The Director states in interviews that she is making a feminist statement, but she resorts to a major sexist trope in the buildup, implying that the fiance character Luke is less of a man because he makes less money than the main character, Emily. Emily's efforts to help him in his career are awkward and clumsy, and unsuccessful because Luke just isn't good enough. That story is interesting. Where the wheels come off is the last 30 minutes leading to the end when he tells her he just wants to go his own way and start fresh, she completely loses her mind. So what's the message? Is it that she needs someone to be dependent on her? Fine, but that is not what the Director said in her interviews about the movie.
The last few scenes are disturbing. Emily destroys Luke's reputation permanently to her boss by denying there was ever a relationship with her and Luke. Then Emily smashes a glass on Luke's head in front of his friends and family, primarily to humiliate him. Then they go into a bathroom, start a sexual encounter that she is at least 50% initiating after verbally demeaning and humiliating him, and then in a huge leap for the Luke character, it turns into a sexual assault. The use of a sexual assault in the plot felt gratuitous, and a gimmick to demonize Luke and justify Emily's behavior in the final scene, where Luke tries to leave the relationship and she stabs him twice and makes him beg for her, at which point she tells him to get lost. Without the sexual assault, which comes out of nowhere (Luke spends much of the movie turning down sex with Emily), Luke is actually a sympathetic character. The Director's comments in the interview blame all of the gaslighting by Emily and her violence on Luke. Because male egos are fragile.