S01.E06: The Garrison Commander

[bluebonnet]

<snip> nudity <snip>

I like all of what you have to say here.  I don't really have a problem with nudity, but the fact of the matter is that much nudity on pay cable these days is included to shock and awe or for the male gaze rather than as part of the story telling.  I rather like that this show has reversed things a bit and the camera focuses on things with the female gaze in mind.  All those shots where we just about get to see what's going on under a kilt, the long pauses on Jaime's chest, Colum's butt stand-in, etc.  

[jordanpond]

I get what you're saying, but what about all the scenes that included Jamie's bare chest, lovingly lit and shot in all its highly attractive (i mean, it's supposed to be) glory? I know it doesn't quite compare to a butt, but...

 

 

I like all of what you have to say here.  I don't really have a problem with nudity, but the fact of the matter is that much nudity on pay cable these days is included to shock and awe or for the male gaze rather than as part of the story telling.  I rather like that this show has reversed things a bit and the camera focuses on things with the female gaze in mind.  All those shots where we just about get to see what's going on under a kilt, the long pauses on Jaime's chest, Colum's butt stand-in, etc.  

Yes, I agree with what you are both saying. There is no shortage of shirtless Jamie shots, and there have been a few almost-see-up-the-kilt shots as well. But a topless Jamie is not the same as a topless Claire/Kelly, and while we almost have seen up Jamie's kilt a few times, we've never seen his backside, but we've seen Claire's a few times. So the "male gaze" of this show does seem to reveal more real nudity than the "female gaze" does.

 

On to a completely different topic: although many have pointed out how visually beautiful the countryside is, I don't think anyone has mentioned yet how wonderful the water sounds. Both this episode and the previous had sounds of rushing water from the streams that were just glorious to hear. Sigh. So much to enjoy about this show.

[glitterpants]

So the "male gaze" of this show does seem to reveal more real nudity than the "female gaze" does.

 

Yeah I hope the rest of the episodes make up for that.

 

Edited September 18, 2014 by glitterpants

[BooBear]

It's not the outcome anyone has a problem with, it's that the romance-tropey setup required to get there is kind of like being able to see the man behind the curtain, so it breaks suspension of disbelief a little. The author had to build a framework where it was 'okay' for a married woman to go back in time and almost immediately have sex with a hot guy, and the framework is just a little too visible. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm still watching, I just can't unsee the scaffolding.

 

Exactly. And I am going only off the tv show. I think it comes off awkward. A way of fixing it for me would be that they would get married Claire would put him off completely intending on returning to Frank. But when she was unable to get back there, fell more and more for Jamie, and felt sort of badly about putting him off... she would decide to consumate the marriage. I suppose there could be something in the next episode that would convince me but given that as far as I have seen --on the show-- she allegedly is concentrated on getting back to Frank... the whole thing seems at odds.

 

One question on this episode that I didn't understand. Where did the English General and Lutenant Foster run off to after Claire went to help the injured red coat. Did I miss that part? I find it hard to believe that Lutenant Foster - at least - wouldn't want to find out what happened to her.

[nara]

One question on this episode that I didn't understand. Where did the English General and Lutenant Foster run off to after Claire went to help the injured red coat. Did I miss that part? I find it hard to believe that Lutenant Foster - at least - wouldn't want to find out what happened to her.

They went off to find the Scottish raiding party that killed a couple of soldiers and injured the man who had to be amputated. 

 

On a side note, there was a lot of conversation about what Lieutenant Foster was doing in the Scottish village where they first met him.  Seeing how nice he was (again) in this episode and how disposed to believing that the Scots treated Claire well made me think that maybe he's got a lassie in that village...

[BooBear]

They went off to find the Scottish raiding party that killed a couple of soldiers and injured the man who had to be amputated. On a side note, there was a lot of conversation about what Lieutenant Foster was doing in the Scottish village where they first met him.  Seeing how nice he was (again) in this episode and how disposed to believing that the Scots treated Claire well made me think that maybe he's got a lassie in that village...

Given how persistant Foster was in looking after her before, I feel like he wouldn't have just not really been sure what happened to her.

Edited September 18, 2014 by BooBear

[Rekilt]

They went off to find the Scottish raiding party that killed a couple of soldiers and injured the man who had to be amputated. 

 

On a side note, there was a lot of conversation about what Lieutenant Foster was doing in the Scottish village where they first met him.  Seeing how nice he was (again) in this episode and how disposed to believing that the Scots treated Claire well made me think that maybe he's got a lassie in that village...

I can't find it now, but the day after the airing of this episode someone either from the production or Diane herself answered the question as to why and what Lieutenant Foster was doing in the town. The answer was that Lieutenant Foster was in the vicinity with his men when his horse threw a shoe so he stopped at the stables, while his men continued on, put on the apron so as not to soil his uniform and proceeded to shoe his horse when he saw the exchange between Claire and the Scotts.

[Rekilt]

I have to share this one. It's a recap of this episode but the blogger used captions with pic and it's funny. At least to me because I'm sure I was thinking the exact same thing when I was watching. Just scroll and read the pics.

http://www.tv.com/shows/outlander/community/post/outlander-photo-recap-s1e06-the-garrison-commander-1410842124/

[Petunia846]

I can't find it now, but the day after the airing of this episode someone either from the production or Diane herself answered the question as to why and what Lieutenant Foster was doing in the town. The answer was that Lieutenant Foster was in the vicinity with his men when his horse threw a shoe so he stopped at the stables, while his men continued on, put on the apron so as not to soil his uniform and proceeded to shoe his horse when he saw the exchange between Claire and the Scotts.

I think that was in the podcast that Ron does.

[BooBear]

I have to share this one. It's a recap of this episode but the blogger used captions with pic and it's funny. At least to me because I'm sure I was thinking the exact same thing when I was watching. Just scroll and read the pics.

http://www.tv.com/shows/outlander/community/post/outlander-photo-recap-s1e06-the-garrison-commander-1410842124/

 

Yes those recaps make me laugh.

[lucindabelle]

Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.

Snort!

Too! Funny!

