S01.E01: Sassenach

[chocolatetruffle]

 

That moment was in the top 5 for sure but if I had to pick one moment of pulse-quickening hotness it had to be in episode 3. 

YEEEESSSSS!  That was also my favorite Jaime hair moment.  Although I really liked the "you're coming with me" moment, I really didn't appreciate it until the second viewing.

Edited March 27, 2015 by chocolatetruffle

[WatchrTina]

Well since we're winding ourselves up for episode 9 (come on April 4th!) by reminiscing about episode 1, I really really loved the story about when it was  shown at Comic Con.  Apparently the crowd let out a collective gasp at their first glimpse of Jamie.  You know the glimpse I mean -- a name-less, face-less man shown in the background, sitting by the fire, while Dougal and Murtagh debate whether Claire is or is not a "hoo-er".  You can barely see him.  He's practically set decoration.  But apparently the Comic-Con audience (made up primarily of book-fans since the show had not aired yet) let out a collective spasm of reaction.  I like to imagine Sam, somewhere in the arena, watching the crowd, perhaps from behind the stage curtain.  I think that moment -- that strong reaction to a mere glimpse of JAMMF -- may have given him his first inkling of what he had gotten himself into.  I wish I could have seen the crowd react to his delivery of the "you're coming with me" line.  It would have been fun to see several hundred women collectively hug themselves with glee.

[jaytee1812]

Just watched this episode. It was okay, I'm certainly back for more. 

 

Some of the twee Scottish stuff and the accents made my toes curl a bit, but not too much. There were a couple of people that I couldn't tell whether they were meant to be Scottish or their accent was dreadful, the minister in 1945 played James Fleet springs to mind.

 

I like Claire, she's smart and resourceful without being superwoman. Sam Heughan's acting has moved from painful to decent in the last few years and I like the husband. 

 

Just one thing the show kind of got wrong. Sassenach doesn't refer to English people but Scottish lowlanders. But it's a common mistake to make, I can believe the characters would make it. 

[Athena]

Just one thing the show kind of got wrong. Sassenach doesn't refer to English people but Scottish lowlanders. But it's a common mistake to make, I can believe the characters would make it. 

 

You are right that originally it does refer to Lowlanders, but as time wore on, it also became a term for English people. Sassenach means "Saxon". The modern usage does include it as a word for English people. Since this is widely used in the novel as well, the use of this word is at worse, an linguistic anachronism.

 

Here is a a short article about it.

[jaytee1812]

Another thing that bugged the pedant in me was Claire saying she couldn't see the city after she went back in time. She couldn't see the city in 1946, Inverness was only awarded city status in 2000.*

 

*I wasn't kidding about being a pedant. 

[chocolatetruffle]

So for the first time since my initial viewing, I watched the whole episode again during the marathon and knowing what I know now, I really missed a lot the first time through.  First of all, where was strong-minded, stubborn, mouthy, feisty, entitled Claire??!!  Her personality was so subdued, almost diminshed.  There was a sense of sadness and loneliness that was always with her, even when she was reacting with pleasure.  I'd call it "going through the motions."  She was very reactive.  Her voiceover often mentioned that there was something missing between her and Frank, they hadn't found their way back to each other and sex was the only intimacy that they shared.  He wouldn't talk about his years in the war, and she couldn't talk about hers.  There were definitely problems in that marriage and they were just festering below the surface of quiet civility.  I'm not saying there wasn't love there, but the connection wasn't.  It was very sad to see Claire without her fire. 

 

Which brings me to the cinematography:  1945 was shot through a gray filter, all the colors were subdued.  But as soon as she opens her eyes in 1743 the color saturation is so high it's startling - it's like ultra-saturated.  Fabulous metaphor for Claire's emotional state in both worlds.  I can't believe I missed that the first time through!  

 

I had the CC on this time and caught that Murtaugh and Dougal called Claire "Druid" when they first encounter her.  I guess because of the way she was dressed, but I love it because they didn't know how right they were!

[Keeta]

So for the first time since my initial viewing, I watched the whole episode again during the marathon and knowing what I know now, I really missed a lot the first time through.  First of all, where was strong-minded, stubborn, mouthy, feisty, entitled Claire??!!  Her personality was so subdued, almost diminshed.  There was a sense of sadness and loneliness that was always with her, even when she was reacting with pleasure.  I'd call it "going through the motions."  She was very reactive.  Her voiceover often mentioned that there was something missing between her and Frank, they hadn't found their way back to each other and sex was the only intimacy that they shared.  He wouldn't talk about his years in the war, and she couldn't talk about hers.  There were definitely problems in that marriage and they were just festering below the surface of quiet civility.  I'm not saying there wasn't love there, but the connection wasn't.  It was very sad to see Claire without her fire. 

