DorianGrey101

Haha, that man acted his heart out. His little song has changed to Sayonara aka-chaan 😂🤣from welcome baby in the first episode.

But if they go that way (miscarriage/accident ) it would even be worse and seem like they didn't want to really address the issue and are now just using excuses. Like the truck of doom approach.

Such a great job by Asaka Kodai, rare to see a husband whose both funny and unhinged in these types of dramas. He's comic relief, they make him run, cry be stupid (haha)😂

You keep claiming you're not demanding instruction, but your entire critique is built on a "should."

You call it a "missed opportunity." A missed opportunity by whose standard? The author didn't intend to provide a moment of reflection, discomfort, or regret. That wasn't overlooked; it was never part of the story's design. You can't call something a missed opportunity when the author wasn't aiming for it. That's like calling an apple a failed orange. The only way "missed opportunity" makes sense is if you believe the story had an obligation to do what you wanted. And that obligation is, by definition, a demand that fiction serve a specific instructive purpose,whether you admit it or not.

Your proposed "middle ground" isn't a middle ground at all.

You say there's a vast space between moralising and saying nothing, then immediately describe exactly what you want: a moment of reflection, discomfort, regret, or recognition. You're not asking for a neutral narrative choice. And it would require the narrative to step outside Akira's consciousness and impose a judgment he doesn't hold. It's a fundamental break in the story's point of view. So no, you're not asking for a middle ground. You're asking for the same thing you keep insisting you're not asking for, repackaged in gentler language.

You're overriding the victim's lived experience, not centering it.

This is the part you really need to sit with. You wanted Akira to show reflection, discomfort, or regret. But Akira doesn't feel that way. Many real people in similar situations don't, especially not at that age, especially not when the relationship felt like the first safe space after rejection and isolation. A truly victim-centred narrative respects that interior reality without forcing the victim to perform a moral awakening for the audience's comfort. By demanding a moment where Akira acknowledges the exploitation, you're not listening to the victim. You're telling the victim how they should feel. That's the opposite of a victim-centred approach (I don't know if you're familiar with this concept of victim-centred). It's imposing an external script on a character whose messy, unresolved feelings are the very thing that makes the story honest.

Not every victim understands their experiences the same way. Not every victim arrives at the conclusion that readers, critics, therapists, activists, or society might want them to arrive at. Sometimes people carry contradictory feelings for decades. Sometimes they remember harmful relationships with affection, longing, gratitude, confusion, or all of the above.

A victim-centred approach doesn't necessarily require the character to label, condemn, or reinterpret what happened in the way critics think they should. It can also mean taking seriously the messy, contradictory feelings the character actually has.



-The story didn't say nothing. You just didn't like how it said it.

You claim the story "largely sidestepped the exploitative nature." But it didn't. Akira meets the tutor only in love hotels. He's shocked when his two worlds nearly collides and hides his relationship with Kana. He introduces the man only as "tutor," not a friend or partner. Those are all acknowledgments of the power imbalance they're just embedded in behavior, not delivered as internal monologue. The story did show awareness. It just didn't hand it to you in the specific form you wanted. It's not an omission. And dismissing it because it wasn't spelled out in a moment of reflection is moving the goalposts or showing lack of critique.

"Another interpretation" doesn't mean both are equally grounded in the text.

You say there's another interpretation: that the story was so invested in nostalgia that it sidestepped exploitation entirely. But that interpretation requires ignoring the behavioural evidence the story did provide. Secrecy, compartmentalisation, discomfort at being seen these aren't the marks of a narrative that forgot the power imbalance existed. Your interpretation isn't an alternative reading; it's a demand that the evidence be presented in a different format. It's not literary criticism,it's more of a format preference by you.

So here's the bottom line.

You view the absence of an overt reflective moment as a failure. I view it as fidelity to a protagonist who doesn't have that clarity. You keep saying this is a disagreement about framing, but it's actually a disagreement about whether a story is allowed to stay entirely inside a character's limited, subjective perspective without signalling to the audience that it knows better. I say yes. You say the story is weaker for it but your reasoning only holds if you assume the story's job is to guide the audience's moral response. And that's exactly the instructional impulse you keep denying.

