One son’s choice becomes a question for society, not just a private matter.
Viewers meet human faces torn between love and duty.
The work exposes both the limits of caregiving and the possibility of empathy.
“Abandonment” on the Surface, Understanding Beneath
Overview
Reality is faced head-on."Caregiving is not an individual's problem."
The film follows Hwan, a son from Vietnam who cares for his mother with dementia (a condition that causes progressive memory loss). When the burden becomes unbearable, he decides to travel to South Korea to ask his brother—who lives there—to take their mother in.
However, the plot is more than a journey between places. It maps the tangled terrain of culture, institutions, and family obligation.
Meanwhile, by moving between Vietnam and Korea and between private choices and public systems, the film touches nerves that cross national and personal lines.
Characters and Plot
Emotion drives the story.
The film lingers on small daily moments to show dementias slow, silent advance. On the one hand, the mothers memory loss strips away fragments of the past. On the other hand, it shakes the familys routines and sense of identity.
Hwan faces a decision weighed by love, exhaustion, and guilt. As viewers, we follow the heavy emotions that attend that choice.
Scenes are modest but precise. The camera holds on tiny shifts in feeling for a long time.
Meanwhile, the constraints of immigrant life—limited resources, precarious work, and weak formal supports—raise the stakes of each choice.
As a result, the audience confronts not just private sorrow, but institutional gaps and family limits.
Supporters View
Empathy is central."True love is not only staying until the end."
Supporters argue the film honestly reveals the everyday reality of families caring for someone with dementia. They say the intimate, unvarnished depiction brings consolation and recognition to viewers who have lived similar struggles.
Specifically, Hwans fatigue and loneliness convey the physical and mental toll experienced by many caregivers.
Moreover, the film raises the question of role-sharing between state and family. By showing how caregiving falls disproportionately on individuals, it highlights the need for social supports.
Therefore, the story invites critical reflection on missing financial, policy, and community-based caregiving systems.
Cultural intersectionality strengthens the argument. As a KoreanVietnamese co-production, the film lets viewers see how immigrant families negotiate identity and obligation.
On the one hand, cross-border family dilemmas resist being reduced to a single national context; on the other hand, that universality helps the film build wider empathy.
Critics View
There are complaints as well.
Critics point to the titles shock value. "Going to Leave My Mother" (the literal reading) can invite extreme interpretations and hurt people living with dementia and their families.
On the other hand, while the title provokes public debate, it may also encourage emotional sensationalism that exploits suffering.
Another line of criticism is the films focus on diagnosis rather than remedy. Dementia and caregiving require institutional design and financial support, not only individual conscience.
However, the film depicts institutional gaps without offering concrete policy proposals or realistic alternatives.
Some say the films emotional intensity risks becoming mere compassion theatre. While the story generates empathy, that feeling might end as private sentiment rather than public action.
Therefore, critics worry that a narrative relying primarily on emotional response may fail to translate into policy change or funding for support services.
Social Implications
The film enlarges the debate."Lack of care is a sign of social failure."
What the film exposes is not just one family's tragedy. The financial and emotional burdens borne by households with a person with dementia connect directly to national welfare systems.
Economically vulnerable immigrant families are especially at risk; their caregiving gaps point to weaknesses in public safety nets.
At the same time, the film reshapes cultural talk about family. Family can mean more than blood ties, and society needs to renegotiate who is responsible for care and how it should be arranged.
The burden of care cannot rest solely on individual conscience; it is a public responsibility.
Practically, solutions look like redirected budgets, community-based care models, and clearer roles for nonprofits and the private sector. In addition, prevention, caregiver education, and psychological and financial support for families must go together to make care sustainable.
Ultimately, the films questions demand answers through policy and public debate.
Conclusion and Questions
The point is clear.
The film presents dementia and caregiving as universal problems filtered through one familys story. Supporters praise its empathy and social critique, while critics fault its presentation and lack of practical remedies.
Therefore, those disagreements should move beyond taste and become part of a broader social conversation.
What matters most is not stopping at emotional resonance but seeking concrete change. Combining financial resources, policy reform, and community networks is the only way to ease caregiving burdens.
The film leaves us a question: is this a private confession or a public call for help? On the other hand, what would you choose? That question forces each of us to reconsider private life and public responsibility.
