The scene in the Oval Office where he chokes her turns her off even more because she had to provoke him into doing it instead of him just doing it because that was his nature. He didn't do that from a position of strength. Instead, he did it from a position of weakness because he was still bending to her will.
Spoiler:
I like your interpretation, but I do not think it's all to the story. The subtext agrees with your interpretation a lot, but the actual text, what Claire actually says her views and motivations are, point to her dissatisfaction with her subordinate power role.
So I guess my explanation is the writing is schizophrenic. Half of her behavior and statements point to one motivation while the other half point to another.
However, I think her attempted solution to her dissatisfaction (leaving Frank) aligns more with the stated problem than the subtextual one. If she lost respect for him and thinks he's weak, she's still gonna stick by since he's the fucking president and she gains immensely by sticking it out for the time being. Her leaving over the stated reason, that she wants to no longer be subordinate to him, makes more sense even though it too is stupid.
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Spoiler:I like your interpretation, but I do not think it's all to the story. The subtext agrees with your interpretation a lot, but the actual text, what Claire actually says her views and motivations are, point to her dissatisfaction with her subordinate power role.
Reply With Quote