 

I completely agree. When I think back on this episode, there is a real difference in Claire. You can tell there's something missing with her and Frank's connection, and you can just SEE her trying so hard to feel and rebuild that connection that they used to have. And there's something about Frank that seems practically uninterested (especially when compared to Jamie), likely stemming from a similar discomfort and lack of connection that Claire's feeling. But all of their intimate encounters come across to me as Claire convincing him to have sex or emotionally connect. Kudos to Caitriona and Tobias, and the show, for the subtlety of that relationship. 

[WatchrTina]

I had the CC on this time and caught that Murtaugh and Dougal called Claire "Druid" when they first encounter her.

I'm convinced that that is an error in the closed captions. It makes much more sense that Murtagh is yelling "Let's go!" or something like that in Gaelic. Dougal says the same word as they set out from the hut so it makes sense in that context as well. Edited May 24, 2015 by WatchrTina

[chocolatetruffle]

I'm convinced that that is an error in the closed captions. It makes much more sense that Murtagh is yelling "Let's go!" or something like that in Gaelic. Dougal says the same word as they set out from the hut so it makes sense in that context as well.

 

Ah, Rats!  Do you really think so WatchrTina?  The Dance of Druids would have happened earlier that same morning and it gives me the warm fuzzies to think that Murtaugh would just assume that one of those crazy ladies got herself accosted by BJR.  He speaks in Gaelic to Dougal when he arrives with Claire so I figured he told him that she was one of the Druids since Dougal referred to her as "Druid," even though after hearing her speak it was likely that she was not.  After all, he had his own little Druid (Geillis) at home in Leoch, so he was aware at how eccentric those ladies could be :-)

Edited May 24, 2015 by chocolatetruffle

[Keeta]

I never watched with closed captioning and I always thought he called her "Druid". But I could be mistaken on that...

[WatchrTina]

I just tweeted the question to the show's Gaelic consultant. If he answers I'll let you know. However the plot thickens if you've read The Exile, Diana's graphic novel that re-tells the first half of book one from other points of view.

 

ETA -- I had to change computers because I don't know how to put in book spoilers on an iPad.  

In The Exile, Murtagh SEES Claire come through the stones. He's not quite sure what she is but he knows that there is something supernatural about her. I don't think the show is treating The Exile as canon because if they did it would have raised some real complexities later in the season (not to mention a whole sub-plot involving Geillis and another time-traveler from her era.) If Murtagh HAD seen Claire come through the stones that would have made his calling her a "Druid" make some kind of sense. But I remain convinced that he's speaking Gaelic and basically telling her "Come with me if you want to live."

Edited May 24, 2015 by WatchrTina

[WatchrTina]

He answered!  The closed captions are wrong.  Murtagh says "Come on!" in Gaelic.  But he admits she does look a bit like a Druid.

 

https://twitter.com/Gaeliconsultant/status/602495694906208258

[Glaze Crazy]

The closed captions are questionable for any of the Gaelic words.  I've seen a charaid translated as " a carriage" in a couple of places. A bhalaich also gets butchered sometimes in cc. 

[Hybiscus]

There"s a blog at greatscotblog.com tries to "dissect" the Gaelic. Even before the first episode aired, she cautioned you can't trust the close captioning fit Outlander. MANY of the close captions are wrong.

[WatchrTina]

The opposite also happens.  Occasionally the closed-captioner hears something and assumes it is Gaelic and doesn't caption it (or says "speaks Gaelic") when in fact it's just English with a broad Scots accent.  In The Gathering, when Mrs. Fitz offers a dress to Claire, as she leaves the kitchen I'm almost certain she says to the girls tending some meat in the fireplace "Baste it girls!  Baste it." but the captioner says she's speaking Gaelic at that point.

[chocolatetruffle]

He answered!  The closed captions are wrong.  Murtagh says "Come on!" in Gaelic.  But he admits she does look a bit like a Druid.

 

https://twitter.com/Gaeliconsultant/status/602495694906208258

 

Awesome! Thanks for contacting him.  It's interesting the differences in closed captioning.  Mine doesn't write out the Gaelic. When someone is speaking it just says (speaking Gaelic).  However, I think they must have access to at least part of the scripts because sometimes the accents are impossible to understand. For example, I can't imagine how else they could have gotten "I just wanted a wee keek at her breasts" out of the mish mash that was Angus' parting line when he and Rupert invaded J&C's wedding chamber...

[WatchrTina]

As I understand it everyone is supposed to get "speaking Gaelic" when Gaelic is spoken on the show.  No one gets a translation. That way we're all in the dark, just like Claire.   It's just that the closed-captioners sometimes mistake Gaelic for English and insert absurd words.  In the back-and-forth on twitter after I reached out to the consultant he revealed that someone is keeping tabs on the number of times Gaelic is mistakenly (and absurdly) closed-captioned as English.

 

http://greatscotblog.com/2014/08/29/why-you-shouldnt-trust-your-tvs-closed-captioning-for-outlander-gaidhlig-translations/

 

BTW, I missed episode 1 during the marathon so I just watched it again and my gosh I love this show.  Even on this, the 10th or so viewing I find new things to love.  For example I don't think I ever noticed before the amount of side-eye that Mrs. Graham and Claire give each other after the palm reading.  Pretty funny.