[taanja]

 

I have to share this one. It's a recap of this episode but the blogger used captions with pic and it's funny. At least to me because I'm sure I was thinking the exact same thing when I was watching. Just scroll and read the pics.

http://www.tv.com/sh...der-1410842124/

 

 

That was amazing Rekilt! Thanks for sharing. I laughed out loud here at my desk.

 

[romantique]

In my efforts to distract myself as we await a new episode, I found this great article that features comments from Caitriona Balfe, Sam Heughan, and Tobias Menzies about this episode.

http://variety.com/2014/tv/news/outlander-106-sam-heughan-tobias-menzies-jamie-flogging-garrison-commander-1201305304/

Very cool to see that SH is such a fanboy about the BJR/Claire scene and also to read about how CB and TM collaborated with the director to heighten the tension of their scene together. They had originally planned for more movement and blocking, and am glad they shied away from that. It definitely had the feel of a play.

[jordanpond]

A few random thoughts:

 

First, three cheers to all of you who explained why both a marriage for Claire in general and a marriage to Jamie in particular were in Dougal's self interest. I don't know if you are book readers or not, but you did a great job of explaining this based only on information presented in the episodes shown to date. Well done!

 

Add me to the list of people who thought the show did an extraordinary job of using the last 10 minutes to do so many things to release the tension of the brutality experienced earlier. The grandeur of the stream, the brilliant "corn" comment, the proposed way out of imprisonment for Claire, and then the beauty of the scene with Jamie all came right after another, but nothing seemed rushed. Particularly enjoyable for me was the long shot of Claire and Jamie behind the sunlit shrub just as he was explaining why he was not "promised." There was something about that scene that seemed to capture both their vulnerabity regarding this sudden change to their relationship and the trust they have in eachother. And of course the ending humor with Claire marching up and grabbing the bottle was great. That was the most memorable 10 minutes of a program that I've seen in ages.

 

I have to say that when Jamie revealed that he was a virgin, I had this odd mix of being both very surprised and not really surprised at all. I've come to realize that the surprise wasn't because I thought that viriginity was inconsistent with the rest of his character, but rather because I didn't think that a book written so recently would even consider the possibility of having a male lead who was a 20-something  virgin. I agree with the person upthread who said that men who wait for the right woman certainly do exist. I was just surprised that a contemporary writer wrote him that way. But I didn't find the concept of such an incredibly virile virgin as Jamie to be a paradox. The more I thought about it, the more I thought that hiis virginity was very consistent with everything we've seen about him so far. So it was fun that I enjoyed the intial surprise of it, but can now say with a little more thought, why I'm not actually surprised at all.

Edited September 18, 2014 by jordanpond

[ihartcoffee]

I have to share this one. It's a recap of this episode but the blogger used captions with pic and it's funny. At least to me because I'm sure I was thinking the exact same thing when I was watching. Just scroll and read the pics.

http://www.tv.com/shows/outlander/community/post/outlander-photo-recap-s1e06-the-garrison-commander-1410842124/

That was hilarious, thank you for posting!

[nyxy]

 

I didn't care for all the English being painted so badly.  I would have liked a couple of them to be more honorable and not so rude about the Scottish people.  It seemed very designed to make us want Claire to return to the MacKenzies and I would have preferred the choice to be more grey...

 

That was the part I absolutely loved because it coincides with my view of history, British imperialism, and the like, not just in Scotland but other places as well. I wasn't expecting the show to be so clear on this point and absolutely loved that it was. 

 

I loved Dougal saying that if the General and his men missed London English so much maybe they could get back to London where it is widely spoken. LOL

 

In general I also prefer the choices to be grey, but there's enough complexity in the rest of the episode and the show as a whole to make up for black-white thinking once in a while-- and in this episode I think most of the greyness got highlighted around Claire. I loved it when Claire says she felt comfortable among the English (at first) because she herself was an officer/soldier in the very same army 200 years later. I'd completely forgotten that she was. I thought it was very smart of the show to emphasize how impossible Claire's position is.  It was also poignant to see how much she wanted Randall, as Frank's ancestor, to show a decent side.

 

Other random thoughts:

 

Tobias Menezes is fantastic. This episode delivered in FINALLY giving us more of him.

 

I fast-forwarded through the scourging (someone summed it up brilliantly upthread as "torture porn.") Doing that emphasized how stretched out the scene was. I would stop every 2-3 mins and see there was more to go & ended up having to do that thrice. 

 

However, if we ever get to see Jamie & Claire & Dougal humiliate and shame Jack Randall (not physically but some other way), it's my Rewind button I'll be wearing out.  I will watch and rewatch that scene over and over.

 

I loved this episode. I especially loved that it put history front and center, leaving the romance backstage. And  there was enough Tobias and McTavish to keep me happy.  Catriona (Claire) is brilliant and just gets better every episode. 

 

ETA: Rekilt, thank you so much for that link It's hysterical...LMFAO!

Edited September 20, 2014 by nyxy

[WatchrTina]

I think I just spotted some thing interesting (re-watching the marathon preceding the mid-season finale.). When Claire is shaving Frank I think she is rinsing the blade in a bleeding bowl. I recognize it from the scene in Sense and Sensibility when the doctor bleeds Marianne -- a shallow porcelain bowl with a semi-circle cut out of the rim where the upper arm rests. It's funny because Claire would not have any medical use for it in either the 18th or the 20th century but she might think it an interesting curiosity and enjoy putting it to a more appropriate use.

Here's something I noticed before but never commented on. Look at Claire's hair when she's at the magic spring. You can clearly see the "bits of auburn where the sun has touched it" that Jamie comments on during their wedding night. Thank you hair continuity staff!

Edited September 28, 2014 by WatchrTina

[Nidratime]

As many of you know, while we're waiting for the show to return, official Outlander twitter has been releasing goodies for us to digest, including the new preview with scenes for the next episodes.

 

They also released this scene that was deleted from Episode 6. (Ron Moore explains why.) I don't think it was posted anywhere on this board, but I apologize if I've overlooked it. 

