S03.E07: Walter Taffet

[sistermagpie]

Paige being recently Baptised in the Christian faith should be a significant hurdle to clear and I always wonder how Elizabeth seeming breezes past that as an obstacle even in her thinking.

 

 

Yes, I think Elizabeth just thinks it's a case of getting rid of fairy tale beliefs and to her that just means pointing out that it's a fairy tale. 

 

I always thought it was interesting that they made a point of having Henry say he believed in God back in S1. It obviously wasn't any strong profession of faith, just showing that being raised in the US the default is to believe in God even if you're not raised religiously. It's just not a weird idea to the kids the way it is to Elizabeth. Also, as I think I've said before, Elizabeth is just a really bad advocate for atheism because she seems to not so much be atheist as Soviet. She doesn't like religion because she was taught it was bad. She didn't consider religion with any kind of open mind and conclude it wasn't for her. Philip seems to have a little more objectivity about it--he doesn't believe it, but he sees it as a real force in the lives of people who do believe in it, one that he would prefer to steer clear of because of that. In Born Again Paige asked Elizabeth if she's ever tried praying, with Philip it's him asking her if she feels different after baptism.

 

One other note I forgot to mention re: Martha is I think the show perhaps is trying to make the point that Philip is stretched way thin at the moment and this probably contributes to his not being scared enough about Martha. Back in S1 Elizabeth and Philip almost got caught because their fear over the meeting with the Colonel made them complacent about picking up the bug. Now Philip's got so many things to worry about already he's allowed himself to be complacent about Martha's basic situation.

[Umbelina]

http://forums.previously.tv/topic/5191-the-politics-of-the-80s-it-was-tense-and-divisive-just-like-today/#entry517535

 

Actually there is a thread already made for getting into specifics about the politics of it all, it's on page two right now, but with the whole Paige thing apparently going through, it may see more action now and in the future.  Since this IS, at least in part, a politics show, I think discussing it is OK.  I probably don't want to see the whole liberal/conservative same-old-same-old rancor throwing us off in all of the episode threads, but for in depth stuff I think the mods are fine with that being discussed there.

"the politics of the 80s it was tense and divisive just like today"

 

I kind of hope they get into more about Yuri Andropov as new leader, and his KGB past on the show, you'd think that might have some impact on their agents in the field.  I'm also trying to think about how fast this show moves along, and what they'll do about the USA invading Grenada? 

 

Anyway, back to this one, I think the next episode will fill in a lot of blanks about Martha's feelings and reactions, and also that Philip will act/react to his "something is not right with Martha" feelings.  It only JUST happened, we saw, what?  About 10 hours of that, maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less.  I still think it was so well done, although I agree, that last scene could have been clearer.  I feel like we kind of watched it a bit like the new guy, and we were meant to.  THEY put things all together, because that's what they do, and have been trained to do.  This particular time, we weren't quite as "inside" as they were, on any of it.  I found it kind of cool being out of my depth there, and had a similar "WTF?" as the kid laying on the horn.'

 

ETA good point about Philip being stretched kind of thin lately.  I think having such divisive issues at home going on has also thrown him.  He trusts Elizabeth less, and he certainly seems to distrust Gabriel too, he's upset about Kimmy being 15, upset about his daughter being recruited for the KGB AND for Jesus, has the on-going Martha wants to adopt a child who needs a home which is something Philip philosophically might want to do himself, and in line with his own supposedly communist ideals, and now his son is fighting in a seriously dirty war in Afghanistan, and yes, the USA was doing everything they could to make that war even dirtier as a way to "get the USSR" as well as for our own political reasons in that area, obviously, meanwhile, Gabriel decided to have them take on South Africa as well.  They've been busy!

Edited March 16, 2015 by Umbelina

[sistermagpie]

and now his son is fighting in a seriously dirty war in Afghanistan, and yes, the USA was doing everything they could to make that war even dirtier as a way to "get the USSR" as well as for our own political reasons in that area, obviously, meanwhile, Gabriel decided to have them take on South Africa as well.  They've been busy!

