AD55

I strenuously disagree, and I have to say that I'm finding the notion of "actual rape" increasingly offensive, though I am sure that is not your intention. The attacks on Jenny and Claire would inspire terror that might go on for years if not forever. Surely, never feeling truly safe again is losing a part of yourself. In any case, I'm not interested in using a yardstick to figure out who gets to feel most traumatized, and I don't believe that the reviewer is either. The significance lies in the fact that the assault on Jamie is given weight, as it should be, whereas the ones on women are treated more as plot devices.

Thanks for clarifying. When you pointed out that Claire wasn't actually raped, I thought you meant that the show leaving that ambiguous is what led the reviewer to criticize how her assault was treated. I would argue, BTW, that rape need not involve penetration.

Whether or not there was actual penetration doesn't IMO make the reviewer's criticism any less valid. Claire was sexually violated and faced death twice. On one of those occasions, she stabbed a man to death, something I can't imagine getting over quickly, if ever, and went into shock. In the first instance, there is more focus on Jamie's guilt than Claire's trauma, which is portrayed as manageable in the immediate aftermath and nonexistent afterwards. In the second instance, as the reviewer notes, she is blamed and then beaten. Jenny is also blamed and only "forgiven" when Jamie realizes there was no penetration. While I admire the last two episodes a good deal, I agree that it's a huge problem that sexual violence is portrayed as way more traumatic for men than for women even allowing for the brutality of Jamie's experience. If I were stripped to the waist and had a knife pressed against my chest, I wouldn't get over it anytime soon and I'm not sure I would be able to forgive the man who blamed and beat me for it. I love the show, but this is a huge problem.

A thoughtful review at the NYTimes: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/05/30/outlander-season-1-finale-jamie-rape/?_r=0

If I could robot like this post, I would. Awesome analysis and attention to detail. I just finished rewatching the episode, and I am completely over my initial disappointment. All the parts I liked during the first viewing were magnified and others that I missed came to the fore. I should have learned by now to reserve judgment as I have liked all the episodes, even the ones I already adored, more on subsequent viewings. The writing and direction are so good that I always miss stuff the first time through. I shudder to think how many times I'll watch each episode in the months before season 2. I'll be able to recite every line by next April and, man, they'd better not make us wait longer than that. I could have used the standard "no animals were hurt during the filming of this episode" disclaimer. Also, I've been watching the credits carefully for months now and I have not seen anyone credited as horse wrangler. Steven Dent seems to do practically every film and TV show with horses, and sure enough, I visited his website and there's a picture of Murtagh on horseback. Horses are all over this series. How come Dent doesn't get a mention? And yup, I'm still in my adolescent horsey stage.

This reminds me that I appreciated the information that Claire has been in the C18th for 8 months. They evidently did stick with the book's timeline. This makes it reasonable to assume Claire and Jamie go to the stones near Beltane. I agree with the comments about adaptation. Overly reverential adaptations are usually not very good, and I think that this show succeeds way more than it fails.

