S02.E11: Ruslan Denisov

[formerlyfreedom]

When an undercover CIA agent is kidnapped by a band of separatists in Uzbekistan, the task force sets a rescue mission in motion. Red informs Liz and Ressler that they are up against a very dangerous former associate.

 

 

[ottoDbusdriver]

Why would the FBI be running a rescue mission for a CIA agent ?  That makes about as much sense as the FBI team running point on the hostage negotiations at a CIA black site.

[Danielg342]

I'm getting Borat flashbacks thinking about Uzbekistan...doubt the show will go there but it'd be funny.

Oh well, I'm all for a good romp in Tashkent. :)

[paigow]

Why would the FBI be running a rescue mission for a CIA agent ?  That makes about as much sense as the FBI team running point on the hostage negotiations at a CIA black site.

These are the same Logistics Wizards that plan airstrikes... no big surprise.

[shura]

Borat was from Kazakhstan. All those other countries have inferior potassium!

[Danielg342]

Borat was from Kazakhstan. All those other countries have inferior potassium!

Well, I think Nicaragua and all their bananas would give Kazakhstan a run for their money. :p

I know Borat was Kazakh...the Uzbeks were their biggest rivals, though.

[AimingforYoko]

So Lizzie was shocked. Shocked, I say, that Red used a Blacklister for his own gain. She's met Red, right?

In other news, looks like Lizzie's little walk on the wild side last season is coming back to haunt her.

[ottoDbusdriver]

Hold-on -- the harbormaster from the S2 fall finale has only been missing for several days.  How is that possible ?  Red has been all over the world a couple of times since that happened, the whole Luthor Braxton nonsense that involved Lizzie traveling across North America and back. I could understand if this was happening on the episode after the Superbowl, but not now.

 

Samara appears to have no lingering effects from being shot in the leg and strangled -- not even any bruising on her neck -- or even any superficial shrapnel wounds from the missile explosion. 

 

And if Lizzie was on an undercover mission as she said she was to the police detective, why did she give him her real business card to the harbormaster ?  WTF?

 

All this nonsense about Ruslan Denisov and its all to send a message about environmental concerns, and that's all a guise for Red to profit -- oh come on.  And it turns out that Denisov isn't even really a blacklister.  Why don't they just call this show as it is -- stupid Lizzie gets led around by Red Reddington.

 

That access portal in the back of the hotel elevator was just stupid.

[thuganomics85]

So, the Blacklister ends up not being a typical Blacklister baddie, but some kind of bad guy, but just happens to be fighting for the people?  And, was all part of a big plan of Red's to get some extra cash?  Sure, whatever.  At least he was played by Faran Tahir, who is always awesome.

 

Harbormaster's death from way back has suddenly come back into play.  I'm sure they'll find a way to slip out of it, but it might be fun watching Lizzie squirm for a bit.  Even if I'm distracted by the actor playing the detective, because he'll always be that slimy lawyer, Maurice Levy, from The Wire to me.

 

Lizzie asks Aram to look into whatever she found, but he doesn't seem to know much about it.

 

Enjoyed watching James Spader and Tahir play off one another, but I found the episode to be pretty uneventful.

[shura]

And if Lizzie was on an undercover mission as she said she was to the police detective, why did she give him her real business card to the harbormaster ?

 

That butt-ugliest, most amateurish print job must have been a prank Lizzie's colleagues played on her, right? I happen to have seen real FBI business cards - they look nice and professional - fonts, gold embossing and everything. Who does props on this show?

 

I kinda liked the magic elevator. Stupid, yes, but also simple. Good for conveying the idea "they have found a way to get in touch with Denisov".  Nice name for an Uzbek separatist, btw.

 

Lizzie asks Aram to look into whatever she found, but he doesn't seem to know much about it.

 

Lizzie: "I need you to figure out what this thing is."

Aram: "Umm... it's a pencil sharpener."

