What the f**k was the end?!
I saw an interview with Kate Mara, saying that because of the epidemic, the show had to end in haste. But what the hell is this ending? Without cause and effect, Claire found her own life, and Eric's 10 years have been taken carelessly, and now he is a frustrated young man. Could a few minutes of conversation during "lunch" be enough to wrap up the whole show? It's really a typical high-opening and low-going. I really don't know if the director and editor didn't think clearly, or whether it was really impossible to shoot because of the epidemic.
Taking a look at the comment area, many people are scolding this as forced political correctness, "the feelings I invested in before are fed to the dog". I think it's fine for Claire to apologize, but what she said to Eric was "my life is ruined too"? Is it worse than the conference? Eric has hated himself for so many years, and felt that he had hurt Claire. Even if he went to a psychiatrist after being dismissed from the university, he was still hurt so deeply.
'It violated my parole'
[12.18] There are only two episodes left in the whole drama. It seems that this drama will not dig deep into the theme of teacher-student love. Claire was severely punished, and Eric blamed herself, thinking she was in jail because she escaped and spoke out. Of course, the two people still have fetters, and both parties feel it is unfair, but the matter has come to this point and cannot be undone. Claire didn't say "I did something wrong", she didn't even regret it, but grieved at the discrimination and scorn she received. Brother, he is the one who can see clearly. She destroyed a lot of people, and she was the one who should have hit the brakes just in time. She said she wanted to live free, and the freedom gained through the interests of others was shameful.
Two weeks ago, I watched the classic teacher-student love Japanese drama "The Witch's Condition", which is completely about the theme of praising teacher-student love, encouraging bold love, and the pregnant teacher who sacrificed himself for the child in his belly. I was really shocked , feel ill. Against the background of the pink filter, what kind of monsters and ghosts can really be self-packaged into real feelings. Fortunately, the three views of "Teacher's Love", compared with Japan at the end of the last century and the United States in 2020, this difference makes me a little hopeful that I can breathe (not that the air in the United States is sweet and fresh, I think it is impossible to shoot in Japan again. That kind of work), because the rule of law and openness go hand in hand, there is always a way out for those who want freedom, and there is no retreat for those who want to break through the bottom line.
Eric's experience in college is very interesting, it can be found that most (male) people still regard him as a very "cool" behavior to be a female teacher, so he is very popular (and respected) among boys and girls. To see what this D really looks like. In this sexual relationship, he seems to be the vested interest, and power is transferred through this ambiguous relationship. But in fact, he was destroyed: whether he couldn't stand the strip dancer as his prey to seduce him, or couldn't focus on study and life, always thinking about this relationship, or his relationship with other women, let him The audience realizes that he is indeed the one in between, the mentally immature one. Whether he is an adult or not is one thing, he is at a critical period in his life, the correct three views have not yet been formed, and the psychological impact is probably much greater than that of Claire. Of course Claire also paid her price: she really died.
Claire said, it was an escape, not love. Eric couldn't accept that because to him, it was true love. Here comes the question of the status power imbalance in the relationship, the age experience gap: Claire can choose whether I want sex or love, do I want to escape from my boring routine, or do I really want to be with this Boys start a new life; but Eric can't, he's too young and too casual, so he's destined to sink deeper into it than Claire. Fortunately, in this field, the law protects vulnerable groups. Eric is not at fault in the law, but Claire. That's why I said before that even if the other party stripped naked and threw himself up, he was in a higher unequal position. If you are a person, you should also push them away and help them get dressed. Of course, they can say that this is an equal and informed love, but the scale to measure consent is unfair.
[11.24] E05 really sees me, hold your forehead. If a fool wants to die, no one can stop him. Claire and Eric talked about her upbringing, how her mother's death completely changed her, how she had never let lose until she met Eric, a few "D" massages, a few mouthfuls of tequila, and then she recruited herself . God, how can there be such a stupid woman! teacher! Your teammates have been tricked to death by you! How could a colleague not go on the right track and expose her behavior! Do you think what she said was a normal and common "extramarital affair", the same as your teacher-student relationship? !
——But to be honest, this is the result of brainwashing after watching the weekend when Eric and Claire said to each other that I love you infinitely "beautiful". As an audience, I unknowingly stood in the camp of protecting and maintaining their relationship, although I knew clearly that this was wrong. The sooner I was discovered and stopped, I would make an appointment with everyone. At the end of episode 5, Claire looks like she's going to vomit, does she wake up after she vomits? You will realize that her justification to her friend and colleague was bullshit.
To emphasize, I didn't know Eric was 18 before because he was still in high school and would be underage by default. But in this way, it seems that Claire's guilt is less of a problem. However, being an adult can only mean that Eric can be said to have given full consent in his interactions with non-teachers and non-supervisors. In his relationship with Claire, he can't. He says he has, and no one wants to listen. .
What I'm still reflecting on is: how should the teacher-student relationship be defined? In addition to the regular teachers in the school in the traditional sense, there are also guest lecturers, substitute teachers, coaches, teaching assistants, etc. Can these be defined as a teacher-student relationship? Is it the same thing if a relationship happens? I can imagine that the gym yoga studio has regulations that students are not allowed to fall in love with the coach, but is it because of "abuse of power"? As a middleman between students and professors, is it okay to fall in love with students? Is it okay to have a relationship with a professor? Which is more immoral? Will the different teaching methods in different countries also directly lead to different degrees of tolerance for teachers and students?