I agree that they could not have gotten rid of the pregnancy even if they'd wanted to as it plays a pivotal role in the future books. I guess I just would have liked it to carry less weight, which I think it does because the recovery is somewhat rushed. In the book, it feels more like something lovely that comes after Jamie's healing and the rebuilding of his relationship with Claire is well under way. I do agree with the comment up thread that Sam's portrayal of Jamie's happiness is subdued and somewhat tentative, which felt right. They really could not have asked for better actors, and Anna Foerster's direction was spot on. I would like to hear her do commentary. The episode didn't live up to my expectations -- for me, the sum is not greater than the whole of its parts. But many of those parts were great: --The opening shot was crushing but oddly beautiful. A lesser actor would have stared blankly, but Sam conveys Jamie's feeling of emptiness -- he shows the viewer that Jamie is still in there even as he convinces us that Jamie believes himself to be irretrievably broken. --The rescue was thrilling but also brilliantly efficient. I loved that the door simply falls on Randall and the camera doesn't dwell. Murtagh's quick "is the bastard dead?" glance is the kind of small but telling moment that this show does so well. Oh, Murtagh, if only. When are people going to realize you need to shoot RH in the head to be sure? --Loved the scenes between Murtagh and Claire. --Am touched that Willie is trying so hard to be a grownup, but he can't help putting his foot in his mouth. The brilliance of the casting for every single character continues to amaze me. --The Gaelic scene between Jamie and Murtagh was perfect. I like that Foerster pulled the camera back instead of using shot reverse shot. I am actually glad I didn't know what they were saying because it made Murtagh's angry reference to Claire more dramatic. Kind of like the way Claire understands Dougal's "long live the Stuarts." Catching that one word was enough for me. Duncan's furious delivery convinced me that mentioning Claire wasn't simply a tactic to persuade Jamie he has a responsibility to live but also an expression of how much Murtagh has come to respect and care for her. She's the woman not a lassie that Jamie needs. --The abbey was gorgeously shot, especially Jamie's room. So stark and beautiful -- stripped bare like Jamie's soul. I am sure other things will occur to me when I watch the episode again. I'm also prepared to like it more. There were a couple of episodes that I was unimpressed with when I first watched them, but which I came to appreciate or even love after subsequent viewings.

It will take me a while to sort out my feelings about the episode, but this was kind of my response as well. Based on what Kristin Dos Santos and others said, I expected a big payoff at the end, but I actually wasn't very moved by the scene on the boat or even when Jamie hugs Claire for the first time. Maybe because those scenes weren't earned, IMO. The recovery came too fast. I am often highly critical of the books, but I do think that DG did something brilliant in having Claire impersonate Randall so that Jamie can finally fight back. I have some quibbles with it -- having Jamie actually rape Randall in the person of Claire strikes me as gratuitous, though I think a case can be made for it -- but I buy that it was what made it possible for him to take back his personhood and stop thinking of himself as a powerless victim. It also revealed to him that his arousal during the rape was an involuntary bodily response provoked by manipulation and self-imposed passivity. Moore and Co.'s adaptation did not do justice to this crucial step on Jamie's road to recovery. I did like Jamie's saying that it felt good to experience something other than pain. I don't recall whether that is in the book. Romance novels often end with the heroine announcing she's pregnant. It serves as the confirmation that the hero and heroine are definitely meant to be together, which I find incredibly irritating and borderline sexist. I know that the revelation is in the book and happens at the very end, but I have never found it satisfying. The lovemaking that precedes it is much more important in signalling that Randall has not succeeded in destroying their love and commitment. It certainly never made me say "ah, that's so great. How perfect." It seems to me that setting off for France to change history is plenty thrilling and hopeful as a demonstration that Claire and Jamie are meant to be together -- true partners with an ambition that transcends their union but also confirms that their connection is based in part on a mutual commitment to making a difference in the world, to viewing their own lives in the context of history and the suffering and potential of human beings. I'm not saying this well. As I said, I haven't sorted out my feelings yet. I will end on a positive note and say that if there is better acting taking place in film or television right now, I haven't seen it.

Early on, Moore et al noted that since they needed to begin filming in the fall, Claire would go through the stones at Samhain. In the books, it's Beltane and Jamie brings Claire to the stones at Samhain. I always assumed they would keep to the six-month timeline and just flip the festivals, but If WatchrTina's timeline is correct, that doesn't work. There's a Gaelic festival called Imbolc that usually takes place on 1 February. If we stretch WatchrTina's timeline a bit, we could assume that show Jamie brings Claire to the stones during that festival, but it would be quite the fan-wank since there's no mention of either Imbolc or Beltane on the show.

True, though to look at this from another perspective, it's more defensible on the grounds of morality and human rights for Randall to be exposed and drummed out of the service or even sent to prison or hanged as he likely would have been had Fletcher been apprised of his actions. At least, that's what Randall says would happen if he were discovered torturing prisoners. I'm a little skeptical myself about whether he is right -- the army might be more inclined to circle the wagons to protect one of their own from prosecution. Leaving that possibility aside, while exposing Randall would not help Jamie and Claire, it would mean he would not be able to torture other prisoners. As we know, Jamie is not his first and he surely would not be his last. Within the context of the novel and show, of course, that's not an option and I'm not saying I'd be happy about it.