 

Red: "People have been plundering this country since time began."  Dude, people have been plundering all countries since time began, why do you make it sound like it's something objectionable?

[Dowel Jones]

I'm getting Borat flashbacks

 

I could have sworn that was Captain Obvious.

[paigow]

Red did his Game of Thrones homage, stuffing that guy into a crate for Ruslan.

[dwmarch]

I can picture the writer's room meeting for this episode: remember in Syriana how there was that plot about the oil executives all stabbing each other in the back over something no one cares about? Let's do that one!

 

Speaking of recycled plots, the determined bureaucrat pokes his nose in a murder committed by the national security apparatus was done on 24 and was not very entertaining back then. I do wonder if they ever found Stephen Root's corpse in the air vent or if they're still trying to figure out what that smell is.

 

I was surprised at Lizzie's weak "We'll ask the State Department to Do Something!" As if they would do anything other than write a report about how tragic it was! This is a world full of super-spies and assassins and explosions and shit. No one is afraid of the friggin' State Department!

 

Lizzie being passive-aggressive and bitchy towards Red is going to get old fast. Actually, it's already old.

Edited February 13, 2015 by dwmarch

[Primetimer]

Red goes a little green and Liz has (dead) body issues.

Read the story

[Julia]

I'm confused. Not that Faran Tahir isn't an effective actor, but I don't understand why they would choose an actor who doesn't look even slightly slavic to play a russian nationalist (because race is kind of a big thing with russian nationalists), or why the tango, or why all the shady government agency people were in bed with this guy.

 

I'm not saying that for effect. I'm really confused. I have no idea what that was supposed to be.

[HollaMcDollar]

Harbormaster's death from way back has suddenly come back into play.  I'm sure they'll find a way to slip out of it, but it might be fun watching Lizzie squirm for a bit.  Even if I'm distracted by the actor playing the detective, because he'll always be that slimy lawyer, Maurice Levy, from The Wire to me.

No kidding- he slipped back into sleazy Levy for a bit during that interrogation and it was amazing.

[Gregg247]

I really liked this episode.  For once, there were some interesting twists and turns, and the bad guy turned out to be not-so-bad after all.

 

The guy who played the villain is becoming a favorite of mine.  He was the bad guy responsible for Tony Stark becoming Iron Man, he was the science captain killed by Romulans (with Thor) in the Star Trek reboot, and he was Cliff Barnes's adopted son who killed himself for "his father" on Dallas.  He's a good actor, and a welcome addition to any cast.

[Julia]

I really liked this episode.  For once, there were some interesting twists and turns, and the bad guy turned out to be not-so-bad after all.

 

The guy who played the villain is becoming a favorite of mine.  He was the bad guy responsible for Tony Stark becoming Iron Man, he was the science captain killed by Romulans (with Thor) in the Star Trek reboot, and he was Cliff Barnes's adopted son who killed himself for "his father" on Dallas.  He's a good actor, and a welcome addition to any cast.

 

He was also Osiris on Supernatural.

[saber5055]

Okay, I really enjoyed this episode, even if I agree with all the posts above. I am able to forgive those things since all of that crazy made this episode more fun. Because: I think Red is a gas, and for once we got to see his plan play out from start to finish, all for his benefit. And we got to see Lizzie toss a tantrum because Red is not there for HER, to save HER, to protect HER, he's there for his own gain. Welcome to Red's World, Keen.

 

The business card cracked me up, too. For Keen to have given the guy one was so dense since she could have just flashed her badge at the guy like Sam and Dean do all the time with no questions asked. And yeah, the card was cheesy, it should have been a fake one Keen had printed up at Vistaprint for just such an occasion. And her cell phone works in Slavic countries! She could hear the detective NOW!

 

Keen being busted for killing that dock worker is a great plot. I'm looking forward to Red NOT getting her out of that one.

 

Loved Red and Donald eating dinner together while Lizzie had "room service." Heh.