 

 

It's interesting, now I think about it, that these two things are so carefully being introduced. Both are places where the US and USSR were fighting through other countries. Elizabeth specifically started bonding with Paige over the Civil Rights movement, which has the same principles as anti-Apartheid. Paige is already aware of the latter and Elizabeth is calling her attention to the problems in the US. Yet at the same time there's Afghanistan, which Paige and the church would probably be on the opposite side of, supporting the religious side against godless Communists. Interesting that the way that's shaken out so far is to put Paige on the opposite side not because of her own beliefs but because Philip's being pressured to follow orders (on Kimmie and presumably also Paige) to protect Mischa Jr. (I hate calling him just Mischa because that's Philip--really I keep wanting to call him Mikhail Mikhailovich or MM for short!). 

 

I keep waiting for some moment where Paige says something praying for Soviet defeat or how it serves those soldiers right to be killed for invading another country or something. But that subject hasn't come up with her. (Not that this is unrealistic--I don't think it would be a real focus for her.)

[RedHawk]

(I hate calling him just Mischa because that's Philip--really I keep wanting to call him Mikhail Mikhailovich or MM for short!).

 

 

We've sort of adopted "Misha Jr." on these boards, being slightly flip.

 

Yet it struck me as odd that Gabriel said, "His name is Misha" because it would be "Mikhail" if he were named after Philip. His official given name would not be Misha, the diminutive form.

[crgirl412]

I work at a hospital that has a robot called TUG and every, single time I see the classified-file robot moving in the halls at the FBI, I think of ours!!  

 

BTW, This is not my hospital but I wish it was and our TUG must be first generation technology compared to this one!   

 

https://vimeo.com/113720995

[Dev F]

That made total sense to me. Even if she thinks she's bugging the office for an internal investigation she never wanted to be outed as somebody bugging the office. When things got real, she panicked and cried and didn't want to get caught. She already felt guilty about it and this just brought it home. Getting caught with the bug, even if Walter Taffet was Clark, would be a horrible thing to go through on an ordinary Wednesday morning.

 

Yep. Even if Clark showed up and confirmed that she had planted a bug on his behalf, she's still the woman who sold out all her colleagues to another agency in the hopes of catching them in an act of malfeasance or incompetence. Gaad is certainly not going to want her in his office anymore, and other departments are unlikely to place much trust in her once word gets around. At best, it's a one-way ticket from the upper rungs of the administrative ladder to the bottom of the secretarial pool.

 

Yet it struck me as odd that Gabriel said, "His name is Misha" because it would be "Mikhail" if he were named after Philip. His official given name would not be Misha, the diminutive form.

 

I dunno, if he were an American I can imagine someone saying, for instance, "His name is Bobby" rather than "His name is Robert."

 

One interesting thing that the producers brought up in one of their behind-the-scenes interviews is the idea that Philip already suspected his and Irina's son was in combat in Afghanistan before Gabriel brought it up. That's not something I'd considered, and it adds interesting shading to some of his actions from last season -- for instance, when he guns down the mujahideen after one of them presents him with a knife and start talking about how he'd killed Soviet soldiers with it. That reaction seemed angry and personal in a way I couldn't quite make sense of at the time, but it makes sense if he was imagining the guy gutting Philip's own son.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Dev F

[sistermagpie]

One interesting thing that the producers brought up in one of their behind-the-scenes interviews is the idea that Philip already suspected his and Irina's son was in combat in Afghanistan before Gabriel brought it up.

 

 

It's funny, I hadn't thought of that either until really recently--like right before you posted this. Suddenly I thought oh, even when he was iffy about whether the kid existed he would probably imagine that if he did exist he'd be in Afghanistan, so that's why he's always been so obsessed with it. But before Gabriel flat-out said it it was still just his imagination. 

 

Though I still have a hard time buying the whole story, myself. I believe that Philip believes it, and it's a nicely cruel twist that the KGB has this idea to dangle over him with him having no way of probably ever knowing in his life if it's true. They've created a kid to be forever out of his reach that they can threaten at will. It just seems so convenient. They know very well that Philip's biggest loyalty is to his family, yet we've never seen him with tapes like Elizabeth has, so it's just soooo lucky that when they set him up with Irina again she tells him oh, btw, you have a Russian son too. A Russia son specifically tied to all our military interests! That fixes that little oversight of Philip's children all being American.

 

Yet it struck me as odd that Gabriel said, "His name is Misha" because it would be "Mikhail" if he were named after Philip. His official given name would not be Misha, the diminutive form.

 

I dunno, if he were an American I can imagine someone saying, for instance, "His name is Bobby" rather than "His name is Robert."

