Blue Car is a political film disguised as a character study. It reaffirms our prejudices without clarifying the characters' underlying motivations. (Spoilers) Why are we not surprised at Auster's lack of restraint? Do we assume that any man given the opportunity will use it to full advantage? This is actually the theme of a film made in 1962, Term of Trial, staring Laurence Olivier as the teacher. Term of Trial does not explore the indiscretion, rather it examines our expectation of it. There are thousands of teachers in close proximity of young nubile teens, yet indiscretion is not rampant. You might argue that this is a portrait of just one teacher, but why are we not provided any examination of Auster's motives or character flaws? Auster is not a predator. There is no indication that he has "ruined" other students. Other than helping Meghan gain the opportunity to compete he makes no other arrangements to seduce her, their encounter is by chance. Then what is it that motivates Auster to make the wrong choice? I would suggest that it is not Auster's choice, rather it's the Moncrieff's choice (and Ebert's bias). In the commentary, Moncrieff discusses how uncomfortable the actors felt with the scene and the location. Given what we know about Auster, I believe that he would have felt the same. Realist films should strive for psychological consistency, not moralistic formalism. I love allegories like the Piano, in which the characters are abstractions, but I don't appreciate Realist presentations that provide us with false or underdeveloped characters who simply reinforce our existing prejudices. Not to mention the film's cover photo, which promotes the same type of sexual exploitation we are expected to find abhorrent. If you are interested in Feminist films with complex characters that are more than mere moral contrivances try Lizzie Borden's Love Crimes, but be forewarned that it's more likely to offend your social values than Blue Car.