 

Outlander | 4 Droughtlander: Frank & Claire Extended Scene | STARZ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxvFd3Xu5OI

[Petunia846]

I'm really glad they cut that. The ending of that episode was great the way they aired it.

[Keeta]

I'm really glad they cut that. The ending of that episode was great the way they aired it.

 

Agreed. Interesting to see (and hear more lines from the book), but especially the last bit was pretty heavy-handed. Makes sense that they went with the other ending.

[paramitch]

Just chiming here ridiculously late, after bingewatching up to this point. I'm a bookwalker but I didn't actually love the book, but the reviews of the show were pretty rapturous and here I am.

 

And boy, am I glad I did. The show has been superb, and I thought this episode was absolutely riveting, one of the best episodes of television I saw this past year.

 

Tobias Menzies just deserves all the awards for his performance here, and throughout the season. He's made me care deeply about Frank as a person, and about Frank and Claire's marriage as something I truly believe she wants to get back to. I'm so impressed at how kind and almost boyish Frank's face is, yet his face as Black Jack is older -- more pinched, mean, and dark -- and it seems primarily due to Menzies' acting.

 

And what he's done with Black Jack is just fantastic. He's helped to create a villain who's every bit as interesting and complex as the other characters -- as Claire, Frank, Dougal, Jamie, etc. I found Jack every bit as scary and repellent as Frank is likable and rootable, and I loved the subtleties of his reactions -- the little smirk when Claire revealed her sympathies to the Scots, the quiet way he stalked her around the table bit by bit, drawing her in while he told his terrible story; his face and carriage during Jamie's flogging, the shocking calm on his face as he punched Claire. All just terrific acting.

 

And everyone else was wonderful. I love all the actors and think they're bringing their characters to life really beautifully. I especially love Dougal and think Graham McTavish is just superb -- he's so charismatic that every scene he's in, he pulls my attention, and when he showed up here to save Claire (and then later on to quietly judge her by the stream), it was hard not to cheer.

 

The show is so rich; it's a feast for the eyes, ears and heart -- the cinematography does justice to the gorgeous landscapes, sets and costumes, the actors are wonderful, the direction and acting are terrific.

 

Kudos to Moore and his entire team. Each episode is like falling under a spell, and this one was in particular both a dream and a nightmare.

[methodwriter85]

Caitriona and Tobias really do have incredible scene/partner chemistry. I totally hope they collaborate on more stuff in the future.

[ulkis]

They went off to find the Scottish raiding party that killed a couple of soldiers and injured the man who had to be amputated. 

 

On a side note, there was a lot of conversation about what Lieutenant Foster was doing in the Scottish village where they first met him.  Seeing how nice he was (again) in this episode and how disposed to believing that the Scots treated Claire well made me think that maybe he's got a lassie in that village...

 

I support this theory. I would love to see that guy back though. He was cute, but his voice was beeeeautiful. He needs to do audiobooks or something.

[John Potts]

I think I've put my finger on what bugs me about Claire: she's treating her time in the 18th Century as if it's a role playing game (well, I guess a romance novel would be more appropriate) where the DM will protect her from her impulsiveness. I have no problem with her being impulsive, but she needs to realise that there are consequences to the things she says. I was (almost) glad when Black Jack Randall turned on her, because she needs to realise this isn't a game and she and everyone she's met could die at any time. She's now twice been surprised that as a result of her words, her deal to get back to the stones was revoked. I'm OK with her being too impulsive/compassionate to hold her tongue when she sees injustice, but she shouldn't be surprised when it has consequences and maybe should learn from her mistakes? It's not like offers can't be revoked if they think you might be a traitor/spy (and maybe stay off the booze!) 

On ‎14‎/‎09‎/‎2014 at 6:24 AM, lucindabelle said:

Btw in pretty sure that whipping someone 200 times would kill me and the British did not want to make martyrs

...unlike the guys on crosses last episode? As for the chances of surviving - there are records of people having received 1000 lashes and surviving, so it's by no means impossible (they probably weren't 1000 lashes of the cat o'nine tails, however). I also find it hard to believe Black Jack would remember whipping a "boy" (not that I'd call Jamie a boy, but whatever), since I'd imagine he whips people all the time.

On ‎14‎/‎09‎/‎2014 at 7:07 PM, annlaw78 said:

most women did not go in for premarital sex.

Perhaps not so much. Victorians liked to imagine that was the case, but may not be true, eg (though that was probably more about verifying fertility that sleeping around): http://professionaldescendant.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/sex-and-scottish-ancestor.html

On ‎14‎/‎09‎/‎2014 at 6:28 PM, Nidratime said:

Aren't they Catholic? I would expect they couldn't divorce.

Even for Protestants, divorce was ridiculously hard (prior to 1857 it could only be granted by Act of Parliament). That didn't stop spousal abandonment, obviously, there just wasn't a legal way to dissolve a marriage for most people.

On ‎14‎/‎09‎/‎2014 at 9:28 PM, annlaw78 said:

 I'm by no means an expert in the "purchase of commissions" back in that time period, but I do think there would be merit/years of service advancement, too, and Randall is sort of old to be "just" a captain

There was a minimum time in each rank before you could purchase the next one, except in exceptional circumstances (pretty sure you couldn't buy a Generalship, however - that would be apolitical appointment). Presumably Black Jack doesn't have the funds to buy his way up and has to rely on merit, which might account for his contempt of his superiors. It's still a bit far fetched he'd be quite so openly contemptuous - I'd expect a few more snide comments along the lines of, "Well, you've been to Oxford so you'd know better than me - I've just had to pick up what I could in the field".

On ‎15‎/‎09‎/‎2014 at 3:36 AM, bluebonnet said:

 And yet he [Black Jack] still retains his position seemingly without suffering any consequences for committing an act that any reasonably intelligent person could see would instigate further hatred of the English occupying force.

I suspect he (and his superiors) agree with Caligula, "Let them hate us, so long as they fear us," so they aren't going to chastise him for his actions.

[WatchrTina]

On 8/15/2017 at 7:30 AM, John Potts said:

I also find it hard to believe Black Jack would remember whipping a "boy" (not that I'd call Jamie a boy, but whatever), since I'd imagine he whips people all the time.