 

Another thing that tickles me is how, even now, I cannot recognize Rupert in the cabin.  All the highlanders in that scene are lit to make them as scary as possible (and they all seem to be extra filthy) and while I recognize Angus now I still can't recognize the guy standing next to him as our Rupert.  It explains all the confusion as to who was who during the discussion that followed the first two episodes when they originally aired.

Edited May 25, 2015 by WatchrTina

[AD55]

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.

[John Potts]

First impressions: It all looks gorgeous (the scenery, the costuming, the actors...) - I don't know if the Scottish Tourist Board is supporting this series but they probably should be. I liked the heroine for being believably feisty (you're not going to have got through 5 years as a nurse in WWII without being pretty hardy - or picking up language that might make me blush) and even for having a robust sex drive without being portrayed as slutty. I did think the 20th Century scenes were rather slow (I swear, the first scene after the ad break was the same as the opening one - I thought for a minute I'd inadvertently rewound, before realising I was watching it live) but I guess it did serve to portray their estrangement after 5 years of separation. It did strike me as slightly odd that the landlady seemed happy they were "getting busy", but she did know they were married (and newly reunited) so she doesn't have to conform to stereotype of disapproving of any hanky panky going on in her rooms. I also knew as soon as Frank mentioned his ancestor "Black Jack" that we  going to meet him... and that he was probably a vicious bastard ("Black" is rarely a good epithet, at least in that period). But once we got on with the 17th Century stuff, I ought it rather picked up. I liked her no nonsense attitude with the Highlanders, though I thought when alone in the middle of the night and confronted by a man holding a sword, insulting & spitting at him is probably a bad idea. I'm sure they'll meet again...

Quote

Constantinople One thing I didn't understand was why the Highlanders had to be warned by Claire about a possible ambush. I forget the name of the ambush location, but IIRC, Frank said the British army used it in the 17th and 18th century.  So by the time 1743 rolls around, it's been in use for up to a century and a half.

I suspect he was speaking from a historical perspective. Given the timeframe, it was probably used during the English (sic) Civil War in the mid 17th Century, the Jacobite Uprising of 1715 and the Jacobite Uprising of 1745 (plus periods of unrest between 1715 & 45, like the one they're in). There wasn't continual war between England & Scotland in that period, so it was probably only intermittently manned. What I didn't understand was why the Scots regarded her as a witch (or a spy) for pointing that out. It doesn't take a genius to realise that the peak made a good lookout post (unless they were just surprised a woman thought like that).
 

Quote

 

ElectricBoogaloo  Re: stockings - I remember stories about women drawing lines on the backs of their legs to simulate French seams

 

With gravy! You just had to hope no dog came up to lick your legs.
 

Quote

 

WatchrTina  Hey UK -- where are you?  I was hoping I'd see a sudden burst of activity on these boards from Brits and particularly Scots who finally, FINALLY get to see the show.

 

 Hey, we don't all have premium cable! It's only just gone out on Freeview (pleb cable).

[Nidratime]

Quote

Hey, we don't all have premium cable! It's only just gone out on Freeview (pleb cable).

Welcome!

[Camera One]

I haven't read the books but am just starting this series since I borrowed the Season 1 DVDs.  This episode was mildly engaging.  I do enjoy time travel and historical fiction, so I do plan to watch the entire first season.  I found Claire and also Frank likeable.  I liked that she could use her nursing skills when she went back to the past.  

[Friendly kitty]

I started watching the show and so far I like it very much!🤗
The dance of the druids by stones is something beautiful. He fascinated and subdued from the first movement. Not surprisingly, the girl felt the mystical power emanating from him.
And the guy ...😍 the guy won me over at first sight. I just fell in love with this Scot. Especially, the moment he covered himself and Claire with a blanket won my heart.
So touching and cute! Wonderful couple! Better than with her husband ... Especially since her husband has the same face as a sadist from the past ...😷

[chaifan]

A friend has raved about this show for years, and I just "discovered" it on Netflix, so this will be good summer viewing.  Absolutely loving it, and trying not to binge so I can draw it out some. 

Lots of discussion upthread (in the 2015 posts) about the transition of Claire's simple dress into what will pass as a 17th century shift (undergarment) and the fact that she wasn't wearing stockings, which would have stood out in the 17th century.  One thing that wasn't brought up - no one in the 17th century has made any mention of Claire's 1945 shoes. I thought those would have stood out, especially as she was in a short dress.  Or, did she lose those somehow in the woods?  I didn't notice she was barefoot at all. 

[Cdh20]

On 6/7/2019 at 9:59 AM, chaifan said:

A friend has raved about this show for years, and I just "discovered" it on Netflix, so this will be good summer viewing.  Absolutely loving it, and trying not to binge so I can draw it out some. 