You don't want the story Itz wrote. You want Itz's story with an extra scene that validates your feelings about it. That's not a missed opportunity. That's a different story entirely.

If you like girls killing people over a man, you will like this movie. Not a bad watch at all if you have nothing to watch.

You should read the manga maybe you will understand better Akira's own feelings.

You're projecting.

You keep framing this as though anyone not demanding a narrative condemnation is "overlooking" grooming or "perpetuating" harm. That's a false binary. I can recognise the tutor's actions as predatory and still believe the story doesn't owe you a moral nudge. Those two things coexist perfectly fine. Fiction isn't an instruction manual for vulnerable kids, and readers aren't blank slates absorbing every depicted dynamic as an endorsement. A story that shows a teenager framing a toxic relationship as guidance isn't teaching anyone it's okay it's showing a psychologically messy reality and trusting the audience to see the full picture without a narrator holding their hand.

Your concern about vulnerable readers is well-intentioned, but it assumes fiction functions as a straightforward moral guide, and it doesn't. It assumes the absence of authorial finger-wagging equals endorsement. It doesn't. And it assumes that your discomfort with the narrative's silence is proof the story failed. It isn't. It's proof you noticed exactly what the story left for you to notice.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: none of this changes what Contrast is actually about : first love between Akira and Kanata. That's the story. The tutor is part of Akira's messy path toward that love, not the central point. You can keep demanding the story be something it's not, but that doesn't make the story broken. It just means it's not yours and the author chose to tell it their own way.

Also, anyone familiar with Japanese BL shounen/high school or manga knows that characters like the tutorthe older, opportunistic figure exist to highlight something within the story and to reflect a certain reality. They're not there to be moral examples. They're narrative devices. The tutor's role isn't to teach the audience right from wrong; it's to illuminate Akira's vulnerability, his isolation, and the messy, sometimes predatory situations closeted teens can fall into while searching for guidance. That's the reality being depicted, not endorsed.

The story isn't broken for failing to moralise. It's operating within a genre language you seem unwilling to acknowledge. The real issue isn't that the story is harmful it's that you're refusing to read it on its own terms while insisting your external framework is the only valid one.

I think you actually answered your own question without realising it.

You said you're not asking for a public service announcement, and then you listed exactly what you wanted: a moment of reflection from Akira, an acknowledgement from the tutor, or a contrast with a healthy adolescence.

Those all require the narrative to step outside Akira's subjective experience and impose a moral frame that he, as a character, does not hold. You're essentially asking the story to momentarily stop being his story and become a story about his story, told from a perspective that isn't his.

The relationship was pivotal and framed through nostalgia and longing because that's how Akira frames it. You want the story to supply the distance he lacks. But that would make it a different story. Your version of Contrast. Not the one that exists. Not the one written by Itz.

You keep saying the story should have introduced more critical distance, but that's exactly my point: that's the story you would have preferred. The author chose not to insert that distance and instead stayed close to the protagonist's perspective.

What I don't agree with is the idea that a story is obligated to step outside the character's perspective and provide the audience with a corrective interpretation. Sometimes authors deliberately leave that tension unresolved and trust readers to draw their own conclusions.

For example, a sex worker might sincerely believe their pimp is a friend, protector, mentor, or even family. The story can portray those feelings honestly because that's how the character experiences the relationship. Doing so doesn't necessarily mean the story is endorsing the exploitation. It may simply be depicting the emotional reality of someone living within that situation.

To use another example, a gang member remembers their criminal associates as brothers, or someone in an exploitative situation remembers moments of genuine affection and companionship, that doesn't mean the narrative is endorsing the exploitation. It means the character's emotional reality is complicated.

The narrative doesn't have to stop and announce that the dynamic is exploitative. It just presents the characters' lived reality their skewed perceptions, the bonds they form inside a toxic structure and trusts the audience to understand the full picture. The story isn't endorsing the pimp. It's showing you what it feels like to be inside the character's head.