I assume Jamie stood out in Black Jack's memory for two reasons.  First of all he was a striking figure -- red-headed and unusually tall at 6'4", which in the book makes Jamie very memorable.  His striking height is less obvious on the show because Sam is slightly shorter than book Jamie but mostly because having him tower over other people makes it difficult to frame shots.  Secondly Jamie was memorable because he refused Black Jack's "offer" -- preferring to take the whipping rather than submit.  I suspect most young men submitted.  One did in the book and then killed himself from the shame of it.  Also Jamie was whipped twice on two successive days and that had to be unusual -- as was Jamie's failure to "break" and beg for mercy during the beatings.  To Jack, Jamie was "the one that got away" -- both figuratively (Black Jack didn't get  to "break" him or rape him)  and literally (Jamie's family orchestrated his escape from the fort just days after the whipping.)  So I have no problem believing that of all the men and boys Black Jack has tortured over the years, he would remember Jamie Fraser.

[guiser]

On 15/08/2017 at 1:30 PM, John Potts said:

Even for Protestants, divorce was ridiculously hard (prior to 1857 it could only be granted by Act of Parliament). That didn't stop spousal abandonment, obviously, there just wasn't a legal way to dissolve a marriage for most people.

I've been watching Outlander on More4 and enjoyed reading your historical information but....

Ned Gowan would give you a dirty look for saying that! XD  Don't forget that Scotland had a whole different legal system than England. In Scotland, since Reformation times (late 16th century) divorce had been legally and financially within the reach of middle class Protestants.  Indeed, even people further down the social scale could sometimes manage it. Apparently, in the 19th century, there were  cases of people being helped by the Poor Law authorities ! Also, unlike England, both spouses could sue for divorce based on adultery or desertion. Divorce didn't happen much, though. There was a social stigma, for one thing . Also, cases were heard in Edinburgh so while legal representation was actually very cheap by English standards there were other practical problems to be faced. All this is totally irrelevant to the situation of Catholics but I think it is interesting, nonetheless!

I actually swotted up on this while doing some family history research.  Ancestors of mine got divorced in in the 1890s. The occupation of the husband was "cab proprietor". 

 

[John Potts]

8 hours ago, guiser said:

Ned Gowan would give you a dirty look for saying that! XD  Don't forget that Scotland had a whole different legal system than England

Goddammit, I should know better than to interchangeably use "British Law" and "Scottish Law"! There's a paragraph in Dickens (Bleak House?) about the procedure for going through a divorce (before 1857) describing the process that would apply then - but that was in England. I was unaware that Scottish divorce was comparatively liberal (but I should have checked).

[guiser]

On 24/08/2017 at 9:39 AM, John Potts said:

Goddammit, I should know better than to interchangeably use "British Law" and "Scottish Law"! There's a paragraph in Dickens (Bleak House?) about the procedure for going through a divorce (before 1857) describing the process that would apply then - but that was in England. I was unaware that Scottish divorce was comparatively liberal (but I should have checked).

 

Alas, there doesn't seem to be a Scottish equivalent to Dickens novels where you can pick up accurate details of Scots law!  I haven't read "Bleak House" but am aware of debtors prisons and Chancery due to "Little Dorrit", for instance. I do know that older "British" history books will talk gaily about English legislation as if it was universal or just mention that a particular act did not apply to Scotland but say nothing more. Grrr!  Indeed, researching Scottish history you drift surprisingly quickly into territory where you could do with access to electronic journals - which I do not have :(

For instance, there is an interesting looking article in the Innes Review entitled "Catholic marriage in 18th century Scotland" but I'm not prepared to pay £20 for it! XD

http://www.euppublishing.com/doi/pdfplus/10.3366/inr.1983.34.1.9

[guiser]

On 16/09/2014 at 6:09 PM, Tif said:

In response to some above posts regarding the marriage contract, I don't think they have to produce an actual marriage contract considering that in those times Scotland handfasting was almost considered marriage.  

According to Wikipedia...

The verb to handfast in the sense of "to formally promise, to make a contract" is recorded for Late Old English, especially in the context of a contract of marriage. The derived handfasting is for a ceremony of engagement or betrothal is recorded in Early Modern English. The term was presumably loaned into English from Old Norse handfesta "to strike a bargain by joining hands"; there are also comparanda from the North Sea Germanic sphere, Old Frisian hondfestinge and Middle Low German hantvestinge. The term is derived from the verb to handfast, used in Middle to Early Modern English for the making of a contract.[2]

 

All they really need is witnesses and there will be those aplenty with the Clan Mackenzie rent collection party.

There is a great article on the subject of handfasting at this link  http://medievalscotland.org/history/handfasting.shtml . The article discusses the reality of historical handfasting and gives a really good overview of legal marriage under Scots law generally.  I've not been able to find anything that more clearly explains Scottish marriage law.

It appears that handfasting is likely anachronistic for this period. That said, handfasting seems to have been a form of betrothal that involved shaking hands on the bargain (there is no evidence in Scotland for a tradition of hand binding that anyone can find).  So if  a couple were handfasted but the couple wandered off and never saw each other again then they were not married. However, under Scots law,  if they subsequently had sex then they were married. Because, in this context,  sex = consent to be married!

On the other hand, if you exchanged vows and declared that you were married in the here and now then you were married. It didn't matter if you had sex or not! Technically you didn't even need a priest/minister or witnesses.

However, when thinking about marriage in Scotland, it seems that you need to make a clear distinction between a marriage that was legal in Scots law and a marriage that was acceptable in the sight of the particular church to which you belonged.  And it appears that, if you were a Catholic, you were only married in the sight of the church if you had a priest and all the trimmings.

All of this does make me wonder if Jamie and Claire would have actually been able to get an religious annulment due to all the corner-cutting in their catholic marriage but, despite that,  still have been married under Scots law! XD

 

 

On 16/09/2014 at 6:31 PM, Haleth said:

Perhaps if they are married in a church the word of the priest saying it was a lawful marriage will be enough for any English officer who questions it?