 

All in all, a fun and entertaining episode. Were there new writers this week? If so, keep them around. I give this two thumbs up. 

 

ETA: I am amazed, however, that no one stabs Red in the neck, or just shoots him point blank during one of his unending soliloquies. I felt like doing that from my couch, just to shut him up. The guy never quits.

Edited February 13, 2015 by saber5055

[JoeSchwike]

I'm confused. Not that Faran Tahir isn't an effective actor, but I don't understand why they would choose an actor who doesn't look even slightly slavic to play a russian nationalist (because race is kind of a big thing with russian nationalists), or why the tango, or why all the shady government agency people were in bed with this guy.

 

I'm not saying that for effect. I'm really confused. I have no idea what that was supposed to be.

As for nationality/race, he was an Uzbek nationalist, not Russian nationalist.  The Uzbeks are related to Turks and the Mongols, most of the central Asian republics are a mixture of those two cultures.  I thought he looked the part.

 

Not sure why they were dancing the Tango, but I loved Red's description of 'pure negotiation' - 'Nothing taken that wasn't given'.  Great scene, even if it didn't make sense in Tashkent!

[buttersister]

Not a lot made sense. And Spader tilted his head so much I was forced to consider it's a good thing he doesn't suffer from vertigo. Or he does and wanted to see how dizzy he could get as a distraction from the script.

[Danielg342]

I gotta say, I loved it. Start to finish, I loved it. For once there was a simple plot, a simple goal and a simple execution- no extraneous things that get in the way and cloud things. So far, The Blacklist post Super Bowl is getting off to a great start. Here's hoping that it continues and the ratings rebound next week.

(At least we get a Season 3 which could mean a newer, better timeslot...or, as I see on the Scandal forum, Scandal implodes, which I think would be a shame because that too is a good show...or at least was)

I loved seeing Farhan Tahir...he was also on Criminal Minds as the terrorist in “200”, reappearing in a flashback in “The Forever People” where he was the lone bright spot. He was excellent as Ruslan Denisov here, and I liked how Denisov turned out to be a good guy in all this.

I also liked how the episode was all about defending “the little guys of the world” in Uzbekistan...far too often we don't see the struggles that many of these nations face when the “big countries” bully them around and plunder their resources, so it was great to see the show highlight that...and take out the corrupt government officials that allowed it to happen.

Not sure what to think of Red's motives...on one hand, I believe him when he says that replacing the rusty pipeline with a new, state-of-the-art one is a “win-win” for everyone because I do believe Red is a man of honour, so I don't think he'd do something like that if he couldn't justify it. On the other hand, the optics sure are bad, and, as Keystone XL taught me, I'm not sure if there's ever a pipeline that could be made to look good, but I doubt the show will revisit this story so I won't dwell on it too much.

One part I will dwell on is Lizzie. I can picture a reviewer or two moaning about Lizzie’s “agency” in this story and being mad that she has absolutely no power in all of this (one reviewer did that when he reviewed “The Decembrist”), but I don’t think it’s the right way of looking at this. Lizzie’s supposed to be in way over her head dealing with a criminal mastermind, and while I believe Red to actually have a moral centre who’d always be willing to “do the right thing”, he’s also the type to not mess around when people cross him, as Lizzie is doing. While I think Red would be better served to be upfront with Lizzie and explain to her the method to his madness, I can accept that he has some kind of master plan that he needs to fulfill with Lizzie and if she were to know all the details surrounding it then it could compromise what he needs to get done.

Regardless, Lizzie fails to understand that she is in no way capable of taking on one of the world’s greatest masterminds, and I think it serves her right that Red would give her the “tough love” approach- especially if he waits until the final moment to save Lizzie from prosecution for killing the harbour worker/police officer. Red’s actions are par for the course, as far as I’m concerned.