Let's talk about the chemistry between them. Talking about the growth environment, talking about love gossip, drinking, eating, watching the scenery, chatting and making love, they are all normal couples getting along. In their little world, that power imbalance, that feeling of being on pins and needles, seems to be a little less, and it seems that they can relax on the sofa and enjoy their perfect weekend. But in the end it's cheating, so Matt's call will sting Eric; in the end, the power position is extremely unequal, so when Claire said that Eric had a lot of sex after college, as Eric who was in love, He was sad; as an audience, he was pulled back to that moral judgment seat.
Ps It's really annoying that this kind of short drama is cut into 10 episodes of 25 minutes each. It's neither Sitcom nor Dramady, but it can be made into a compact and sturdy 3-4 episodes standard mini-series. Why is it so busy! It's not that I'm anxious about waiting, it's that doing so actually goes against the purpose of the crew. If they really want to study the relationship between teachers and students and raise awareness, they should know that short-term high-intensity discussions are more likely to generate influential public opinion.
[11.18] After watching some group discussions, it was very interesting. Generally speaking, I am the one who defends female sexual desire, praises it, and encourages it (see "Normal" , "Excited", " Adele's Life "), and in this show, I seem to be standing Conservative, double-standard ("Men's initiative is normal, women's initiative is horny?") position? - I totally disagree. My position is clear: men and women, regardless of age, background, or personality, are not perfect and make mistakes. This relationship is wrong, whether it is love, liking, or desire between them, it is all wrong; of course, teacher-student love exists and is difficult to eradicate. This is why we need similar works to expose and discuss: only Fully informed, it is possible to have equal, healthy relationships, sex or love, or both, or neither.
The show's sexual details are so well handled, even blood-sucking, that's technically laudable. But I hope that this is just to allow the audience to better substitute, so that they can better "suppress" later. If you want to play and suppress first, but you don't, no matter what the cast and crew interviews, the beginning and the end of the film say, there is more or less suspicion of encouraging teacher-student love (or it will cause similar consequences).
Hear some voices comparing homosexuality, IMHO: not the same thing at all. When it comes to power, you can't say "consent". And without 100% consent, healthy intimacy is impossible. In the homosexual community, if there is a teacher-student relationship, sexual assault, or incest, they should also be criticized. I hope that no matter how society develops, vulnerable groups must be protected. Perhaps, we can argue that in the present-future where information dissemination is getting faster and more comprehensive, and sex education is more and more developed, this age line can be drawn down, but when and how much it drops depends on national conditions and regional conditions. , cannot be generalized. Today, the line in most countries is drawn at the age of 16-18.
Of course, I am also reflecting: If this drama is a male teacher + female student, I guess the criticism will be more severe. Am I going to make excuses for Claire because she's a woman and I'm so fond of women's rich sexual desires?
Turning Episode 4: yes means yes, but only when you are full of age
[11.17] He did the stupid thing to start chasing dramas before the update was finished. It's going to be spoiled by Netflix, it's really hard not to update the whole season at one time. In the fourth episode, one-third of the show, Eric and Claire have had sex more than three times, and Eric's mother has become suspicious. So it is certain that in the next six episodes, there must be less exaggeration of love impulses, and more criticism and warnings. My attitude is: teacher-student love can't exist, especially E and C have poor age status, they have to pay the price, especially Claire, over.
But being critical of relationships doesn't stop me from taking a closer look at Claire's sexuality. She's really firing on all cylinders in this episode, drinking three rounds of sexting, just having sex after rule 123, using her husband who's kept in the dark Divert the fire... it's so lively. It seems that she has no worries anymore, enjoying a young body is more important than any ethics. Eric is still talking about like and love, she only thinks about her own desires. The two people in a teacher-student love can never be equal. Eric said: I like you and I like fucking you, is the best aphrodisiac, isn't it?
In fact, I was also very uncomfortable watching this episode, it seems that the whole painting style has gone off the beaten path. I was about to say, "How could a prudent and kind teacher be so reckless?", but I remembered the first few scenes where we saw Claire stealing lipstick in the store. Is this Hulu deliberately leading viewers to blame the relationship on the moral flaws of the teacher itself? Or she can justify it by "on a whim" and "don't know what she's doing", just like she can actually afford lipstick (there is a way to resist the temptation of a young body), but she still has to steal it (still has no time to stop) live in the car), because she just wanted to do it, for no reason. Even if what she said to her husband at the time was, "How much have I spent in that store over the past few years, is it like stealing one?", I believe that she didn't think about it at all when she stole it. , Looking ahead. Maybe it's the same with Eric: he clearly said he likes me, and now he's ghost me, and he wants to invite Alice, who is beautiful and the same age, to the dance. I just want to get you back.
At the end of the day, I still hope that the teacher is fully punished and that Eric can start over after a while. After all, only in this way can adults be urged to take responsibility and minors can be protected.
I remember when the Bao case was still very popular, someone asked: But was she the one who sent her up? Doesn't this mean that she is active and has consent? Shouldn't it be rejected at this time?
The answer is: Of course, if the other party is naked, you have to push her away and help her put on her clothes. When there is a disparity in power, when one party is underage, it is wrong to be wrong. It has nothing to do with initiative, love, and freedom.
View more about A Teacher reviews