But was it even legal to be a Catholic priest in Scotland at this time? I really don't know, but I think it would be pretty risky for a priest to present himself to the authorities and declare that he had married a couple by Catholic rites! A bit of googling suggests that it was illegal to say mass, which is the main job of catholic priests, but the internet refuses to disgorge details of the actual anti-Catholic legislation that undoubtedly existed in Scotland at this time! :D I'm not going to assume that the laws were the same as in England because often they weren't. I know that priests were protected in some areas by the local aristocracy/gentry (including clan chiefs), aided by the fact that some of the aristocracy had heritable jurisdiction but...

Edited August 25, 2017 by guiser

[guiser]

15 minutes ago, guiser said:

There is a great article on the subject of handfasting at this link  http://medievalscotland.org/history/handfasting.shtml . The article discusses the reality of historical handfasting and gives a really good overview of legal marriage under Scots law generally.  I've not been able to find anything that more clearly explains Scottish marriage law.

 

Gah! The handfasting link doesn't seem to work. You can get the article if you just go to the main website medievalscotland.org , click on the "search the website" link and type handfasting in the search box.

[WatchrTina]

Well I'm binging my way through seasons 1 and 2 in anticipation of the start of season 3 and I just got to this episode.  Man what a powerful episode!  I won't rehash it again (we had a good discussion when it first aired) but yowza this was good.  And I have to just say that the very last scene -- the one where Claire snatches the bottle from Dougal and marches away while Jamie looks sheepish -- is one of my all-time favorite moments in the show.  That and the scene that precedes it (Jamie and Claire's talk, when he reveals he's a virgin) are a desperately needed breath of fresh air after a really well-made but grueling hour of television.

[methodwriter85]

Borrowed a DVD from the library (sorry, Starz, I'm not paying you money to watch Outlander) and re-watched this ep. Definitely my favorite of the first half of the first season. Claire's Fantine speech was hilarious to watch because she was so clearly invested in trying to move Jack with her speech that she almost seemed to start believing the fake backstory herself; meanwhile Jack clearly knows she's lying her ass off but he's playing along with her. And of course, Jack's darkness speech followed by him literally punching Claire in the gut. I really do hope that Tobias and Catriona work together in something again.

[Camera One]

I found this episode a little frustrating.  It was nice of Claire to defend the Scots and to express their point of view, but that wasn't the time or place.  This show is really well acted, though.  That was a tense scene with Jack Randall, but again, I'm not sure why she brought up Jaime being flogged.  That could have exposed his whereabouts, and contradicts with her assertion that she knows nothing.  

[ganesh]

Keep posting. I don't want to respond and spoil anything though. 

[Iju]

the whipping scene was brutal, and made me think of all the times that happened and more when the british took over the US. how horrendous.

i had predicted in the back of my mind that jack was lying/playing with her, which really kinda gets on my nerves now? that scene was like 20-30 minutes long. seems like a cop out of writing and screen time if you ask me. but then again the book could have had this scene so therefore the show could be not to blame.

what's up with the story making dougal look redeemable or something? he's a sexual harasser/potential rapist. he's cancelled forever. i hope he dies in the future.

i stared wordlessly in shock the whole time when jaime (the accents were so thick i thought he was called jimmy until i saw people calling him that in the threads) announced his purity to the credits. i'm in such a shock i'm actually denying it out front. he looks like he's what, 24-26???????? it's just too unbelievable. so all he has done all this time is just kiss girls (like in the castle) his ENTIRE two decade+ life? uh uh. not getting past me. he's a LIAR, end of story. i usually go along with a lot in this show but this has to be the one soccer mom step taken TOO far.

whether he is telling the truth or not, why did claire drink even more? i don't get it.

On 10/10/2017 at 3:21 AM, methodwriter85 said:

Borrowed a DVD from the library (sorry, Starz, I'm not paying you money to watch Outlander)

literally liked your entire post because of the parentheses. lol.

Edited May 9, 2018 by Iju

[gingerella]

Well damn it to hell and back. I wrote a long post and thought it had posted and alas it had not and it's gone, *poof*! Here goes another try...

It was appalling to listen to the 'refined English" soldiers and how so above the Scots they thought they were. It reminded me of something someone asked me once about working in Africa...They said, "aren't they so....primitive there?" It was such a shocking question and I replied, "I think it's far more 'primitive' to have young kids going about shooting at and killing one another for drug territory in our own cities today, than it is to simply live a simple life in a home made of mud and timber." And that is how I felt about that opening scene - the English soldiers think their shit don't stink - probably both proverbially and literally - all because the Scots live a life closer to the land that they love so very much. The scenes where the musician is entertaining at Castle Leoch were to me, very refined and showed a side of rural Scottish court life where the Arts were appreciated. That is culture. There IS culture and refinement in this world, it just looks different to what is going on in Londontown at the moment. One could argue that the English are too frilly and add too many accoutrements to everything, while the Scots are again, living a more simple version of the same.  In any case, the behavior of the English soldiers was reprehensible. The General was practically slobbering over Claire's presence, so disgusting and gross, and when Dougal was standing there as her protector in the room, he came across as the more noble and pure of intention of all the men in that room. It was a striking contrast. One thing I did notice and like, was the way leftenant who brought Claire and Dougal back introduced Dougal to the General. He did show a modicum of respect for Dougal when he introduced him correctly and properly as "You are meeting the War Chief of Clan MacKenzie, and brother to it's Laird". He could have been more dismissive, and that alone makes me wonder if we shall see this chap again and if so, might he soften his stance against the Scots. I find it difficult to believe that if he'd been there, he would not have allowed BJR to terrorize Claire the way he did. He seems like the British army's version of a potential Jaime? Let's see if he plays a larger role in the coming episodes.

I must admit that I am going to fast forward through the gorey and violent scenes. I have been forever scarred by some things I saw during my watch of GoTs and there are things I can never unsee, as it were. I cannot do that to myself again, so I've f/f'd through the flogging and gorey stuff but I get the gist of what's going down.