[shura]

We are talking about the guy who kept people in cages, soaked them in corrosive liquids or shot them willy-nilly. Just curious, what is you guys' definition of "bad" if you describe Denisov as "a good guy" and "not-so-bad after all"?

 

What was that ginormous earring thing the Samoan guy was wearing? Some kind of large fang? A shark tooth? Someone on the writers staff must have a thing for unorthodox ear piercings - first that cattle tag, now this...

[Danielg342]

We are talking about the guy who kept people in cages, soaked them in corrosive liquids or shot them willy-nilly. Just curious, what is you guys' definition of "bad" if you describe Denisov as "a good guy" and "not-so-bad after all"?

I see it as Denisov being “good” like Red is “good”- they have strong morals and do everything within this moral framework, but they're not adverse to doing what they need to do in order to achieve “the right thing”, even if what they do is illegal or disrespectful. Yeah, the things they do are ethically questionable, but their motives are grounded in moral objectives.

[watch2much]

first post here.  I came to this forum originally to see if it was just me who felt the acting (mostly female lead) was lacking and had a good laugh that most feel the same.  I suffered through the first season and started the second but I just removed the series recording from my DVR.  I do love the James Spader comments but it's no longer enough.  The plots are stupid, the writing bad, the acting (except for Spader) is for the most part bad and I can't even tolerate sitting thru it.  I'd rather watch PBS or BBC.  So I'm out for good.

[Jack Kerouac]

I see it as Denisov being “good” like Red is “good”- they have strong morals and do everything within this moral framework, but they're not adverse to doing what they need to do in order to achieve “the right thing”, even if what they do is illegal or disrespectful. Yeah, the things they do are ethically questionable, but their motives are grounded in moral objectives.

 

Denisov is a multiple murderer. Regardless of whatever 'moral objectives' he has, that does not make him a good person, just a murderer. Same with Red. Red is not a good person - he has outright murdered multiple people without so much as a blink.

[Kelda Feegle]

Not a lot made sense. And Spader tilted his head so much I was forced to consider it's a good thing he doesn't suffer from vertigo. Or he does and wanted to see how dizzy he could get as a distraction from the script.

Yes Spader's headtilt is rapidly assuming the epic annoyance level achieved by the always open slightly mouth of David Tennant  which ultimately made me hate him, once seen it cannot be unseen.

And let's not forget Faran Tahir in Warehouse 13 looking fine in a suit. 

[Danielg342]

Denisov is a multiple murderer. Regardless of whatever 'moral objectives' he has, that does not make him a good person, just a murderer. Same with Red. Red is not a good person - he has outright murdered multiple people without so much as a blink.

I suppose now we get into the moralistic debate about “is killing ever good?”, but that's a debate for another forum. I will say this much- TV has a way of framing people as “good” or “bad” that doesn't happen in reality, and thus I'm far more comfortable with people being offed on TV than I am in real life. To me, neither Denisov or Red have killed anyone onscreen that “didn't deserve it” (in so much the sense that the show can simplify their victims as “all around baddies”). They're no more “bad” than, say, Dexter Morgan or Walter White or any number of Jason Statham's movie characters.

Sure, there's very much the argument that those victims- if they existed in reality- really never “deserve” it. However, those aren't victims that exist in reality, they exist solely in fiction, and in fiction, you can restrict what the audience sees so that they only see the character as “bad”. Furthermore, I'm a strong believer that you can't evaluate what you don't see, so if a character is supposed to be “good”, I expect the show to, well, “show” me their good side. Could the scumbags Denisov or Red offed have good qualities? Sure, they could- but I didn't see it so I can't say they do. That makes them bad and makes me more comfortable with Denisov or Red killing them.

I suppose what it really boils down to is if you're comfortable with TV characters killing others on TV. I'm of the opinion that I can be, simply because TV raises contexts that reality won't or can't raise.

