After watching S1E8 this afternoon, I immediately opened the Dou Group. I saw the evaluation and analysis of various characters from Dou friends. I thought of the "contract", so I wrote down some of my opinions on watching the show.
Marriage, a legal union or contract consisting of two people living together. The spirit of the contract can be said to be the spirit of trustworthiness of all parties on the basis of freedom and equality.
In this play, the three groups of characters consist of Beth and Rob; Sister Ling and Karl; Taylor and Eli, three couples who signed the contract of "marriage" and three "third parties": April, Little Wolfdog, Jade composition. "No snowflake is innocent when there is an avalanche" For the shattering of three marriages, it is not appropriate to just see someone's fault. "Characters are complex." Throughout the 8 episodes, every character has made more or less mistakes, big or small. So, how should you be held accountable? (personal idea)
First pair: 60s Rob
Why is it attributable to Rob?
In the pair of Rob and Beth, Rob was the first to break the "marriage" contract signed by both parties, so Rob was wrongly blamed. Some friends mentioned that "Rob stopped dating April for a certain period of time and was ready to return to the family. It was Beth's cancer + April's pregnancy that led Rob to propose to marry April six months later. This is a second derailment proposal. "This assertion is obviously not valid. First of all, Rob's return to the family is an inevitable requirement of fulfilling the marriage contract and cannot be used as a fig leaf to cover up his previous breach of contract. Secondly, as the first wife, Beth lied that she had cancer, but did not actually violate the contract, and Rob's proposal to April was to conclude a new contract before the previous contract expired. Fundamentally wrong.
April is wrong, but she is just a "fuse" for Rob to break the contract; Beth is also wrong, but she is just a helpless housewife who is eager to use her own efforts to save her husband, and has never violated the contract. In this sense, it can also be said to be the fuse that pushed Rob to break the contract twice, but in the final analysis, it was Rob who took the step of breaching the contract, so Rob could not escape the blame .
Second pair: 80s NOBODY
Before I put the blame on Karl, I have to say one thing - the three characters here are really too three-dimensional and too real, blowing the screenwriter!
OK, the text begins.
From the previous description of Rob, we can quickly analyze that the first person to violate the contract in the marriage relationship is Karl, so Karl takes the main responsibility. After that, it is the extramarital affair between Yuling and the little wolf dog. The failure was on Karl. Why do I say "initially"? Because Karl and Sister Yuling equally set down the contractual stipulation of "playing each other's own" in the later period , the derailment of K and N was not counted at this time, so the relationship between the pair was temporarily (until E8) ) does not exist who is responsible.
Here I really blow up Sister Ling's handling of the plot after K fell ill, which is somewhat similar to the discussion of "family" and "true love" mentioned in "Three Smiles" and "Long Bridge Last Dreams". When the contract of "marriage" is made, both parties in the marriage have already assumed their own responsibility. Maybe we will meet our Truelove, but when we make a decision, we still choose to return to our responsibility. Of course, I am by no means against the act of "pursuing love boldly", I just think that "pursuing love boldly" only exists before a love (marriage) contract is finalized, or after such a contract ends; "Chasing love" is actually just a grand reason that cheaters find for cheating.
Second pair: 9012 Eli
As an open marriage, Eli and Tylor entered into a series of additional covenants.
At the first point, Tylor brought home the little green tea. It was Tylor who broke the contract first. She violated the fact that she could not take her friend home and concealed her experience with her friend for several months, so Tylor was initially at fault.
Then at the second point in time, the three made a "three-person" contract - "the three are partners", at which point Tylor's fault for the previous breach disappeared.
At the third point in time, Tylor was on a business trip, and E and Little Green Tea were in the same room. Here E and Little Green Tea are not violating the contract, because the contract does not expressly state that the two cannot be alone. Then why do you say that it is attributable to E? It's because there is an invisible commandment in these contracts - "E will not relapse drugs" set by Tylor and E. Here, Little Green Tea is innocent. E knowingly committed the crime. Although there are plausible reasons, it cannot hide the fact that he has breached the contract. At this point in time, the main responsibility lies with Eli.
At the fourth time point, Little Green Tea gave E the remaining pills. At this time, E, Xiaolucha, and Tylor have jointly made a contract that "E can no longer take drugs again". The act of Xiao Green Tea giving E drugs is a breach of contract. At this point in time, the main responsibility is green tea. (At the same time, it is worth noting that Eli has already proposed "Take care of you" to Xiao Green Tea at this time, so Eli has the idea of violating the three-person contract at this time. Although it has not been put into practice, this is also the medicine of Xiao Green Tea. root cause)
At the third point in time, after the three became deadlocked over heroin. The purpose of Tylor's actions at the stage when he was deadlocked until he found the new car of Xiao Green Tea was to "let E detoxify". At this time, E's move to buy a new car for Little Green Tea has already begun to put into action the idea of "Take care of you". The purpose of Tylor's action to persuade Little Green Tea to return the car after discovering the new car is to "let E detoxify", while Green Tea's refusal to return the car is a violation of the contract of "let E detoxify" and the possession of E. At this time, T in Green Tea's heart It no longer exists as a partner. In her heart, the car is her own private property, and T no longer exists as a partner in her heart. "You're just a guest to us" signifies the fragmentation of the contract.
The focus of the conflict here is on drugs, and the broken relationship between the three is attributed to E's relapse to drugs. Psychologically speaking, E has excluded T from the moment he said "Take care", and was the first to violate the "threesome" contract. In terms of action, for the two agreements of the three people ① "E can't relapse to drugs" [ E relapses drugs, the first breach of contract, J gives drugs, the second breach of contract;]; ② "Three people" [ E in Buying a car for Green Tea without negotiation and promising to take care of, the first breach of contract ; E changing the lock, the second breach of contract/also symbolizes a complete breakdown of the relationship] (The contract between J and Green Tea, although verbally and psychologically, has almost terminated , but no very explicit action)
Therefore, the above is mainly attributed to Eli. (Jade contributed greatly)
For me, the biggest reference value of this show is-thinking about my position in the contract I am in now, what I can learn from / need to be prevented from comparing the three couples, and what I am most likely to do once a mistake occurs. It is necessary to quickly judge the responsible party and take timely measures to avoid blaming oneself or others easily.
The above viewpoints are actually still a little immature, and if there are any shortcomings, please correct me.
FYI. Blow up Sheila! I love her so much!
View more about Why Women Kill reviews
