Both the book and the film, but definitely the film to a higher degree.

In this story, the main character, Jessie, overcomes her victimhood and takes control of her life when she is literally forced to do so by the most gruesome means possible. By confronting the things that hurt her the most psychologically, she can go on to confront the horrible physical task before her.

Really great, solid idea for a psychological thriller. My issue with it is... How exactly was her husband the villain? Her memory of him as an oppressor makes no sense in the context of the story?

All we get to see are normal, married people struggles. Should he have been more honest with her in life? Yes. Should he have unshackled her upon her first request? Yes. That said, the whole point of the second act of the story is that keeping secrets in a marriage can have disastrous consequences, be it not telling your wife about your sexual preferences or telling your husband about the abuse you experienced as a child. Both of these secrets ultimately led to the events as they unfolded. But Jessie was holding Gerald hostage just as he was holding her hostage. They were equally guilty.

As the events unfold (film version), Jessie recounts her various gripes about their marriage on her projection of Gerald. Maybe he cheated, maybe he was a womanizer, maybe he lied. All maybes, and regardless, not the worst sins of marriage. For whatever reason, she blames him for keeping her a prisoner in their marriage.

But... I just don't buy it! Not on the information the story gave us. How was she a 'prisoner' to him because of 'comfort'? Sorry to say, but that is a self-imposed sentence Jessie. You could have walked away at any point. He never 'made you' stay. He wasn't physically abusive, nor did I get the impression that he was emotionally abusive either- at least, not seriously. You put up with his shit because of the comfort he provided you with. That's not imprisonment- I believe we call that a mutually beneficial relationship. They were wealthy- we could infer she wouldn't be on the street if she divorced her husband.

Now, if these were ordinary still-married-after-20-years gripes, that would be fine, but even in death she remembers him as an abuser and captor- there's no grace or understanding after he's gone. She still remembers him as a monster, a jailor, without giving us sufficient reason as to why we should believe he's such a thing. Or why Jessie should feel so victimized by him. It's almost like she's projecting feelings of being abused by her husband due to her childhood trauma, but that never resolves. In her mind what her husband did to her (whatever the hell it was) was as bad as what her father did to her- even though she was a woman who chose every single day to remain married to him, and not a child who had no choice but to remain with her abuser.

At the very least, I would have enjoyed some acknowledgment that she had chosen the wrong person and stayed with him because of the childhood abuse- but for her to come to terms with the fact that it was indeed a choice, and that he wasn't exactly the 'bad guy', but a fallible human like herself.

In essence, I feel like the dynamic of Jessie as a victim and Gerald as a villain just doesn't really hold water and doesn't resolve well for me.

Thoughts?