It was interesting that when Dougal rushed in to save Claire, BJR could have easily killed them both right then and there. His underlings would likely not tell higher ups what really went down for fear of him killing them too. He seems a lose canon that everyone knows about but nobody really reins in for whatever reason. Anyway, it was interesting that when Dougal tells him he can kill him now but he'll have an outright war on his hands, BJR stands down. I didn't think he was afraid of anything, but he seems to know he's fucking with the wrong dude right now. I'm sure on the field he'd kill Dougal if he got the chance, but for some reason he doesn't in that moment. I don't think it's because he has men out there looking for whomever killed their men just recently, because he doesn't seem to care about anything and anyone. So I'm left wondering if it is fear of all out war against the Clans, or something else that holds him back as he allows Dougal to take Claire and return her the next day...all I could think of was 'no way in hell am I coming back here tomorrow!' if I was Claire!

The scene with the razor was so weird on so many levels. When we first meet Frank and Claire, Frank has created this 'second honeymoon' around HIS interests - I'm sure that's typical for them since it's all about Frank all the time - and he's booked them into an inn in Inverness so that he can look up information about HIS ancestors and in particular appears fascinated by the knowledge of a relative - BJR - who was known around those parts as being rather a dirty bastard from what the Reverend tells us. Frank is fascinated by this ancestor and seems quite puffed up about being related to this guy, but I also don't recall him connecting BJR to the shaving razor - does he explicitly say that it belonged to BJR? In any case, the worshipping of this ancestor, whom we see is a sadistic bastard, becomes all the more creepy and anvilicious when we know that Frank not only has this razor, but that he uses it. I am feeling that Frank might have more hidden unpleasant characteristics from BJR than we have seen yet. Not necessarily the violent tendencies, but the assholishness...Let's see if I'm wrong about that...

What else, ah yes! Claire does NOT throw the clan under the bus in her interactions with the English soldiers. She knows that to do so would mean certain death and she is already feeling a connection to them, or enough so that she will protect them at the expense of a more immediate escape. This is huge! She is whining about the Stones less and less, but she still has them on her mind and to know that she might reduce her chances of a return by saving or protecting Dougal and Company...that is very interesting and telling. I think it's just a reminder that she firmly has one foot in each world right now, no matter how much the lady doth protest. I don't even think she realizes how entrenched she actually is in this world but her actions, which are gut reactions in an instant of a moment, those actions tell of an affection for these clansmen who have taken her in. And when Dougal protects her, likewise, she is seeing a certain affection, IMO, albeit rough around the edges.

The whole drinking at the spring of truth was a nice touch. I liked seeing how entrenched Dougal is in the old beliefs that if someone lies after drinking from such waters, they would die immediately. But that also doesn't bode well for Claire because if she ever lets on how she got there in the first place, I'm sure Dougal would assume she is a witch, and not in the 'I'm a good healing witch' sort of way but in the 'let's burn her at the stake' sort of way.

The end of this episode was a bit of a surprise to me, to officially bind Claire and Jaime together in what feels very fast in a long series such as this felt very quick. Mind you, I'm not complaining, just an observation. This makes me feel like J&C are the long haul couple, otherwise they'd not be married so soon in A Story. There is a reason that all roads/story lines to date have led to this place - these two have a very long journey together, and I am here for all of it! Huzzah! The cherry (pun intended because it was too easy not to!) on this sundae ending of an episode was Jaime admitting to Claire he is a virgin, but he reckon's one of them ought to know what they're doing. I love that this gorgeous, rugged, manly man is still a virgin, waiting for his bride to be 'his first, his only' (I had assumed he had a string of lassies across the lands pining for him to return to them, which was my assumption based on gender norms of the time, and also of the present, shame on me!). That can be the only reason he's waited because god knows there are plenty of girls that have probably thrown themselves at him over the years. So it feels like a decision he's taken, and what else could be the reason, other than he was raised to be a gentleman with women, and to know a woman's worth and value as a wife and partner. I want to know more about his mother and father because this must come from them, yes? I hope we learn more of his upbringing...(and with that, I do believe I've remembered everything I wrote down last night and lost!).

Edited March 13, 2021 by gingerella

[Anothermi]

Well....

First: I am in a much better mood today and will not be ranting (much) for this episode. It seems a bad day and an annoying episode wreak havoc on a persons mood. I also want to say the viewing and commenting on one episode a day is tiring!

So we start back with Claire prevaricating about how to answer the lovely British Captain. (or what ever rank he was) At least I was correct that she wouldn't throw Dougal under the bus. But she did seem to be weighing her options before she spoke and that turned out to be the case. 

The uncomfortable scenes with the British Officers (who each would have had to be wealthy enough to purchase their commission) first put Claire at her ease because she was being treated respectfully. But their inability to act civilly to anyone not "of their class" must have been a shock for her. That stuff is rarely found in History books.  Of course she would, then, go and forget what century she was in and speak her mind. (eyeroll)

We learned what an adept manipulator Black Jack Randall is. He knows all the tricks, but finally reveals to both Claire and us that he is a sadist and revels in power.  It seems clear to me that Claire's reaction to him was coloured by what she feels for his distant descendant. I hope we are not expected to believe that Sadism is a hereditary trait. I hope Frank just gets to have his own faults. I am referring, now, to the tea leaf reading that indicated that one of the strangers Claire lives with is her own husband. Frank is still in the running for this position, but Jamie entered the contest by the end of this episode. (assuming the marriage goes ahead). 

Given her experience of the British Army I can understand why she might go along with the marriage. It WILL make her the same as Jamie—an outlaw— but it will give her some protection by the Scots. Just from an obvious "at the time" point of view, I think Jamie was the only likely choice. No reasonable Scottish man would want to carry the shame of having a Sassenach wife foisted on him - not to mention one wanted by the British; and Jamie—as long as he has a price on his head—is no catch for a decent woman.  To protect her from having to be handed over to BRG at Fort William she had to become a Scot. Jamie was probably the only candidate. So I'm good with this set up/explanation. 

I'm not sure why we had the scene with her assisting in the amputation of the arm of that soldier, but I do think it will come up again in the future. I sure didn't see the  point of it in this episode. 

