The Kindergarten Teacher

Started by polkablues, August 15, 2018, 12:47:48 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

polkablues



Directed by: Sara Colangelo
Starring: Maggie Gyllenhaal, Gael GarcĂ­a Bernal
Story: A kindergarten teacher in New York becomes obsessed with one of her students, whom she believes is a child prodigy.

This trailer raises my blood pressure to very unhealthy levels, it's so anxiety-inducing. It looks like Maggie Gyllenhaal is absolutely killing it in this one.

EDIT: Apparently it's a remake of an Israeli film of the same title from a few years ago: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3709678/?ref_=nv_sr_3

DOUBLE EDIT: Changed "who" in official synopsis to "whom," because I'm a goddamn pedant and it was driving me crazy.
My house, my rules, my coffee

jenkins

how do you read it?

i read it "she believes [he] is a child prodigy," he's in the subject position and who is accurate

for whom i think it'd have to be "she believes [him] [to be] a child prodigy"

although i'm not 100% on this because i can't fully explain the difference between "is" and "to be" in this scenario

polkablues

Quote from: jenkins on August 15, 2018, 02:18:48 AM
i read it "she believes [he] is a child prodigy," he's in the subject position and who is accurate

This is how I parse the sentence as well, but I disagree with your conclusion. "He" is the subject of the separate clause "he is a child prodigy," but as the sentence is structured, that clause is subordinate to the subject and verb "She believes." The thing that she believes ("[that he] is a child prodigy") is therefore the object of the sentence. I could be talking out of my ass, but I feel pretty sure about this one.
My house, my rules, my coffee

jenkins

1 lol from the movie title and this conversation

2 i still see what you mean and believe you're employing sound logic

3 i'm wondering if, still following the logic you've employed, what's being demonstrated is the potential flexibility of the word 'who,' as in we both agree that 'he' would be written if the sentence were unraveled, and we associate 'who' with 'he' (spurring this conversation), so perhaps who would be appropriate even under the conditions presented, meaning a subject word can be used within a subordinate clause that's became an object, if the situation calls for it, as this one might

4 still not sure and it's definitely a next level grammar talk for only pedants

polkablues

Yeah, I definitely wouldn't feel safe putting money on it or anything. It's shit like this that makes me feel all sorts of sympathy for people learning English as a second language.

Quote from: jenkins on August 15, 2018, 03:51:39 PM
3 i'm wondering if, still following the logic you've employed, what's being demonstrated is the potential flexibility of the word 'who,' as in we both agree that 'he' would be written if the sentence were unraveled, and we associate 'who' with 'he' (spurring this conversation), so perhaps who would be appropriate even under the conditions presented, meaning a subject word can be used within a subordinate clause that's became an object, if the situation calls for it, as this one might

I'm starting to be swayed in this direction, I think. At the very least, the argument I was using to justify the change is feeling less convincing to me now.
My house, my rules, my coffee

Fernando

I usually don't pay attention to Netflix movies but this grammar class made me interested in it and watched the trailer.

I'll be seeing this when released.

Quote from: polkablues on August 15, 2018, 12:47:48 AM
It looks like Maggie Gyllenhaal is absolutely killing it in this one.

Yes, she's also amazing on The Deuce.