 

 

There are others that know more about this, but I imagine calling him by the short form emphasizes that he's a child, maybe? And also the intimacy of it. If they knew each other Philip would normally call him Mischa, not Mikhail. 

Edited March 16, 2015 by sistermagpie

[RedHawk]

There are others that know more about this, but I imagine calling him by the short form emphasizes that he's a child, maybe? And also the intimacy of it. If they knew each other Philip would normally call him Mischa, not Mikhail.

 

 

I saw it as more of Gabriel's psychological trickery. Using "Misha" does make him seem like more of a child. He's 20 and in the photo he's grown up, but Gabriel is putting in Philip's mind the idea that he's still a "boy", possibly in need of protection.

[crgirl412]

Exactly how much time do Clark and Martha spend together anyway? Like one night a week? Some weekends? It just seems crazy that Philip could justify so much time away from home with only the "travel agency" as his cover job, without his kids suspecting anything. Now with all the time with the 15 year old too. And speaking of the travel agency, it's a real business they've set up, right? That they're actually running, while doing all their other activities at the same time? That just seems like SO many things to be doing at once.

I would think that the travel agent business would be the best gig for spies with a family.  They tell their kids that they have to travel to the destinations that they try to sell to people.  Kids wouldn't know that it isn't true and neither would many adults.  Philip could spend a lot more time with Martha using that lie. 

[gunderda]

I want to know why Martha didn't throw the receiver in the garbage in the bathroom.. Why keep it??

[FormerMod-a1]

I want to know why Martha didn't throw the receiver in the garbage in the bathroom.. Why keep it??

 

Me too. I thought she was going to flush it down the toilet after breaking it apart and wiping it down.  And then she didn't.

[Umbelina]

Not many women in there, so I imagine finding that in the woman's room, plus her free access to Gaad's office would put even more suspicion on her. 

 

I'd want to get it the hell out of there too, if it were me, it's not like the entire place won't be searched top to bottom.  It seemed metal, so she probably didn't want to risk clogging the toilet with it, if she could have broken it up more, she might have done that.

[FormerMod-a1]

Not many women in there, so I imagine finding that in the woman's room, plus her free access to Gaad's office would put even more suspicion on her.

If she flushed it down the toilet, they wouldn't find it. 

[Umbelina]

I know, but it looked too big to flush.

[FormerMod-a1]

She could have kept breaking it though.  When she first started breaking it apart, that's what I thought she was going to do.  She did have some small pieces, so the others could have been broken more.  So, like I said in my first post, when she went into the bathroom I thought she was going to flush it.  So, if she had flushed it there would be nothing to find.  Basically, what she ended up with is not the same was what she could have ended up with.

[shura]

Well, maybe she simply didn't know if she would be able to break it into small enough pieces, or decided that it was taking too long to do it, risking that someone would walk in on her. A large piece would definitely cause a clog when someone else used the toilet. Then they'd quickly figure out the receiver was dumped after someone saw them discover the bug, and Martha was pretty much the only person, or one of the very few, who was in a position to see it. 

 

I feel like we kind of watched it a bit like the new guy, and we were meant to.  THEY put things all together, because that's what they do, and have been trained to do.  This particular time, we weren't quite as "inside" as they were, on any of it.  I found it kind of cool being out of my depth there, and had a similar "WTF?" as the kid laying on the horn.'

 

Good point. By the way, it occurred to me when I was rewatching that they didn't have to use Hans there. Elizabeth herself said she thought he wasn't ready and she wished she had three more months with him. They could have easily found someone else to stand watch there, the woman whose earrings Philip commandeered, for example. But they went with Hans, possibly to dirty him up and burn his bridges, so to speak. I wonder if this was Gabriel's idea, too.

[gunderda]

I don't think it would have been possible to flush. But now I see why she didn't stash it in the women's trash. 

[stillshimpy]

I think leaving that recording device anywhere , even down the toilet would be problematic for reasons beyond not being able to flush that entire glasses case with its secret compartment.  If it is in anyway found that means that the person who planted the bug was near enough to Gaad's office to suss out what was going on.  So it narrows the suspect pool down to a very small group. 

 

Also, metal doesn't flush very well (don't try it at home).  That thing records to a tape though, that's how Clark was able to play back the doctored tape to keep manipulating Martha.  So there's more to it than that little circuit board she was dousing.  

