annlaw78

Feminine hygiene products. That's all I have to say.

BJR seems pretty cartoonish to me. Sneers, tics, horribleness.

Yeah, I thought I had heard that. I think I've hit saturation point with Menzies' characters, though, and I am ready to devote less screen time to the collection of sneers and tics and sadism that is BJR. And enough Frank, for now. We've got some business to attend to in the 1740s!

Randall is pretty much just the latest in a long line of Hollywood caricatures that equate British Redcoats as sadistic, Nazi-type villains. The type who believes the best way to interrogate a woman is to rape her. Sorry if my prior post seemed limited to the deserters -- I was really commenting on essentially every Redcoat other than Lt. Foster and Lord Thomas.

I completely agree. If you're going to show a scene that may or may not be rape, you'd better be pretty clear you indicate it is NOT rape, if that's what you're going for. I don't feel I need to do "homework" to hear various explanations that, no, really I'm just being overly sensitive. The way show left off the relationship with Claire and Jamie, with her being resentful and angry with him regarding what I perceived as her being raped, and his feeling this great shame and distance between them, was not very satisfactory. I guess all is just to be forgiven, swept under the rug by his appearing in the window at Fort William. But why is the show sweeping anything related to the development of Jamie and Claire's relationship under the rug, rather than mining it? Especially if it's in service of a tacked-on, overly long, and unnecessary "Frank's Adventures in Inverness" storyline. Was Claire raped? Did Claire realize in order to save herself and save Jamie, she'd have to let her attacker get very close to and maybe violate her in order to kill him? Did she have any concern for Jamie, or just herself in that moment? There's some interesting, complex stuff there, perhaps turning the "hero saves heroine from rape" trope on its head, in giving Claire agency in saving Jamie from getting shot. For all of Jamie's talk about the protection of his body, was this her way of giving him the protection of her body, doing what she had to do get the TWO of them out of this situation? Where was the omnipresent narration? Why was Claire silent at this moment? If there's a point to her narrative silence (she's shutting down, in shock, etc.), fine, but why then is there no follow-up conversation between Jamie and Claire about what happened, which, frankly, just doesn't seem at all like the relationship these two have developed, such that we've been allowed to see.

That's quite true, and I'm a bit miffed at Claire (which is admittedly totally unfair of me, given what the character had just been through), that if she had not been raped, it would have been nice of her to clue Jamie in to that, because he pretty clearly thinks she was, and hates himself for it. At this point I'm still not clear she wasn't raped, given her narration about how she didn't want to talk about it. Leaving off the season with the audience, and Jamie, not knowing whether Claire was horribly violated seems like a not-so-inconsequential detail I would have liked straightened out rather than, you know, the Vicar explaining how Claire had been Katnissing in some cave deep in the uninhabited regions of, you know, Scotland, for 7 weeks.I'll add that (and in full disclosure, I don't recall the scene in the book -- I may have stopped reading, or rather, listening to the audiobook before then) the way that the show left off the relationship with Claire and Jamie, with her being resentful and angry with him regarding what I perceived as her being raped, and his feeling this great shame and distance between them, was not very satisfactory. I guess all is just to be forgiven, swept under the rug by his appearing in the window at Fort William. But why is the show sweeping anything related to the development of Jamie and Claire's relationship under the rug, rather than mining it? Especially if it's in service of a tacked-on, overly long, and unnecessary "Frank's Adventures in Inverness" storyline. Was Claire raped? Did Claire realize in order to save herself and save Jamie, she'd have to let her attacker get very close to and maybe violate her in order to kill him? Did she have any concern for Jamie, or just herself in that moment? There's some interesting, complex stuff there, perhaps turning the "hero saves heroine from rape" trope on its head, in giving Claire agency in saving Jamie from getting shot. This is especially so, given what we know happens later that Jamie does to protect Claire from BJR. Instead, though, we shift gears suddenly and there's no follow-up conversation between Jamie and Claire about what happened, which, frankly, just doesn't seem at all like the relationship these two have in the books as I recall.

Women may have fallen victim to crime, like rape, but by and large, Scotland at that time is a post-Enlightenment, deeply religious country, and neither Catholicism nor Presbyterianism condones rape. I took issue with all the attacks on Claire at The Gathering, because I don't see why, no matter how drunk, Clansmen would attack a random woman who was part of the Clan. I guess in this ep, the rape threat is more from the British forces, which, again, I don't know how much of the Redcoats-portrayed-as-Nazis that we see a lot on TV/in movies is true. I recall some pretty substantial outcry from across the pond when "The Patriot" came out, and the Brits are portrayed as committing heinous war crimes against civilians as a matter of course.