One of the things that drew me to this show- and Gotham- is the whole idea of asking the question of “who really are the good guys?” I think this show hasn't always been the best at dealing with this question, but I think this episode was a great exploration. The people who we'd think are the “good guys”- in this case, the CIA, since they were the ones most willing to follow protocol and wanted to arrest the baddies- really weren't up to much good while the episode's real “good guys” had to be ethically challenged in order to get there (and not just Red and Denisov, Keen and Ressler had to violate protocol to solve the case). Of course, then you get into the question of “do the ends justify the means?” I think it can, but as the show tells us, it's still very much an open question.

[Julia]

Sure, there's very much the argument that those victims- if they existed in reality- really never “deserve” it. However, those aren't victims that exist in reality, they exist solely in fiction, and in fiction, you can restrict what the audience sees so that they only see the character as “bad”. Furthermore, I'm a strong believer that you can't evaluate what you don't see, so if a character is supposed to be “good”, I expect the show to, well, “show” me their good side. Could the scumbags Denisov or Red offed have good qualities? Sure, they could- but I didn't see it so I can't say they do. That makes them bad and makes me more comfortable with Denisov or Red killing them.

 

I guess the divide is whether you think of a live-action television show as a less sophisticated, cartoonish version of real life or as a video game with really, really good graphics. If I saw the people who were being slaughtered as a collection of pixels it wouldn't bother me if they went boom. I need a bit more of a stake in the television I watch. Mileage varies.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Julia

[Danielg342]

I guess the divide is whether you think of a live-action television show as a less sophisticated, cartoonish version of real life or as a video game with really, really good graphics. If I saw the people who were being slaughtered as a collection of pixels it wouldn't bother me if they went boom. I need a bit more of a stake in the television I watch. Mileage varies.

I guess I would fall into the video game category, but I'm not sure I'd use that spectrum. I think it's more of a question of what the viewer seeks through their entertainment- is it a matter of a show that always tells you that “right makes right” and those that do wrong will always get their comeuppance? Or is it a matter of questioning just what we think is “right” or “wrong”, with no clear winner in the end?

(I realize I'm simplfying, but it's the easiest way to explain my point of view)

For me, I've seen enough shows as a kid so that I've got to the point where the idea of a work of fiction where the “bad guys” and the “good guys” are clear is boring to me- I'd rather watch a show that's ambiguous about what's “good” and “bad” and let me figure it out for myself. This might make me sound like a cynic but it's the opposite- I'm of the firm belief that most people are upright in their moral standing and beliefs, they just have different ways of meting out justice, and not every way of doing so I would agree with. There's the old adage that says “we're all the heroes of our own story” so, to me, it's foolish to paint someone as a “good guy” or a “bad guy”, because not everyone will agree with that assessment. It might be easier if we could categorize everyone as “good” or “bad” but reality is far more complex- interestingly so, I think.

Having said that, I'm much more comfortable examining the struggle for justice through the lens of a TV show like The Blacklist or through my own fiction writing, than I would be in real life. In fiction, there's the “safety” that no matter how “bad” things may get, everything is contained within the story and, at the end of the day, I can wave it off as something that wasn't actually “real”.

Reality is far more different- whatever happens in “real life” will affect real people, so much so that it might even affect ourselves, so an examination of “good vs bad” is a far more “risky” proposition. It's easier, say, for me to debate Red's actions because, at the end of the day, Red didn't actually kill anyone because Red doesn't exist. It's much harder for me to debate the actions of the Tamil Tigers because, even though I know people who support them, knowing that real lives have been affected and worse, lost, at their hands makes it harder for me to say “their ends justify the means”. At least when it comes to fiction I can handwave that the “victim who deserves it” is some kind of lowlife who alienates everyone, is estranged from their family and has no actual redeeming qualities. In reality, you can never do that.

I realize it sounds cruel that I'm comfortable with fictional characters being nothing but “pawns”, but knowing they're not “real” allows me the freedom to explore the questions the work of fiction wishes to raise, questions I'd be far less comfortable asking if this was real life.