 

ETA:

I don't think it would have been possible to flush. But now I see why she didn't stash it in the women's trash.

 

Presumably since the bug sweeping operation was in plain view and impossible to miss, they'd also make a special point of sweeping the bathroom garbage for precisely that "whoever has the receiver is going to try and ditch it" reason.  

Edited March 16, 2015 by stillshimpy

[crgirl412]

Perhaps "Clark" gave her very specific instructions of what do in cases like this. 

[RedHawk]

On re-watch today I noticed that before the bug was found, Stan was out in the main room making a call to confirm some appointment for Zanaida. I chuckled a little thinking it sounded a bit like he was confirming a dental appointment, further evidence that he's basically her babysitter. What a lowly job for the mighty Stan. 

 

Then he notices that Gaad and Aderholt are having a convo in Gaad's office, and while talking at one point they look out directly at him. He's suspicious -- are they talking about him? -- and he wants to know what's going on, so he goes through the papers on his desk and finds one, taking it to Gaad's office with "I need a signature". 

 

Martha starts to get nervous when she looks back and sees the men examining the pen. Then they noisily close the blinds behind her. She isn't sure what's going on, but she thinks maybe they are already connecting it to her. That's why she doesn't just calmly sit there and wait to see what happens next.

[shura]

On re-watch today I noticed that before the bug was found, Stan was out in the main room making a call to confirm some appointment for Zanaida. I chuckled a little thinking it sounded a bit like he was confirming a dental appointment, further evidence that he's basically her babysitter.

 

Right, and he says "I'll hold", but then gets totally distracted by the happenings in Gaad's office and hangs up before he hears back. Damn it, the Russians just can't get a break with their dental work on this show!

Edited March 17, 2015 by shura

[Anne Elk]

I keep wondering if it will turn out in the end that all the anguish about recruiting Paige is just a front, and Gabriel has actually been secretly recruiting Henry behind his parents' backs the whole time. Just because it didn't work out with Emmet and Leanne's kid last year doesn't mean they might not try it again. And getting to Henry at a younger age would indeed make him potentially easier to turn. It's just so weird the way that kid keeps popping up with all these questions and seems to know everything about everyone.

 

The smart play is for Phillip to make Clark disappear and let Martha come to her own conclusions. More dramatic to have him try to play it out, though, so I'm sure that's what the show will do. The KGB will want to know what's up with the pen and just how much the FBI has discovered. Now that Gabriel has told him about Mischa Jr., Phillip really can't risk defying any of their orders.

 

I think Elizabeth is thawing toward Phillip because she knows that he can't roadblock her now without putting his potentially-real son in danger, so she can afford to take the long road with Paige. If she has any suspicions about Gabriel, she's not going to share them while Gabriel is helping her get what she wants.

 

I wondered if Stan was suspicious that Adenholt was an agent who had secretly been sent to check up on the office in the aftermath of the disastrous Nina operation. Sort of the real-life Clark, or an undercover Walter Taffet. The very interesting discussion in this thread has changed my mind on that. But remember last year, Stan dreamed that he saw Martha stealing classified files, even though he was too wrapped up in the Nina affair to notice the significance. I do think eventually Stan is going to consciously realize what he's already subconsciously figured out, and I think Adenholt is the one who's going to prod him into doing the math.

 

The Rezidentura storyline better step it up. I want to hear more Russian!

[sistermagpie]

I keep wondering if it will turn out in the end that all the anguish about recruiting Paige is just a front, and Gabriel has actually been secretly recruiting Henry behind his parents' backs the whole time. Just because it didn't work out with Emmet and Leanne's kid last year doesn't mean they might not try it again. And getting to Henry at a younger age would indeed make him potentially easier to turn. It's just so weird the way that kid keeps popping up with all these questions and seems to know everything about everyone.

 

 

I think there's very good reason they shouldn't try again--it erases the whole drama of S3 (where Philip and Elizabeth have to struggle with this for themselves) for an M. Night Shamalayan twist that requires Henry to be able to show no signs of having his world blown apart and treat his parents the same way he did before. He really hasn't been shown knowing much about anybody. He asks obvious questions when odd things are presented to him. He's getting to be the same age Paige was when she started looking at her parents differently and he's probably doing it too. But I don't think he'd be easier to turn than Paige. 

