi-generational damage.

Its a political statement and the intention is to, hopefully, give some people a jolt of compassion such that they might reconsider how they've been holding things and what needs to happen in the socio-political sphere to spare people this kind of trauma and grief.

tldr; exquisitely heartbreaking

"what did she do?" ugh. though, I felt that it was a bit realistic to have him need to empathize with his mother, since In rejected him and he needed someone to love him, and, well, she's his mother, it was the most flawed piece of his analysis of everything.

She did plenty. She manipulated people. She refused to accept their own definition of their sexuality. She was utterly cruel to In, from beginning to end. I don't know why he wanted her approval. She used him, ripped the one he loved away from him - knowing that he was not strong enough to stand up for himself and Siam, and that she could get him to push Siam away. She only ever cared about her own feelings and her own life view and no matter how much she hurt other people, she would insist on her way or the highway. Literally pushed a man to his death and was willing to push her son there, too. The entire story of all of their lives would be completely different if it weren't for her. Maybe In never would have had the courage to be open about his sexuality, but it didn't all have to be so ugly. She probably made Siam feel the same way she did In; telling him that he disgusts her. Driving her loathing into him and generating self-loathing.

I don't understand how Wang could see that In's passivity caused a lot of pain, but couldn't see that Mol's active homophobia and narcissism also cause a lot of pain. Why should she be placated at the expense of everyone else? Why can't anyone else be genuine to themselves? Why is that "for her sake"? Its just gross. Oppressive parents, using their emotional and financial power to demand that their children repress their genuine selves, to damage that is pretty much impossible to fully heal from.

She did plenty. She was the one who really did not deserve to get what she wanted.

I knew it would end like this. They did such a good job of keeping you so emotionally engaged every single minute. Longing so hard for it to go differently than we knew it would. Drained from the painful ending, even as it was predictable. Great writing. Great acting. Great direction. (It felt like a play, where we had intimate seats right up on the stage.) Oof, though. It hits hard.

That’s such a painful story! And, yes, domineering and abusive parents can have multi-generational impacts.

With only one episode to go, I don’t see how there is any option other than heartache for Wang.

I AM wondering if there is still a big reveal around what happened the day Siam died. Maybe he learned that Wang is not his biological son. I can’t think of what else would have spurred a dramatic turn of events. The marriage had already fallen apart. They were already divorced. So, what could have been said between them that triggered the tragedy?

How is that an ending?

And why wasn’t there more depth to the friendship of the 2 MLS? We didn’t get enough sense of them as bonded to feel much when they did the fake out, in the end.

I didn’t end up emotionally involved with any of the characters. It may be the first cliffhanger-ish ending where I don’t care enough to clamor for a second season. Maybe if they promised it would be more focused in the 2 men. And, if we got any sense of emotion from Situ. What is his personal history and what drives him? We learned about other characters, but not him. His character was so dry.

True that they all have a responsibility. The difference is that, societally speaking, Mol is in the power position. She could use the power of the social norm to drive things the way she wanted. It does seem like she knew perfectly well that Siam and In were close, very close. She reads people well. She's a narcissist and she knows how to get what she wants or play the victim card, if she doesn't. So, she tapped into In's fearful and passive personality and used him to get close to Siam. Siam probably felt devastated that In would take the role of matchmaker. And, given how brutally anti-homosexual Thailand has been, he could have just fallen into a deep depression and ended up going along to get along; abandoning himself, because he felt abandoned by the one he trusted the most.

In and Siam's choices come from a very different place than Mol. She just wanted what she wanted. She could have chosen to target any man. She latched on and wasn't going to let go, no matter who it hurt. In and Siam were conditioned to think there was something "wrong" with them and they had to be "normal." They made their choices out of a great deal of fear and culturally generated self-loathing.

So, yes, they were all consenting adults. They all bear responsibility. The psycho-emotional load they had to carry was very different.

If you are partnered and realize that your partner does not love you - whether that is a matter of sexuality or not; you let them go, because life together will be miserable. If you claim that you love them, you wouldn't want to put them through that misery. If you love yourself, you wouldn't want to put yourself through it. And you don't pretend that things are different than they are. Yes, she may have been hurt, but she's been lying to her son about his father. She's been making the matter of his sexuality about her not being lovable. She wallows in the victimhood of having an "unloving" husband. Just as she's making Wang's love confession be about not loving her. What parent says, "am I not enough?" when their child falls in love? As a parent, you were never supposed to be the only one they love. They were always going to grow and find love elsewhere. Its absurd. Would she have said that if he fell in love with a woman? Probably not. Its a homophobic, narcissistic ploy. Her consistently narcissistic behaviors are why she's so lonely. She doesn't connect to people for an exchange. She just extracts. Everything is about her and whether the other person is meeting her demands.

That said, In would drive me up a wall. I don't understand why Wang would fall in love with such fear-driven, passive person. I'd be like, "you're nice enough, but call me when you're ready to live for yourself."

I have the same thoughts as you. I don't see how this ends well for Wang.

Mol is the quintessential pro-active narcissist. In is the quintessential passive empathizer. He was already traumatized by what she put him through with Siam. When he's around her, you sense his PTSD. Since he ran away and hid in his hermitage, he hasn't actually done any of the healing that would give him the strength to stand up to her.

Plus, we don't know that he is in love with Wang. Or that he was romantically in love with Siam. He never actually says anything.

So, I don't see how any of this ends up happy for Wang. Both people abandoned him at the table, when he wanted to be acknowledged. (Mirroring what they did to Siam.) Mol or In or both are going to reject him, whichever way this goes. He's going to be devastated.