I get it, but my issue is with the completely unnuanced portrayal of BJR as a Hitler+Edward Longshanks + Jason Isaacs' character in The Patriot + Tim Roth in Rob Roy. If he's THAT COMPLETELY EVIL, then why on earth wouldn't Murtagh have shanked him when he had the chance, and ridden the world of that black mark on humanity? So, if you need BJR going forward to catalyze the plot and be a villain, fine, but you probably should rein it in a bit, so it's believable that our man Murtagh would not have ended him at the first opportunity.

Yeah, knowing what we know now, why didn't Murtagh finish the job on Randall when he had the chance in the first ep, rather than just knock him out and run away with Claire? Randall's the Scourge of the Scots, has tortured his boy Jamie, and is basically the Hitler of the Highlands. Why, exactly, wouldn't Murtagh kill him (there were no witnesses, save Claire). Ditto to all these posts. I don't really understand the promotion of Dougal, BJR, and Frank over Jamie, screentime-wise. Someone suggested in another thread it's because McTavish and Menzies are stronger actors the Hueghan, but, come on. Jamie's a main character. Hueghan has done a fantastic job of pulling focus in nearly every scene he's in, and working with pretty limited material consisting of pretty much "Jamie swans in, does something to make the women swoon, Claire's bosom heaves as she bandages him, Jamie swans out." I got from the initial scene with BJR that he's the big bad. I didn't need a 40-minute tete-a-tete with him to understand that. I understood from Frank's despair at the stones he's in agony over Claire; I didn't need half the show to be devoted to him. What I don't get, is whether Claire and Jamie have any connection other than "hey, we've put a ring on it, we might as well shag."

I think the biggest issue, now that the first half of the season is over, is where they chose to break the season, and how much ground was covered before Jamie appears in that window. Cutting out huge chunks of Jamie-Claire dialogue, scenes of their growing friendship, etc. before the wedding, and then truncating the post-wedding period so greatly just renders Jamie Claire's Highlands booty call. I guess my point is if they knew the last scene before the break was going to be Jamie rescuing Claire, I think they should have put more into developing Claire-Jamie as friends, then spouses, before that. The coyness/hiding Jamie prior to the wedding, I don't get. Up until then, they just trot him out once in awhile for Claire to drunkenly flirt with, it seems. The stable scene in "The Gathering," for example, would have been a good opportunity to have Claire and Jamie talk, and her to appreciate him as a friend. It just feels ilke the show has been trying to be about more than "Claire and Jamie," which I can appreciate, but now we're at a point where the wedding's happened, the Fort William scene has happened, she's possibly been raped, and now we're about to open the next mini-season with Jamie beating on a repeatedly victimized Claire, who barely knows him, and has been his wife for about two seconds. Eh, I don't think the assault/rape is Jamie's fault, no more than if he had gotten shot and killed would it have been his fault, nor the rape is Claire's fault. And it's not as though Claire didn't want to sneak away and roll in the heather with Jamie. They were both victims of a crime, and, romantic protestations of "you have the protection of my body" aside, there wasn't much he could do.

For a show that started out with so much unique potential with a strong, female lead, I'm a bit disappointed we're left off with that heroine exposed, bound, and about to get raped (yet again), to be saved by the man. If they open next season with the man "punishing" her for disobeying him (as if what she went through with BJR weren't enough)... good luck with that!

I thought it was a rape. Jamie clearly left Claire thinking it was; Claire said nothing to assure him it hadn't happened. Her narrative seemed to suggest she was raped. I don't know what it is about shows depicting what pretty clearly looks like rape (ahem, Game of Thrones), only for that to be walked back or hand-waved away in interviews. If you're not trying to depict rape, then be clear about that. Whether Claire was sexually assaulted or not is not some minor detail -- it would be a traumatic, altering event. His pants were totally down when she stabbed him.

The "Duke of Sandringham" -- each time I hear the name, it drives me crazy.. Sandringham isn't in Scotland, Balmoral is. I don't get why a duke with his seat in Norfolk would be all up in Scottish politics. If the Duke has Scottish lands/titles, then he'd typically be known by them in Scotland (i.e., the Prince of Wales is the Duke of Rothesay in Scotland, the Duke of Cambridge is the Earl of Strathearn, etc.)