 

Really, there's things about Henry that would make him less easy to turn. Paige likes to devote herself fully to things and is looking for someplace to "put it all." She found the church and got into it 100%. Henry has multiple interests that come and go, is skeptical and asks questions.

[gwhh]

That happen WAY before Phillip found out he had a kid!

 

Also Phillip Soviet son is in one of the elite soviet union military units in Afghanistan (better know as the graveyard of empires).  That an elite unit of the soviet military (equal to our own airborne units).  Much better than being in a regular draftee unit (also know as cannon folder).  I know that to get into the more elite units of the soviet military (special forces) you had to be a commie in very good standing first and foremost.  I wonder if the airborne unit had the same policy, just not as stringent as the soviet special forces.   

 

One interesting thing that the producers brought up in one of their behind-the-scenes interviews is the idea that Philip already suspected his and Irina's son was in combat in Afghanistan before Gabriel brought it up. That's not something I'd considered, and it adds interesting shading to some of his actions from last season -- for instance, when he guns down the mujahideen after one of them presents him with a knife and start talking about how he'd killed Soviet soldiers with it. That reaction seemed angry and personal in a way I couldn't quite make sense of at the time, but it makes sense if he was imagining the guy gutting Philip's own son.

 

Edited March 18, 2015 by gwhh

[sistermagpie]

That happen WAY before Phillip found out he had a kid!

 

 

The scene in teh restaurant where he killed the Afghani men? He knew about the son from Irina by then. He didn't know if it was true, but the possibility was in his head--she told him her son was in the army.

[crgirl412]

I can't get that invested in the Philip-has-another-son storyline since there is no real proof.  We don't know if Irina and Gabriel are lying to make him more pliable to the Center. 

[stillshimpy]

can't get that invested in the Philip-has-another-son storyline since there is no real proof.  We don't know if Irina and Gabriel are lying to make him more pliable to the Center.

 

I get what you're saying and I think that's a fair point to make.  However, the point of the story seems to be that Phillip, pretty clearly, wholeheartedly believes it to be the truth.  So whether or not this young man is truly Phillip's son doesn't matter to me, what matters is that he thinks it is the truth.  

 

Plus, Irina was captured and taken by to the USSR, so the stakes get upped for the kid's safety right there also.  If he's real, he has one parent that is a captured traitor and then another who would be a darling of the party, due to his continued and successful undercover work in America.  Gabriel rather wisely couched it in terms that suggested perhaps The Center didn't wholly believe Irina, "She says he's yours" rather than "He is yours" which more clearly indicate "...and we totally buy that!"  

 

It's at least a little bit brilliant, because it is a way of manipulating Phillip on a lot of levels, including "...if this kid is real and Phillip steps too far out of line the Soviet Union would not be above taking it out on the young man in question."  Phillip told Elizabeth about his alleged other son, but without any of those "could be" type of framing devices.  He told Elizabeth as if it was a confirmed fact. 

 

I think it is an interesting insight into his character -- and meant to be so -- that his character motivation would be influenced by this son, of whom he has no real proof, other than the word of people who lie for their living.  Not just Phillip's ability to trust that he isn't being lied to, but that he cares about the fate of this person enough to have it change his actions when it comes to Paige.  A child he knows is his, has raised and dearly loves.  

 

Interesting insight into a guy who has to kill people to get his job done.  There just shouldn't be any real bond to that person other than "really, go figure" and a lot of men would sit there and do the math about how many kids they might have running around in the world, rather than specifically take pride or care about the "my son" of it all.   

 

I think that's why Elizabeth looked, if not doubtful, a little strained at the news.  It's too long ago for her to really have any jealousy issues.  I think she also might suspect that it is just a little too perfect a fit as a motivator for Phillip and that even if the young man is real and really Phillip's son, the only reason Gabriel told Phillip was to introduce a control factor.  

 

I think Elizabeth got that.  That even if it is absolutely true, it is absolutely just a device to manipulate Phillip and furthermore, it seems to be working entirely.  

[Dev F]

I think we're meant to wonder whether Irina was lying about her son, or at least about whether he belongs to Philip, but I'm not sure it makes sense for the Center to have been behind her initial confession. Irina was just about to defect when she told him about Mischa, and she tried to convince Phillip to come with her. I can't imagine she was lying about that as part of some loyalty test, since a) Phillip and Irina were in the middle of a sensitive mission at the time, which is hardly when you want your operatives contemplating defection, and b) the KGB had just gotten finished testing Phillip's loyalty in the episode immediately prior, and they reached the conclusion that he was solid.