I think this photo from Corinne Stark's tumblr page is new: http://corinnestark.tumblr.com/post/119828589910/willownezt-claire-and-murtagh#notes It's spoilery so click at your own risk.

I checked in on the marathon off and on, and I totally agree. It's the sign of a good series when you notice new details on subsequent viewings.

I just reread the scene where Claire "rescues" Jamie from death after Wentworth. I believe someone already expressed the same opinion on this thread or another, but I will add my two cents -- if they keep that bit where Jamie calls Claire "mother" after raping Claire posing as Randall, I am going to have to put my head under a pillow. It may sound strange, but I think I'll be more creeped out by that than the scenes between Randall and Jamie. Even if it can be defended on psychological grounds, and I have no idea whether it can be, I still want it cut. Given how many other scenes have been shortened or eliminated altogether, I don't think that's too much to ask. In the preview, we see Jamie shout Claire with a shocked and panicked expression on his face, so I harbor some hope. ETA. I found the earlier discussion about this. Chocolatetruffle, I don't mean to be judgmental. This is a matter of personal opinion, and I can see how the scene could be viewed more positively. Because I have issues with it doesn't mean I think everyone should.

That's the thing for me. I love Claire and Jamie, especially now that I have Cait and Sam in my head. They are a couple with amazing sexual chemistry and that ain't nothing, but I've never been wholly persuaded they have more in common with each other than Claire and Frank. In fact, neither the show nor the book is particularly interested in what the two couples have in common. If I think about it, the thing that binds all three of them together is war. Perhaps it is their personalities/temperaments that make Jamie and Claire a better fit. The older I get, the more I think that is a better predictor of a good relationship than whether a couple has interests in common.

I agree that it was brilliant. My son has been enjoying the series, but he says that episode was a game changer for him. He is interested in shows and movies that explore what happens when characters are pushed to their limits and Outlander does that. I don't mean to invoke him as the arbiter of taste, but I have appreciated his perspective since I"m guessing that most, though I hope not all, of us posting here are women. I used the pause button to watch the promo for episode 16 and yeah, it's going to make me nostalgic for the lighthearted fare that is Wentworth Prison. I don't usually have much patience when actors are praised for their "brave" performances. It's their job and the ones on TV and in movies get paid a ton of money to do it. I think it takes more courage to be a minimum wage worker who is treated like crap and lives on the poverty line. But I do think that adjective is appropriate for Tobias's and Sam's performances.

I'm assuming that you and Pestilentia are being ironic when you use the word guilt, but just in case, I don't believe those of us who admire the stagecraft, writing, and performances on Outlander are guilty of anything. That's just thoughtful viewing. I also don't think there's anything wrong with noticing how beautiful Cait and Jamie are even in the most disturbing scenes. I think torture porn has to do with getting off on the violence. I probably overstated things in my post because I was trying to understand whether the accusations that Moore et all are offering up torture porn have any validity. That's why I was thinking about my own response -- what does it mean that I enjoyed the episode? The violence in the episode does arouse strong feelings, but that's not necessarily a bad thing -- art should provoke an emotional response and what Jamie is going through should arouse our sympathy. There's a link between sex and violence, however, and sometimes filmmakers exploit that, intentionally or unintentionally. I don't think that's what is going on with Outlander. Frankly, I think crossing the line into torture porn is much more likely when the violence portrayed is against women. Because women are more often the victims of sexual violence than men, they're much more likely to identify with the victim than the perpetrator.

I love the last sentence, but otherwise this makes me tear up. Kristin Dos Santos better not be exaggerating about the payoff at the end of the episode.