Same thing with Akira and the tutor. He framed it as guidance, as something he was happy with, as part of his journey, as a friend who was there for him when he needed it. That's his truth within the world of the story. The narrative doesn't owe us a moment of correction, because staying inside his subjective experience is the whole point. And none of that changes what Contrast is actually about: first love between Akira and Kanata. The tutor is just a part of his messy path, not the destination.

The poor baby was really scared, you could see him flinch. I don't think he knew it was acting. Hopefully they have a better way of working with kids/baby actors now.

The police kept saying they hoped the kids were safe but did nothing to remove them from the situation.

What I disagree with is the assumption that the story had a duty to turn that issue into its central moral lesson.
Not every narrative thread has to become the main theme of a work. The story was primarily about the character's journey of self-discovery, identity, relationships, and coming to terms with his sexuality. Expecting the entire work to pivot and become a lesson about one particular relationship is asking it to become a different story.
A work can depict something problematic without making it the central subject of analysis. Sometimes stories include flawed, unhealthy, exploitative, or morally questionable relationships as part of a character's life rather than as the main point of the narrative.
I think where we differ is that you believe the story was obligated to stop and explicitly address that relationship. I don't. A story's failure to center a particular issue isn't automatically an endorsement of it

You're still arguing against a position I haven't taken.

I never said people shouldn't criticize the work. I never said adult-child relationships are okay. I never said people can't be disturbed by the portrayal. Criticism is completely fair.

What I'm disagreeing with is the idea that fiction has an obligation to explicitly condemn every immoral act it depicts. That's a different argument.

You keep framing this as "either you agree it's wrong or you're defending it," but that's a false choice. I can agree that the relationship is wrong and still reject the claim that the story must stop and provide a moral disclaimer for the audience.

You mention Lolita, and that's actually a good example of the distinction. People have debated that book for decades, but discussing its literary value isn't the same thing as endorsing Humbert Humbert's actions. Depiction and endorsement are not the same thing.

The issue isn't whether adult-child sex is wrong. I don't think that's controversial. The issue is whether every work of fiction must explicitly address, condemn, or punish every immoral action it portrays. I don't think that's a requirement of storytelling, and audiences are generally capable of making moral judgments without the author holding up a sign telling them what to think.

Also, if your argument is strong, it shouldn't need "go touch grass," "do some inner work," or speculation about why someone disagrees with you. We can disagree about storytelling without pretending the other person secretly supports what the characters did.

Then don't watch it. It's not your manga, you didn't write it. So why should I care about what you think. It's clear you've never read or watched anything in your life. Writers don't need to explain stuff to you especially things related to fictional characters. Take your outrage somewhere.

OMG, the father even said "that damn woman" as if he wasn't responsible for those kids.
Imagine you're trying to abandon your kid and she says "I like you alot daddy" but you still abandon her. Evil daddy.

I really liked the concept of the dancing troupe, horror and tradition combined together. It was beautiful, the cinematography and costumes.

Unfortunately it wasn't good and feels more low budget than anticipated.

Watched this on Tubi, some of the stories were really interesting but needed more explanations.

Lol, he looked out of place as a mall security guard. Maybe costume department should do more to make sure characters fit their roles. That's why I said "casting" not him as a person.

Compared to the evil guy, you could believe that the evil guy was evil, with his mannerisms, smile and behavior.

Oh no... 😱

They were supposed to be super intelligent but didn't figure out the elevator. And I hate that they had to sacrifice the disabled person.

Pretty good though. Some parts are a bit predictable with all the heroes antics but still keeps you guessing. But I do wonder about Korean casting choice though 😂🤣. Ji Chang Wook (my head-shaking), but the nemesis was a good casting.

Message me if you still wanna watch this.

This is a really deep and powerful exploration of various themes once you get into it and listen to some of the dialogue. Tradition vs modernity, environmental issues, bodily autonomy of women and their place with the past and future. Even though they say she's the caretaker and dog-god she's disrespected all around.
The man that's supposed to be protector and leader of the family is no good. He's abusive to the women who are supposed to be caretakers of the curse. They exist to serve and to be derided by the men and the community.

The police investigators didn't even try to get the truth. They just thought these guys are just repeat offenders and not worth it.