Lots of discussion upthread (in the 2015 posts) about the transition of Claire's simple dress into what will pass as a 17th century shift (undergarment) and the fact that she wasn't wearing stockings, which would have stood out in the 17th century.  One thing that wasn't brought up - no one in the 17th century has made any mention of Claire's 1945 shoes. I thought those would have stood out, especially as she was in a short dress.  Or, did she lose those somehow in the woods?  I didn't notice she was barefoot at all. 

Good luck with not bingeing it all in a week, which is what I did when I discovered it, I could not stop, until I got through 2 seasons. Then I watched it all again. And told all my friends & family!

[chaifan]

1 hour ago, Cdh20 said:

Good luck with not bingeing it all in a week, which is what I did when I discovered it, I could not stop, until I got through 2 seasons. Then I watched it all again. And told all my friends & family!

I'm pretty close!  I'm already through 5 episodes in 3 days.  Sort of a slow binge.  It's really hard to watch only 1 episode at a time when they're all just sitting there.  Someone needs to invent an anti-binge app, that will prevent you from going to the next episode for a specific amount of time!  😉 

[WatchrTina]

On 6/7/2019 at 10:59 AM, chaifan said:

One thing that wasn't brought up - no one in the 17th century has made any mention of Claire's 1945 shoes. I thought those would have stood out,

Luckily Claire is wearing nice, serviceable shoes --brogans -- that haven't changed much over the years.  This below is from Wikipedia:

Quote

Brogan-like shoes, called "brogues" (from Old Irish "bróc" meaning "shoe"), were made and worn in Scotland and Ireland as early as the 16th century, and the shoe-type probably originated there.

So while the constructions of Claire's shoes might have revealed some anachronistic hints to their origin to someone knowledgeable who looked at them closely, they would probably just look like normal shoes to everyone else.

[gingerella]

Well, well, well...Here I sit, poised for another GoT-type viewing experience methinks. I know I am very late to this party,7 years late by my reckoning, but as they say, 'better late than never, aye?' GoT Unsullied reporting for viewing duty. Another of my GoT Unsullieds will be joining me on this viewing journey, and perhaps some additional newcomers will as well. Disclosure: I started watching S01 last Saturday and binge watched through E09 by Friday evening, and whilst I'm chomping at the bit to continue onward, my viewing companion and I are going to start at the beginning, because the Show deserves that, does it not? So all posts for both of us, from E01-09 will be based on second viewings so we can post our thoughts in detail. Here goes nothing *touches stone and leans in for the inevitable fall*...

The imagery is gorgeous and I'm all in after watching the opening credits. I agree with whomever upthread said that they liked the opening song but not for the opening credits. It feels too simplistic and I can already see that this story is anything but simplistic. The druid dancing visuals are hypnotic, and pull me in to want to know more of this world I'm being allowed entry into.

The entire first half+ of Claire and Frank in post-war Inverness was slow and felt very ploddy to me. Like a big, heavy work horse was pulling the story forward in sloppy mud, one plodding step at a time. Claire comes across as very sad and resigned to a marriage that already doesn't 'feel right' to A Viewer. And Frank seems to lack the emotional intelligence to see that this marriage isn't thriving or reviving. The fact that sex is the thing that 'can always connect them', or however Claire says it, portends to me that this marriage aint all that and perhaps never was. I am guessing that a girl who was orphaned and raised by an eccentric uncle in the sands of Egypt whilst on archeological digs was perhaps interested but didn't give Claire the socialization to understand what to look for in a mate. Maybe Frank, with his seemingly well off vibe, felt like a safe bet for Claire, but the chemistry seems forced, even when they are kissing. I also noticed that Frank talks a helluva lot, and always about himself and what he knows and what he's interested in. Claire seems to respond as the dutiful wife, whether her interest is real of feigned, who knows, but I came away feeling that Frank is a quiet asshole, the sort that is perfectly fine so long as he's getting his way, but the minute he doesn't get things his way he's a petulant twat.

The hand reading/tea leave reading session with the housekeeper was interesting and you could tell she was perplexed by what she saw in Claire's life, I liked that bit though it did feel a bit hokey. And when Frank was walking back in the dark and saw that stranger standing in the street watching Claire up in the window, all I noticed was boots and what I thought was a hooded cloak (more of this in a later episode...). The conversation, and resignation that he assumed Claire had been unfaithful during the war was both very contemporary in thought (that he could easily forgive her for that) and assumptive but the 'forgive me, forgiven' that followed just felt so hollow, like they were avoiding anything that might turn into an argument. I suppose in that time period people didn't much say what they felt to one another, people maybe were more reserved after the war, so trying to get back to a normal life meant not pushing anything too much?

When Claire wakes up on the ground by the stones and gets up to walk away, I said aloud, "Girl, take that shawl with you, you'll be needing that!" That sort of thing irks me, I guess she was in shock? But still, GIRL, Take the damn shawl! Whomever said upthread that when she wakes up in 1743 it is vivid and brilliant of color, yes, I felt that as well. As soon as she sees Franks ancestor, I felt like, 'okay, she'll be taken care of by this guy', ha, little did I know what an assmonger he was going to be. I'm not sure he's more like GoT's Joffrey or Ramsey, either way it's no good and I can already see I'm going to be fast forwarding through much of BJR's scenes of violence and torture. I was too scarred from GoTs violence and can't really do that again with a TV show so FFing it must be.