I feel sure that someone must already have linked to this interview with Ira Steven Behr, and I did look through the thread, but I'm someone who is capable of searching a bookcase for a half hour only to discover that the book is six inches from my face: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/outlander-writer-uncomfortable-jamie-black-796077 The following leaped out at me: "It was much easier to write this episode than it was to be on set. I know how this is probably going to look in print, but the fact is the five or six days we shot were without a doubt the most uncomfortable and worst I’ve ever spent on a set. Most crews on TV shows and film are very matter-of-fact, tough hombres. And they do that job no matter what’s being filmed. This time, though, everyone was feeling it. The guys would walk past me and go, “When is this going to end?” I’ve never had that happen before. Same with hair and makeup and costume — I would check with them on occasion after a particularly harrowing scene and, I kid you not, there were tears. I’d never seen that before."

My understanding of torture porn is violence inflicted on another that creates in the viewer a heightened sense of arousal that is or borders on the sexual. We might be quick to say that we feel only horror and sympathy for Jamie, for example, but it can be argued that our position as witnesses of the violence makes us complicit in his suffering. Further, our admiration for Sam's performance involves a kind of enjoyment of the scene even if the only emotion we admit or allow ourselves is horror. This is why I said earlier that by inviting the viewer to linger on the violence, the director and writer are teetering on the edge of torture porn. My adult son has been watching Outlander, which he now prefers to Game of Thrones, and we've had discussions about episode 15. He agrees with those who say that by portraying the suffering of a male victim of rape, Outlander is doing something we seldom, perhaps never, see. He has a fairly jaundiced view of his own sex and he maintains that straight men almost always experience some degree of titillation when they see a woman being raped even if they are also disgusted by it. Perhaps this has to do with cultural conditioning or the fact that the rape is usually filmed from the man's perspective or an involuntary physiological response or some combination of the three. He and I have been speculating about how men will react when they see Jamie suffer the humiliation that is usually reserved for women. Those of you who watch Game of Thrones will recall the controversial scene in which Jamie (why does he have to have that name?!) and Cersei have sex beside their recently murdered son's tomb. Whether the sex was consensual was a subject of debate on the Internet, with women overwhelmingly maintaining that it wasn't and men maintaining that by the end Cersei had consented. The male director stated that Cersei eventually consents. Evidently no really does mean yes and if you fuck a woman long enough, she'll come around. This begs the question of how male viewers will feel when Jamie becomes aroused during a brutal rape, especially when we are shown the despair and shame he experiences in the aftermath. To return to the question of whether Black Jack's treatment of Jamie constitutes torture porn, and I don't think that it does, I have to confess that I enjoyed the episode. I rewatched it, and I've looked at the before and after pictures in Corinne Verzak's photo recap (cf. the Outlander in the Media thread) more than once. While I believe that my enjoyment stems from the brilliance of the writing, directing, and performances, I'm willing to admit that on a subconscious level, the how and why of my enjoyment may be more complicated than that. Even the act of looking away from certain scenes or watching them through our fingers is a strategy that enables us to continue bearing witness to Jamie's suffering. Sorry to go all psychoanalytic. I've been thinking about this a lot since the episode is being criticized for being excessive in its portrayal of the torture. I believe that it's justified, but I also think it's complicated and bears examining. ETA. That the Game of Thrones director argues he intended to show that the sex between Jamie and Cersei was consensual supports the opinion of those, including myself, who think it's important that we not take the writer at her/his word when it comes to interpreting what's on the page or screen. Do we believe the writer or our lying eyes?

Thank you for linking to this. Verzak's synopsis/review is a thing of beauty. Her before and after pictures are so on point that I almost started crying again, but I'm at work so I bit the inside of my cheek instead. I watch a fair amount of series television, and I agree with Verzak that the Outlander cast reigns supreme. Other series have outstanding actors, maybe even several, but there are always a few who have been miscast or are weak/mediocre. This series is unparalleled in terms of choosing actors who embody the characters completely. IMO, they never put a foot wrong.