Same with the scene of the magical truth spring. Seems to me we already knew about the old beliefs, so why show us again? Unless it was just to explain Dougal's change of mind about Claire?  It's going on my wait-and-see list. 

Claire's comment "It was a sad day for Private McGreavey when he got stationed to Scotland." made me think about the Viet Nam war from our century. Britain was engaged in a lot of wars in the 18th century. Most of them used known terms of engagement. The Scots, however, engaged in more of a guerrilla style form of combat. It would have been un-nerving for men with Standard British Army training. It could also create someone like BJR who started with the belief that he was superior and learned that he was both wily and enjoyed killing, but more so, he enjoyed debasing people and inflicting pain as his means of proving his superiority.

I tried to fast forward through the flogging of Jamie, but I  was too curious to see how Tobias Menzies portrayed Jack in this. I was impressed. As for the gore, I focused on how the props/makeup department would have created the actor's back. That worked for me—somewhat to my surprise. 

22 hours ago, gingerella said:

It was interesting that when Dougal rushed in to save Claire, BJR could have easily killed them both right then and there. His underlings would likely not tell higher ups what really went down for fear of him killing them too. He seems a lose canon that everyone knows about but nobody really reins in for whatever reason. Anyway, it was interesting that when Dougal tells him he can kill him now but he'll have an outright war on his hands, BJR stands down. I didn't think he was afraid of anything,

I think that if BJR is afraid of anything it would be being stripped of his commission and command. He's in his sweet spot currently. But if the British Army were plunged into a war they were not prepared for, heads (of lower rank) would take all the blame and Captain is not a very high rank. BJR is no fool. 
 

IF the marriage actually goes through (and yes I've see the title of the next episode, but titles can mislead) I am hoping that Jamie will continue teasing Claire; and that she will develop a sense of humour. 😄

Edited March 13, 2021 by Anothermi

[SassAndSnacks]

23 hours ago, gingerella said:

The General was practically slobbering over Claire's presence, so disgusting and gross, and when Dougal was standing there as her protector in the room, he came across as the more noble and pure of intention of all the men in that room. It was a striking contrast.

I loved the juxtaposition of this in the episode.  Claire knows that the MacKenzies, at the very least, are cultured and more educated than many a British soldier.  

23 hours ago, gingerella said:

The scene with the razor was so weird on so many levels. When we first meet Frank and Claire, Frank has created this 'second honeymoon' around HIS interests - I'm sure that's typical for them since it's all about Frank all the time - and he's booked them into an inn in Inverness so that he can look up information about HIS ancestors and in particular appears fascinated by the knowledge of a relative - BJR - who was known around those parts as being rather a dirty bastard from what the Reverend tells us. Frank is fascinated by this ancestor and seems quite puffed up about being related to this guy, but I also don't recall him connecting BJR to the shaving razor - does he explicitly say that it belonged to BJR? In any case, the worshipping of this ancestor, whom we see is a sadistic bastard, becomes all the more creepy and anvilicious when we know that Frank not only has this razor, but that he uses it. I am feeling that Frank might have more hidden unpleasant characteristics from BJR than we have seen yet. Not necessarily the violent tendencies, but the assholishness...Let's see if I'm wrong about that...

That whole dialogue and exchange with BJR had to have been a total Mind-F for Claire.  This guy looks like Frank, he has Frank's razor...but he isn't Frank.  I felt like she was trying to separate her past (future?) with the reality of her current situation.  Also, maybe she was seeing a little bit of Frank in this guy, and maybe she was remembering that possibly Frank DOES have a little bit of this guy in him.  

23 hours ago, gingerella said:

I think it's just a reminder that she firmly has one foot in each world right now, no matter how much the lady doth protest. I don't even think she realizes how entrenched she actually is in this world but her actions, which are gut reactions in an instant of a moment, those actions tell of an affection for these clansmen who have taken her in.

Claire doesn't plot out her moves like...oh lets say...Jamie.  She's a feeler and goes with her gut always.  She just unintentionally chose sides. 

11 hours ago, Anothermi said:

It seems a bad day and an annoying episode wreak havoc on a persons mood.

Truth!

11 hours ago, Anothermi said:

I'm not sure why we had the scene with her assisting in the amputation of the arm of that soldier, but I do think it will come up again in the future. I sure didn't see the  point of it in this episode. 

I think the show takes great pains to show her skill and knowledge, showing that she is an asset and valuable in her own right but that no one respects it.  (Not even Frank, I might add.)  She's just a woman, her knowledge and experiences can be easily dismissed by those around her. It highlights the people that actually DO respect her and value her and how they treat her differently than others. 

11 hours ago, Anothermi said:

The Scots, however, engaged in more of a guerrilla style form of combat. It would have been un-nerving for men with Standard British Army training. It could also create someone like BJR who started with the belief that he was superior and learned that he was both wily and enjoyed killing, but more so, he enjoyed debasing people and inflicting pain as his means of proving his superiority.

  Ooooh, this is such a good observation!  Very interesting.  

[gingerella]

8 minutes ago, SassAndSnacks said:

Claire doesn't plot out her moves like...oh lets say...Jamie.  She's a feeler and goes with her gut always.  She just unintentionally chose sides. 

I agree with what you've said about Claire, but I don't get the impression from the Show that Jaime is always plotting, in fact I feel like much of his troubles come from not stopping to think about what's coming next. So I feel like they are similar in gut reactions, but Jaime perhaps is more savvy in being able to read a room at any given time and know where he stands, whilst Claire often blurts out things that Jaime might realize 'hey better not say that here...'

[Anothermi]

54 minutes ago, gingerella said:

I agree with what you've said about Claire, but I don't get the impression from the Show that Jaime is always plotting, in fact I feel like much of his troubles come from not stopping to think about what's coming next. So I feel like they are similar in gut reactions, but Jaime perhaps is more savvy in being able to read a room at any given time and know where he stands, whilst Claire often blurts out things that Jaime might realize 'hey better not say that here...'