When the gang left their hidey hole to ride back to Castle Leoch, I thought they were going to just leave Claire there the way she was standing in the doorway. I'm still not sure what the impetus was for them taking her further. I mean, she's not one of them, what reason would they have to bring her back as basically a prisoner, which just seems like another reason for the Red Coats to come to the doors of Castle Leoch and bring trouble with them? At that time I highly doubt women were serving the British as spies in the remote corners of the Scottish countryside, but I'm going to have to resign myself to that fact that some things are probably there because they're in the books and we are not reading the books and are trying to remain Unspoiled as much as possible.

It was interesting that on rewatch of this episode, I didn't really get any vibe that Claire and Jaime were THE couple, I was more focused on why they were taking Claire with them, and on little things that struck me, like when she asks for iodine or other antiseptics and they look at her like HUH?!? Then she says "alcohol?" and they mumble, "ah yeah well..." and offer her their alcohol. And when she's swearing and the men are standing around gobsmacked and appalled that a lady is speaking such foul language, I really appreciated the levity in those moments, which made the situation feel all the more real.

That's all for now, until my colleague reports in...

Edited March 8, 2021 by gingerella

[SassAndSnacks]

6 hours ago, gingerella said:

Claire comes across as very sad and resigned to a marriage that already doesn't 'feel right' to A Viewer. And Frank seems to lack the emotional intelligence to see that this marriage isn't thriving or reviving. The fact that sex is the thing that 'can always connect them', or however Claire says it, portends to me that this marriage aint all that and perhaps never was. I am guessing that a girl who was orphaned and raised by an eccentric uncle in the sands of Egypt whilst on archeological digs was perhaps interested but didn't give Claire the socialization to understand what to look for in a mate. Maybe Frank, with his seemingly well off vibe, felt like a safe bet for Claire, but the chemistry seems forced, even when they are kissing. I also noticed that Frank talks a helluva lot, and always about himself and what he knows and what he's interested in. Claire seems to respond as the dutiful wife, whether her interest is real of feigned, who knows, but I came away feeling that Frank is a quiet asshole, the sort that is perfectly fine so long as he's getting his way, but the minute he doesn't get things his way he's a petulant twat.

Absolutely LOVE this description of their marriage. Spot on, particularly your assessment that Frank talks about himself a lot.

[gingerella]

1 hour ago, SassAndSnacks said:

Absolutely LOVE this description of their marriage. Spot on, particularly your assessment that Frank talks about himself a lot.

Thank you for saying this because I feel like I'm stepping into hallowed ground here, albeit very, very late! My watching companion should be along any time now...Thank you for the welcome!

[SassAndSnacks]

15 hours ago, gingerella said:

Thank you for saying this because I feel like I'm stepping into hallowed ground here, albeit very, very late!

I was late to the party, too.  But, I'm here now...5 seasons and 8 books (read three times each) later. 

Also, I love fresh takes on the story.  I like to live vicariously through the "first-timers" because I wish I could go back and watch/read it again for the first time, too!

[gingerella]

Coming back to the issue of the Stones. It seems as though the Stones choose the person to travel through, and with Claire having been raised by her uncle on archeological digs, perhaps she is more tuned into the supernatural since she grew up in places like Egypt, digging for ancient clues and treasures? I'm also wondering if the Stones can only be activated on certain days that bring the dancers to them, the dancers/dancing acting as a sort of 'warm up' to the Stones being receptive and ready for a traveler? Or perhaps it's a combination of both the person in question, and the timing. We know in E01 that Claire was raised in an environment where ancient ways were probably not scoffed at, AND she witnesses the pagan dancing ritual so she's both a potentially receptive traveler and she's sort of been 'vetted' if you will, by the Stones already. When she returns alone and picks that flower, it's almost like she's pulled a hidden lever that opens a secret door. Then again, it has to be more than just timing and the right sort of person. It feels more like the Stones choose someone who has either unfinished business in a past life, or perhaps someone who can change something in the past that has a positive outcome for the future? I'm just pulling straws here, but there is more to the Stones than just what we saw in this first episode, IMO.

[Pallas]

Hello, I'm gingerella's companion in the watch. I watched the first three seasons in real time, and loved the idea of going back and also forward: streaming doing the work of the Stone. 

The first thing that struck me about this first episode was Gabaldon's ingenuity in setting the "present" in the past: 1945. It keeps Claire and Frank's time familiar and never dated, never not-quite-present-enough. But what struck me most was the idea of Claire and Frank as a near-miss. People always fated to meet, connect or collide...and then sheer off. A constant for each other from one lifetime to the next, but with an equally fatal, core conflict -- born of similarity -- that's only overcome if they are family, not lovers. Where loyalty can be as unreasonable as passion. I think Frank's an essentially solitary soul. As he said of the possible "trolls" of Castle Leoch: "I don't think trolls travel in pairs." That's a loner's insight. And his obvious satisfaction when buried in research, even with a companion; he and Rev. Wakefield are focused on the findings, not each other.