I thought McQuarrie said he had been told that being hanged gave you a hard on, to which Jamie replied he had heard that you just shit yourself. But yeah, I don't have a problem believing violence is arousing to men since testosterone inspires both. I did know that men who are paralyzed have children and that comatose patients can be given hard ons. I think that Bluebonnet is probably right when she says that pain is not an impediment to arousal, even when the pain is not part of consentual sex play. It still strikes me as somewhat unlikely that a person in Jamie's state could be aroused, but I'm no expert. I believe orgasm releases endorphins that would allerviate the pain, which might be why the body overrides the brain in such cases. I'm starting to feel like the other half of Masters and Johnson.

I mainly agree but with a quibble. While I don't think one should go to a show like Outlander for a history lesson, it is reasonable to critique the choices a writer makes when said writer defends them on the basis of historical accuracy. Gabaldon and the showrunners went to the mat for the historical accuracy of the wife beating while freely admitting that the boar hunt was an anachronism. Viewers may justly ask why. I don't give a damn if writers conflate events or mess with geography, and writers will usually cop to those inaccuracies. Defending wife beating or your fascination with rape and torture on the basis of historical accuracy is a different animal. We live in a time when politicians are talking about "real" rape, so-called civilized nations have legalized torture, and wife beating is as common as it ever was. Writers who create distance from those realities by suggesting they were acceptable or tolerated in the past but aren't now need to be called out on it. I realize that some will say that the difference is that we no longer think those things are acceptable even if they do happen, while eighteenth-century Scots were just fine with them. I call bullshit on both of those assumptions, and thus do believe it matters if the writer has the hero of a piece engage in appalling behavior and then defends him for it. That's having your cake and eating it, too. ETA. This is why I generally prefer that writers use the historical drama and fantasy genres to critique our own period as opposed to offering half-baked history lessons. Battlestar was great at this.

Best Freudian slip: "The character has been seen with a scarred back so far in the show, which apparently takes over three hours to create using prosthetics, and by the end of the season prophetic work will be required for his arms, legs and his head." Perhaps Ron Moore will do a bit of prophesying for season 2 in his Outlander Xtra. I thought the change might also be due to time constraints. There's an awful lot to get to in the last episode without including a scene of Jamie puking his guts out on the boat ride to France. On the other hand, I guess they could just travel by map like the Muppets.

Totally agree with this. And it's not just fantasy. Folks who watch the Tudors, Downton Abbey, or, God help us, Reign, for their historical accuracy need to reconsider.

Okay, I'm here armed with a pillow to second those who think Claire is a Mary Sue character. My understanding of the term is that it has to do with the author's creating a character who is an idealized version of herself. I think that's what Gabaldon has done here. Claire is beautiful, resourceful, and good at practically everything. Sure, she sometimes makes mistakes, but even these tend to be attributed to her being impulsively heroic or brave. It's sort of like those job interviews where the interviewer asks you to describe your worst failing and you reply, “If I must admit a flaw, it's that my commitment to excellence means that I sometimes work too hard for my own good.” I've read a bunch of interviews with Gabaldon in which she said that the character of Claire insisted on taking over the narration and wouldn't stop talking like a twentieth-century woman. Gabaldon introduced the time travel to account for this. I personally think this happened because Claire is a stand in for the author. Like CatMack, I've stopped reading interviews with her or visiting her twitter feed as it drives me nuts how un-insightful she is about herself. Like Claire, she can do anything. If someone dares to talk about not having enough time to write, she always declares she has no patience with that. After all, she wrote a novel while taking care of three small children, holding down a demanding full-time academic position, publishing articles in scientific journals, and having frequent sex with her husband. And yes, she does regularly talk about her robust sex life. (Gee, who else has frequent sex, complete with vaginal orgasms?) I like Claire due to Cait's stellar performance and the chemistry between her and Sam Heughan. As Ron Moore said, “you can see Caitriona thinking.” I can't, however, criticize those who wish that Jamie and Claire were more complex characters. I go to other shows for that, but if you're someone who isn't into escapism or wants your pleasure viewing to be accompanied by character development, you are probably going to ditch the series. Edited to remove references to the books.