Yes. At this point in the show, Jamie just seems to be a bit more savvy than Claire, but just as impulsive when his sense of fairness/unfairness is triggered. I think you put your finger on it when you highlighted Jamie telling Claire "a man has to choose what’s worth fighting for". She doesn't choose - yet.

[Pallas]

Tobias Menzies. 

"I saw the truth...The truth carries a weight that no lie can counterfeit."

[SassAndSnacks]

21 hours ago, gingerella said:

I don't get the impression from the Show that Jaime is always plotting, in fact I feel like much of his troubles come from not stopping to think about what's coming next. So I feel like they are similar in gut reactions, but Jaime perhaps is more savvy in being able to read a room at any given time and know where he stands, whilst Claire often blurts out things that Jaime might realize 'hey better not say that here...'

This is such a good point.  You're right.  "Plotting" isn't the right word.  He absolutely reads the room and can filter his words better.   

[gingerella]

3 hours ago, Pallas said:

Tobias Menzies. 

"I saw the truth...The truth carries a weight that no lie can counterfeit."

Girl, you can't just mic drop that without anything else to go with it! 

[Anothermi]

6 hours ago, Pallas said:

Tobias Menzies. 

"I saw the truth...The truth carries a weight that no lie can counterfeit."

I had to search for it, but he said it at the end of describing HIS experience of flogging Jamie—and how beautiful he found the "masterpiece" the two of them were creating. It was an epiphany for him.

I think that was why I believed that being posted to Scotland was the "making" of Black Jack Randall. He became that horrible, mythic creature and he felt he was home.  However, I didn't remember those exact words until Pallas supplied them. Thanks again!

Edited March 14, 2021 by Anothermi

[gingerella]

25 minutes ago, Anothermi said:

I had to search for it, but he said it at the end of describing HIS experience of flogging Jamie—and how beautiful he found the "masterpiece" the two of them were creating. It was an epiphany to him.

I think that was why I believed that being posted to Scotland was the "making" of Black Jack Randall. He became that horrible, mythic creature and he felt he was home.  However, I didn't remember those exact words until Pallas supplied them. Thanks again!

Oh, I must have missed that because I f/f through most of the flogging stuff, stopping here and there to catch non gorey bits. He said that? Jesus, he is more depraved that I thought he was. That is the mind of a sick and twisted person, and yet, I imagine many people go into war and find a horrible, dark side comes out of them. It's funny (funny 'hmmm' not funny 'haha') that men who desert or whatever because they don't want to kill, they are considered wimps, yet someone like BJR was likely considered a feared yet great soldier. FWIW, he makes me dislike Frank even more because of Frank's seeming infatuation with his ancestor whom he knows had a 'reputation'.

[Anothermi]

I'd deleted what I first posted because it was a repeat, but  I now have something useful to contribute (that's my story anyway). 

1 hour ago, gingerella said:

He said that? Jesus, he is more depraved that I thought he was.

What was most interesting to me was Claire's reaction to that disclosure. BJR was presenting all of his flogging experience as something that he discovered about himself and it made him uncomfortable. She bought it— hook, line and sinker—and her eyes were full of tears on his behalf. She believed he was struggling against that feeling while in fact, he was leaning into it.  That's why she let down her guard so much that it was easy for him to sucker punch her in the gut. 

Edited March 14, 2021 by Anothermi

[Pallas]

It's one of the best performances I've seen on television. The vitality. From the moment Jack enters the briefing room and warms the venison with his contempt. In a way, though, everything Menzies did from then on was already visible within him when Claire first saw Jack crouching by the stream, moments after she's been flung back 200 years. That same twisted energy and focus. His strangely candid face, and openness to his own emotions: the disgust he feels for what he's told to respect; the thrill he brings to heel at the sight of prey, and how it radiates from him. It's the first thing Claire knew in this world: "You're not Frank."  We saw it too. But this?

"I promised that I would reveal myself to you, and...I have."  

[Anothermi]

2 hours ago, Pallas said:

It's one of the best performances I've seen on television. The vitality. From the moment Jack enters the briefing room and warms the venison with his contempt. In a way, though, everything Menzies did from then on was already visible within him when Claire first saw Jack crouching by the stream, moments after she's been flung back 200 years. That same twisted energy and focus. His strangely candid face, and openness to his own emotions: the disgust he feels for what he's told to respect; the thrill he brings to heel at the sight of prey, and how it radiates from him. It's the first thing Claire knew in this world: "You're not Frank."  We saw it too. But this?

"I promised that I would reveal myself to you, and...I have."  

That whole exchange says so much about Jack's character.  I decided not to FF through the flogging scenes in order to see Tobias Menzies performance. He made it worth my while.  I described BJR as "wiley" but that word doesn't capture it. Jack Randall was giving an award winning performance for Claire to capture her trust... and he did.

Edited March 14, 2021 by Anothermi

[Beeyago]

53 minutes ago, Anothermi said:

Don't know what happened here. Nobody was hurt. Move along. 

ETA because I now have something useful to contribute (that's my story anyway). 

What was most interesting to me was Claire's reaction to that disclosure. BJR was presenting all of his flogging experience as something that he discovered about himself and it made him uncomfortable. She bought it— hook, line and sinker—and her eyes were full of tears on his behalf. She believed he was struggling against that feeling while in fact, he was leaning into it.  That's why she let down her guard so much that it was easy for him to sucker punch her in the gut. 

I always felt her tears were for Jamie after BJR painted such a vivid and sickening image of it for her.  Imagining what he endured, almost living through it with Jamie and the horror of it all is what I always took her tears to mean. 

[Anothermi]

33 minutes ago, Beeyago said:

I always felt her tears were for Jamie after BJR painted such a vivid and sickening image of it for her.  Imagining what he endured, almost living through it with Jamie and the horror of it all is what I always took her tears to mean. 

I don't see that they can be separated. Certainly she would have had tears for what Jamie went through, but when he asked her if she thought him a monster, she replied that she believed he didn't want to be that man (paraphrasing) and that war can do this to some people. 

Despite my snarkyness, I can see how well thought out this show is and that it is committed to showing the complexity of these character's lives.  I'm totally in for that. 

Edited March 14, 2021 by Anothermi
typo