What also struck me was how Frank is attuned to the supernatural. He didn't skip over the uncanny parts of the texts; on the contrary, he committed them to memory and he's excited to have a chance to discuss what he knows. He's the one who remembers and sketches the destiny lines of her palm. He's the one who sees the ghost, and isn't embarrassed to tell Claire. He's the one who sets the alarm to get them up before light, to see the ritual. And while his interest in the occult might be served up with a hearty, rationalist condescension, that's not how it felt to me. More like someone who yearns for it to be true, and yearns to be invited in. 

Claire's similar and very different. Where he's solitary, she's self-possessed -- and charismatic. At VE Day, she's emotionally at right angles to everyone else, yet people hand her a bottle and would have welcomed her. Even the Highlanders hand her a bottle after the skirmish with the British, and ask her to celebrate with them. (Frank would love that. Frank's still waiting. That's why Frank carries a flask.) 

Though we're not told when or how Claire and Frank met, I see them as star student and teacher. Briefly, those roles balanced them, but the war changed that. Life would always have changed that; the war sped it up, a lot. Claire was only beginning her ascendance. And Claire was someone going places, always. Claire said that if she had it to choose, she'd do what she did, always. Frank could have told her that. Frank by the stones and the empty car felt the same chill as when the ghost vanished -- as he knew it would; as he'd known she would, always.

[gingerella]

1 hour ago, Pallas said:

Though we're not told when or how Claire and Frank met, I see them as star student and teacher. Briefly, those roles balanced them, but the war changed that. Life would always have changed that; the war sped it up, a lot. Claire was only beginning her ascendance. And Claire was someone going places, always. Claire said that if she had it to choose, she'd do what she did, always. Frank could have told her that. Frank by the stones and the empty car felt the same chill as when the ghost vanished -- as he knew it would; as he'd known she would, always.

@Pallas dear Pallas, so happy to do this with you my friend! I love what you're saying about Claire & Frank as star pupil and teacher. Frank comes across as someone who always wants to impress someone with his knowledge and intelligence and in Clair he's found a beautiful star pupil, but as you said, someone as dynamic as Claire will always surpass the teacher, eventually... The interesting thing is how feisty Claire is in 1743 but how sadly resigned and passive she is after the war. It's as if the fact that she has to keep her wits about her suddenly switches on that part of her that is fiercely outspoken, independent, etc. And those are the qualities that also switch on something in Jaime, hence their immediate deep connection. Yet with Frank we never see her that passionate, that outspoken, that independent. She's much more submissive, even if she's having a different conversation in her own head, what she says to Frank is much more subdued and restrained for fear of upsetting the apple cart. With Jaime she's fiery and passionate and everything that makes her surpass her teacher, Frank, comes forth like an explosion of emotion. I am already convinced that Frank is collateral in this Story and Jaime and Claire are the meant-to-be soul mates. I'm just not sure which way around it all is, more on this in another episode thread... Say what you will about life in 1740s vs. 1940s, Claire is living a much more vibrant life in the 1740s, even on Day 1.

[SassAndSnacks]

2 hours ago, gingerella said:

The interesting thing is how feisty Claire is in 1743 but how sadly resigned and passive she is after the war. It's as if the fact that she has to keep her wits about her suddenly switches on that part of her that is fiercely outspoken, independent, etc. And those are the qualities that also switch on something in Jaime, hence their immediate deep connection. Yet with Frank we never see her that passionate, that outspoken, that independent. She's much more submissive, even if she's having a different conversation in her own head, what she says to Frank is much more subdued and restrained for fear of upsetting the apple cart. With Jaime she's fiery and passionate and everything that makes her surpass her teacher, Frank, comes forth like an explosion of emotion.

Being a combat nurse at the front during the war was of course very regimented, but Claire had her own agency.  I think it would be incredibly difficult to return (really, it was difficult for everyone to return after what they had seen), but difficult for Claire to return to a situation where she wouldn't have that authority over her own life, that excitement, and most importantly that feeling of impact.  She would be playing a secondary character in her own life, with Frank's needs, wants, interests, and intentions at the forefront.  Claire has not led a traditional life, and now she's trying to fit into this traditional role.  It doesn't suit her.  She doesn't buy the vase.

I've always believed that Frank's questioning Claire about the Scottish men in her care during the war, insinuating that she had been unfaithful to him, and "assuring" her that he would be fine with it if something happened, was really his own admission of guilt because he had been unfaithful to her.  He wanted her to have been unfaithful, so that he could have something over her.  There's something so tightly wound about him, so controlled, and to me, so condescending that I feel he could blow up at any moment.  Which, if we look at his lineage dating back to Black Jack makes a lot of sense.  A lot of people have different takes on that scene, but I'm holding fast to mine.  

 Frank stifles Claire.    