Yeah, really good point. What, exactly, did the marriage afford her, by way of protection? BJR doesn't give a fig she's purportedly a Scot now, and in fact takes that as an excuse to treat her worse. The show is also wildly inconsistent in its depiction of the place/time. In the first ep, it seems like it was open war between the MacKenzies and the Brits, and every man who saw Claire was a would-be rapist. Then things simmered down and were cute and picturesque at Leoch. Then, in the gathering, Claire's assaulted like 4 times in the space of an hour. Then, they go on the magical mystery tour of the Highlands to collect rent, and things are again picturesque and lovely, culminating in My Big Fat Scot Wedding. And now we're back to every man trying to rape Claire, friends saying "hello" by shooting arrows at Claire's head, brigands skulking around to steal and possibly rape. It's like they cram the violence of three episodes into one, every third episode or so. Here's an idea, Jamie: if you've promised Claire she's nothing to fear when you're around, and then married her to protect her, and all hell is breaking loose and she's liable to be raped at any moment -- GET HER BACK TO LEOCH. Better yet, tell Colum and Dougal it's a terrible idea to take her on the road with them in the first place.

Seriously -- has no one heard of faking it? They're behind a closed door. No one needs be the wiser. Just like with the "consummation" -- no one downstairs knows what happens, Claire and Jamie just came out undressed. How many times will intelligent adults do things that purportedly don't want to do behind closed doors... to satisfy the requirements of people outside the room. Figure it out!

For all the time that the show had in the first 7 eps, I agree the relationship between Jamie and Claire doesn't have the substance to it yet to make some of the scenes to come work. Frankly, Claire and BJR have had more significant conversations than Claire and Jamie. Right now, it just seems like Claire likes bonking Jamie, which, fair enough. But I feel like we've only seen snippets of Jamie, in order to cram in more stuff with the Randall boys, which, ugh. When Jamie left Claire, she was a mess, in shock, and I think he at least thinks she was just raped. He was feeling terribly ashamed, tormented, and guilty when he left her. For him to then do the whole spanking thing just makes him look like an insensitive clod. Plus, how does Willie know where the Brits snagged her from? For all he knew, she was still in the woods when they snatched her. Agreed. The scene with Frank at the Stones was beautiful and could stand on its own without a bunch of other scenes involving Frank's getting tetchy with the police, leering at "Sally" (clearly thing she's a whoooore), beating up "Sally's" mates, choking Sally, and sneering at Mrs. Graham. None of those scenes really made Frank more sympathetic, or added to the main plot of the show, which, frankly, is happening with the Highlanders, not Frank.

Was Claire raped by the deserter before she shanked him? I couldn't tell if she was in shock due to having killed her attacker, being assaulted herself, or both

Way too much Frank "Pee Break" Randall. I could have gotten his torment at the Stones without having to see half a dozen other scenes dedicated to his moping around. April 4th. Geez.

Bad link! (wow, that sounds demanding, haha!)

It's always struck me as a bit odd that for a family rolling in it like the Bravermans (and don't try to act like Zeke and Camille don't have plenty of dough, with their "downsizing" to a multimillion dollar multi-level, historic City mansion), and Camille's obvious desire to travel, that she'd never taken any of her adult daughters -- or, notably for this discussion -- her adult granddaughters on a "Grand Tour" to Europe. I don't have nearly the cash that C/Z do, nor the artistic pretensions, but I'm planning on taking my niece to Europe when she's old enough.

Seriously, what is with Kristina's wig? It is TERRIBLES. Zeke and Camille have the most ridiculous retirement/empty nest house I've ever seen. I'm in my 30s and it looks like too much effort! Chambers Academy is as absurd as I thought it would be. I love how everyone in the family completely acknowledges the "qualified" v. "unqualified" siblings.

I have a feeling the Frank scenes may just be Claire's guilty imaginings about what he's going through, while she's playing house with Jamie.

I liked that change, too. There'd be no good reason, really, for Frank and Claire (Home Counties folks) to go up to the Highlands to be wed. Also, it undermines the "foreignness" of the Highlands to Claire on their post-war honeymoon, to have her have been there before.

This all hinges on Randall's not asking the very basic question of: who did this Englishwoman I'm obsessed with marry? What is the name of this nephew? I want to see the contract (which bears Jamie's real name). Ned admitted this whole scheme was "made of paper," presumably because Randall would demand/have a right to see the paper. The idea that Randall doesn't know Jamie's name is silly and, regardless, there are records regarding the charges against Jamie that are going to bear his name. Again, the idea that Randall has never read them strains credulity. None of this makes any sense!

Maybe the actor groomed, out of courtesy to Balfe, who was going to be licking/biting his torso for the better part of a week's filming!