Overlooking the Hope in the Next Generations

     I could not disagree more with Kim Soyoung's interpretation of the final scene of Madame Freedom, in her article “Questions of Woman's Films: The Maid, Madame Freedom, and Women.” In complete contrast to her interpretation I found this scene to be a slightly reassuring conclusion through it's symbolic elements. Kim's examination goes as follows, the shamed Madame Oh runs home only to be shunned by her husband and abandoned “[d]espite the imploring cries of her son on her behalf” (195). Kim justifies her interpretation of Madame Oh's “abandonment” through the contrast of attire as she states that “[i]n comparison with her husband's conventional clothes that suit the traditional-style house, her Western dress clearly signifies her nonbelonging” (ibid). This statement is absolutely false as in the final scene Madame Oh returns home wearing hanbok, the traditional Korean dress, while her husband is only wearing traditional clothes underneath a western style jacket, which covers most of his person in the scene. Significance of their clothing aside Kim overlooks a crucial element of the scene in her interpretation, the son's actions. In the final scene Professor Jang tries to persuade his son that his mother has not arrived but eventually he does in fact give into his son's frantic pleading for his mother and opens the door. Gyeong-Su, dressed in western clothes, runs to his mother crying as she pulls him onto her knee, the both of them huddled low to the ground. Professor Jang stands tall above them just a few feet away in front of the entrance with an expression of deep contemplation on his face.

     In this final scene I would counter argue Kim's false interpretation and suggest that Gyeong-Su's role in this scene saves Madame Oh's position in the family. This, seeing as Gyeong-Su, the symbolic figure of the next generation, through his raw emotion and loyalty towards his mother persuades his father to go back on his word and open the house gate symbolizing the potential for forgiveness. Upon banishing Madame Oh Professor Jang declares that for her son's well-being she'd best take her leave, yet Gyeong-Su's actions illustrate his own active participation in his well being and is symbolic of the future generation's obvious push for social change in society. Due to Gyeong-Su's actions the movie ends with a unified, although sad, portrait of a family in which the male stands tall above the kneeling, but unified, mother and child. With this said, is the final scene representative of a social change towards a more modernist family dynamic of which the patriarch holds less power?

The conclusion of the movie also left me with unresolved questions regarding Choi Yun-Ju and her public suicide. Although Yun-Ju is only a secondary character to the plot she receives, in my opinion, the cruelest punishment for her crimes. Is public shame meant to be a gendered experience? Is Yun-Ju's downfall the cruelest because of her blatant,controversial and public proto-feminist views throughout the film? What does the public suicide of the sole proto-feminist character say about the fate of the modern woman?

Source Cited:

Kim, Soyoung. “Questions of Woman's Films: The Maid, Madame Freedom, and Women.”South Korean Golden Age Melodrama.185-200.