[gingerella]

29 minutes ago, SassAndSnacks said:

Being a combat nurse at the front during the war was of course very regimented, but Claire had her own agency.  I think it would be incredibly difficult to return (really, it was difficult for everyone to return after what they had seen), but difficult for Claire to return to a situation where she wouldn't have that authority over her own life, that excitement, and most importantly that feeling of impact.  She would be playing a secondary character in her own life, with Frank's needs, wants, interests, and intentions at the forefront.  Claire has not led a traditional life, and now she's trying to fit into this traditional role.  It doesn't suit her.  She doesn't buy the vase.

I've always believed that Frank's questioning Claire about the Scottish men in her care during the war, insinuating that she had been unfaithful to him, and "assuring" her that he would be fine with it if something happened, was really his own admission of guilt because he had been unfaithful to her.  He wanted her to have been unfaithful, so that he could have something over her.  There's something so tightly wound about him, so controlled, and to me, so condescending that I feel he could blow up at any moment.  Which, if we look at his lineage dating back to Black Jack makes a lot of sense.  A lot of people have different takes on that scene, but I'm holding fast to mine.  

 Frank stifles Claire.    

Yes to all of this, so well put.

[Cdh20]

10 hours ago, SassAndSnacks said:

I was late to the party, too.  But, I'm here now...5 seasons and 8 books (read three times each) later. 

Also, I love fresh takes on the story.  I like to live vicariously through the "first-timers" because I wish I could go back and watch/read it again for the first time, too!

Ah, to be first timers again....

 Looking forward to intelligent & insightful new posts! 

[Pallas]

13 hours ago, SassAndSnacks said:

Being a combat nurse at the front during the war was of course very regimented, but Claire had her own agency.  I think it would be incredibly difficult to return (really, it was difficult for everyone to return after what they had seen), but difficult for Claire to return to a situation where she wouldn't have that authority over her own life, that excitement, and most importantly that feeling of impact.  She would be playing a secondary character in her own life, with Frank's needs, wants, interests, and intentions at the forefront.  Claire has not led a traditional life, and now she's trying to fit into this traditional role.  It doesn't suit her.  She doesn't buy the vase.

So true and beautifully put. A friend once said about Jane Eyre, "Jane does better out of doors."  Claire too. Even if she speaks of how the B&B room is better than a cot and mud, it's not where she thrives. A medical unit near the front lines is much closer to how she grew up -- or what she brought with her from how she grew up -- and nothing like what she knows awaits her as the history don's wife at Oxford. If she (perhaps) thought gender roles were crushing at wartime MI6? Yikes. 

13 hours ago, SassAndSnacks said:

I've always believed that Frank's questioning Claire about the Scottish men in her care during the war, insinuating that she had been unfaithful to him, and "assuring" her that he would be fine with it if something happened, was really his own admission of guilt because he had been unfaithful to her.  He wanted her to have been unfaithful, so that he could have something over her. 

I think so too: that Frank had one or more affairs during the war. It was the perfect set-up for an innately insecure man whose wife was away at the front. But I think he tried to tell her -- not for the first time -- when they first arrived. As they stop bouncing on the bed, he says "Claire..." and she soothes him away from whatever he was about to say. Maybe it wasn't about his having affairs; maybe it was about their possible infertility: he'd just made a leadenly-light reference to couples starting a family, and Claire had looked away, then jumped up on the bed. But perhaps Frank wanted them to speak of wartime infidelities, once, before putting the subject away, leaving ir behind in the Highlands and beginning their post-war lives. It's what some people did. 

I'm not saying for a moment that Frank would never have held Claire's admission against her: better marriages than theirs can come to blows, the double standard was a point of honor, and Frank wasn't the kind of man who ever enjoyed being outmatched by his wife. And maybe the thing they really couldn't speak of or even let themselves know was that for Frank, his highly respectable, estimable post at Oxford marked the furthest reach of his potential. He might work his way higher on the ladder, but it would be this same ladder for life, and he was already on it. Claire had more inside her.

[Anothermi]

14 hours ago, SassAndSnacks said:

I've always believed that Frank's questioning Claire about the Scottish men in her care during the war, insinuating that she had been unfaithful to him, and "assuring" her that he would be fine with it if something happened, was really his own admission of guilt because he had been unfaithful to her.  He wanted her to have been unfaithful, so that he could have something over her. 

Yep. What I thought watching that scene— "projection much?"—so I agree with you. 

[Anothermi]

So, let me introduce myself. I belong with @Gingerella and @Pallas—refugees from  the Unsullied lands of GoT. I'm just getting started with Outlander, although I'd had it on my "watch" list on Netflix for quite some time now. I'd heard references to it from other Unsullied posters and that was recommendation enough for me. 

However, I know zilch about the show. I have few remarks to make here as this was my 1st viewing and I'm trying to get my bearings. 

