Aahana Swrup
Told through the perspective of an unreliable narrator, ‘Vladimir’ remains ripe with storylines that thrive in the gray area. The nature of the characters, their proclivities, and their unique interpersonal dynamics compel the viewers to scrutinize situations and circumstances to coax out the truth of the matter. The series attempts to do the same with the storyline revolving around John, the protagonist’s husband, and a professor currently banned from his tenured position at the university.
John’s tumultuous professional career is a direct result of a barrage of affairs he had over the course of his career with his female students. The fact of these relationships is never contested by John or his wife, who always had a vague awareness of her husband’s extramarital relations. Instead, since these relations, all of which took place at least 10 years ago, were consensual affairs, they insist they don’t go against any technical rule. Thus, the conversation turns into a Title IX hearing, where the board will be deciding whether or not John’s affairs constitute sexual harassment. SPOILERS AHEAD!
The Protagonist Defends John’s Affairs With His Students
The protagonist, who frequently breaks the fourth wall in her narration, is the viewers’ gateway into the story. As a result, her opinions and perceptions of events are often the first introduction we get to significant plotlines. For the same reason, her insight into John’s case, however controversial, remains a crucial resource. The protagonist is of the opinion that nothing abusive or problematic happened between her husband and his students. The married couple has long had an uncommitted relationship with unspoken rules that allowed them to have their respective affairs. Therefore, even though John’s wife never knew about the specifics of his affairs, she was aware of them all along. More importantly, she never considered these relationships to be out of bounds.
These relationships unraveled ten to twenty years ago, when there were no set rules preventing professors from dating their students. Additionally, the affairs were consensual relationships carried out between two adults. Therefore, even though there was an inherent power imbalance in these affairs, the protagonist doesn’t believe it to be a mark of abuse or exploitation. The fact that she herself admits to having an affair with a young student in his 20s further cements her belief in this line of thinking. Consequently, as far as she’s concerned, her husband hasn’t done anything outright morally wrong or illegal. This goes for various other characters in the story. Individuals like Vladimir, Cynthia, and even Sid, the protagonist and John’s daughter, all remain unambivalent about the student allegations.
John’s Hearing Leaves Sid Embittered
Even though the protagonist has a fairly uncomplicated understanding of John’s affair, her perception alone cannot be used as a measure of morality. The series pitches her as an intentionally unreliable narrator, whose claims, anecdotes, and philosophies are all meant to be fodder for analysis. The narrative wants the audience to question everything that unfolds on the screen and instills each plotline with an intentional ambiguity. Therefore, even more than the protagonist’s perception and understanding, the actual hearing of John’s Title IX hearing becomes pivotal to evaluating the professor’s actions.
Although we don’t get to see the entire hearing, the story showcases bits and pieces of the accusers’ testimonies. As a result, slowly but surely, the picture of John’s relationships with his students becomes clearer in its details. These affairs weren’t incidental consensual relations devoid of the power imbalance between him and the students. They started with paper discussions in bars, or with the understanding that a sexual relationship would in some way benefit the one sleeping with the teacher. Therefore, even though the students actively made the decision to have an affair with John, the latter exploited his position to place himself as an option on the table. Regardless of the gray area afforded by the generational gap, this, by definition, seems predatory behavior.
Thus, the reality remains that regardless of what the protagonist believes, a power imbalance formed the foundation of these relationships, putting the students in a vulnerable position and John in an advantageous one. Ultimately, while none of what he did was legal, since there were no regulations around it at the time, it was indicative of his willingness to abuse his power. While Sid remains by her father’s side throughout the trial, she recognizes the same through the accusers’ testimonies. John may not be a criminal, but he isn’t exactly a nice and moral person either. For the same reason, once the hearing is done, Sid doesn’t stick around to hear the verdict.
John is Banned From His Professorship But Not His Pension
John’s Title IX hearing is meant to provide a conclusion of sorts to the character’s scandalous storyline. In the end, the accusations against the protagonist’s husband are dismissed. However, it is also concluded that he could no longer be allowed to teach at the university. Still, while he loses his professorship, the institution allows him to hold on to his pension. As such, the entire thing works out well enough for John, who would’ve retired by the end of the semester to secure his pension either way. Nonetheless, all this verdict does is establish things the audience already knows. John’s flexibility regarding his moral values does not afford him the ability to have any sort of power and responsibility as an educator.
Second, people like John, well-off cishet, white men rarely have to suffer the full brunt of their improprieties. The university acknowledges that his relationships with the students were problematic enough that he cannot be allowed to be in a similar position of power ever again. However, they refuse to actually punish him for his actions, letting them exist as an unfortunate product of their time. He’s allowed to keep his pension, and the allegations are dismissed, leading him to the conclusion he’s wanted all along. Meanwhile, he has to make no personal reparations or amends with the students, who were directly harmed, emotionally and psychologically, by his actions.
You must be logged in to post a comment.