I'd forgotten that Tobias Menzies was in this. I first knew him as Edmure Tully (GoT) and then most recently as Prince Phillip in The Crown. It's a bit of an adjustment, but it appears he's allowed a greater range of emotions in this show. ;-)

The cinematography really IS outstanding. I especially liked the monochrome town punctuated by the gorgeous blue of Claire's coat and the vase in the shop window. In retrospect, it felt like 1947(?) was not really real - except for Claire and the vase. 

@gingerella, I chuckled at the scene when she left her shawl on the ground and you yelled at her. I kept my eyes peeled for why she would need it. I found that if she had brought it with her she might not have been so bloody visible to the British! That white dress sure annoyed me—and for an extended period of time!. On the other hand, it appears not having her own cloak gave young Jaime the excuse to snuggle close to her because his cloak wouldn't go around both of them if he didn't. (snigger)

I couldn't sense what Claire might be thinking, so I didn't take to her this episode. I assume I'll understand more as the story processes. 

I AM appreciating the nuances both @Pallas and @gingerella are bringing to their rewatch. I think they will add a great deal to my understanding of the show in these early days. 

ETA  I'm almost ready to launch a Milk Carton Campaign (™ @Whitestumbler) for Claire's lovely red belt— that she had on when she woke in the past but just disappeared by the time Black Jack Randal espied her. 

Edited March 10, 2021 by Anothermi

[Beeyago]

1 hour ago, Anothermi said:

ETA  I'm almost ready to launch a Milk Carton Campaign (™ @Whitestumbler) for Claire's lovely red belt— that she had on when she woke in the past but just disappeared by the time Black Jack Randal espied her. 

Ah yes, the missing belt. Many have wondered about it, that and her missing watch. Lol

[gingerella]

38 minutes ago, Beeyago said:

Ah yes, the missing belt. Many have wondered about it, that and her missing watch. Lol

Then we shall indeed need to start a Milk Carton Campaign for Outlander...Missing so far:

Belt & Watch

ETA: @Anothermi I totally forgot that Frank was also Edmure! Thanks for the jog...

Edited March 10, 2021 by gingerella

[gingerella]

On 3/9/2021 at 8:24 AM, Pallas said:

And maybe the thing they really couldn't speak of or even let themselves know was that for Frank, his highly respectable, estimable post at Oxford marked the furthest reach of his potential. He might work his way higher on the ladder, but it would be this same ladder for life, and he was already on it. Claire had more inside her.

Yes! So much YES to this. Frank knows he will have to stifle Claire so as not to have her outshine him. He knows he married up, but I don't think he realized that at first. I think at first he thought he was marrying an orphan, poor her, and he was rescuing her. Little did he know she doesn't need rescuing.

17 hours ago, Anothermi said:

@gingerella,  I chuckled at the scene when she left her shawl on the ground and you yelled at her. I kept my eyes peeled for why she would need it. I found that if she had brought it with her she might not have been so bloody visible to the British! That white dress sure annoyed me—and for an extended period of time!. On the other hand, it appears not having her own cloak gave young Jaime the excuse to snuggle close to her because his cloak wouldn't go around both of them if he didn't. (snigger)

You make very good posts, and you're right on both counts. Okay, I'm letting go of the shawl issue...for now...but it should go on the Milk Carton Campaign:

Shawl

Belt

Watch

Edited March 10, 2021 by gingerella

[Anothermi]

2 hours ago, gingerella said:

Yes! So much YES to this. Frank knows he will have to stifle Claire so as not to have her outshine him. He knows he married up, but I don't think he realized that at first. I think at first he thought he was marrying an orphan, poor her, and he was rescuing her. Little did he know she doesn't need rescuing.

You make very good posts, and you're right on both counts. Okay, I'm letting go of the shawl issue...for now...but it should go on the Milk Carton Campaign:

Shawl

Belt

Watch

I have to note that I perceived the belt as dark red when Claire awoke in 1743. But when she dreamed  she'd gotten back to her own time it appeared to be brown. Was that a trick of my own mind or a cinematographers? 

We've had re-appearance of the Shawl in that same scene—which makes sense given that she was returning from whence she came and where it was left. 

As for the watch. I still haven't seen it at all. Apparently, time has no meaning for me anymore! < pandemic reference there ;-) >

[Pallas]

On 3/10/2021 at 2:59 PM, gingerella said:

Shawl

Belt

Watch

4. Claire

The belt went missing in Claire's "Who Saw That Coming?" gentle roll down the embankment in her white dress, moments after she arrived in not-1945. The watch too, I suspect. 

[Camera One]

I watched Season 1 three years ago and I've been watching Season 2, but I had forgotten much of what happened so decided to rewatch a few Season 1 episodes.

This really was a very well crafted pilot episode.  It was beautifully filmed and atmospheric, especially the scene where they witnessed the ceremony at the stones.  This episode really shows a lot of promise in what could occur in a time travel and historical fiction show, and reminded me why I was initially interested in this show.  I actually do find Claire and Frank interesting together, and I wouldn't have minded a show with them researching his ancestry and Claire learning about the traditional plants of the area before the time travel stuff happens.  Having Claire see the castle again at the end, when she was in the ruins earlier, was effective.