[stillshimpy]

I think we're meant to wonder whether Irina was lying about her son, or at least about whether he belongs to Philip, but I'm not sure it makes sense for the Center to have been behind her initial confession.

 

I absolutely agree, Dev F.  I think there's a possibility that Irina invented Mischa out of whole cloth to try and convince Phillip to come with her.  To suggest that they had a bond between them that was lasting and trumped Phillip's bond with his kids in the U.S.   in duration and being born out of an actual love, vs. an assignment.  

 

I think upon capture that Irina might have told the Center "....and I tried to get Phillip to come with me by telling him we had a son together, but he chose to stay...." and happy little lights went off in the group think tank of The Center.  "That's perfect.  Why didn't we think of that before this? Totally using that one.  Whose picture did you use?  Your cousin's Yuri's?  Nice trick.  Good to know."  

 

I don't think Mischa was an invention of The Center.  There's even a possibility that Mischa was real, but is long dead, but real or otherwise, he's also a tool whether he's an invention or a person.  

[sistermagpie]

I think we're meant to wonder whether Irina was lying about her son, or at least about whether he belongs to Philip, but I'm not sure it makes sense for the Center to have been behind her initial confession. Irina was just about to defect when she told him about Mischa, and she tried to convince Phillip to come with her. I can't imagine she was lying about that as part of some loyalty test, since a) Phillip and Irina were in the middle of a sensitive mission at the time, which is hardly when you want your operatives contemplating defection, and b) the KGB had just gotten finished testing Phillip's loyalty in the episode immediately prior, and they reached the conclusion that he was solid.

 

 

I could believe it either way--in fact, since they used a different actress in the picture of Irina in the premiere (just because they hadn't cast her yet, I assume) I like to think that the woman Philip met in NY wasn't even Irina! :-)

 

But just as we only have Irina's word about this alleged son--a word that contradicts what she told Philip in the past where she dumped him for another man, we only have her word that she was planning to defect. Sure the KGB learned that Philip wasn't the mole the week before--that doesn't mean all Elizabeth's many reports about him weren't true. Wanting to run is in fact far closer to Philip's actual temptation than wanting to be a mole for the US and Claudia is at the time absolutely distrustful of Philip and the affect he has on Elizabeth. Distrustful enough to apparently find out that he slept with Irina (or pretend she did) and tell Elizabeth to destroy her trust in Philip. Even if he didn't actually run with Irina he might have said things to her in response to her revelations. Irina didn't tell him about her plans to run until the mission was over and she and Philip were going their separate ways. Even the stuff about her son occurred after they'd left the Polish guy, when Philip just had to beat her up. To me, at the time, the possibility that this was a test seemed that much more believable coming right after Trust Me rather than unlikely because Philip had just proved himself there.

 

So Irina could just as easily have fed Philip a bullshit story about running away and then not done anything--how would Philip know? Now Gabriel's telling him the same story, that she ran and was caught. So not only is Gabriel telling Philip about his discovery of this kid at a convenient time, that time depends on Irina also being caught. If she really did run she could have been caught at any time and Gabriel's just telling Philip about it now. If she never ran anywhere he could just still be spinning that story while Irina's in Canada.

 

It's also possible that Irina really did have a son. Or that the son was not Philip's. Or that he was. Her whole story makes no sense--how was she raising a son and also living in Canada as an Illegal? Why did she have to lie to Philip about being pregnant to save his career, yet she herself could have the child (abortion was totally an option for her!) and somehow have the same basic career? If she's an Illegal, where is she getting pictures of her son in uniform to carry around and show Philip--the Centre had to have allowed her to have that. It's like they need her to represent the girl he left behind/the life he could have had in Russia yet also the life he could have now as an ex-Illegal. And also at the time I questioned the exact thing brought up here--if she has a son in the military how can she be bringing him up to Philip AND suggesting they run away together? Does she want the kid punished?

 

Gabriel rather wisely couched it in terms that suggested perhaps The Center didn't wholly believe Irina, "She says he's yours" rather than "He is yours" which more clearly indicate "...and we totally buy that!"

 

 

Brilliant catch! I totally noticed his word choice but didn't see that meaning--it's great. It gives Philip even more responsibility. The kid has a mother who put him in danger for her own desires, so he has to be the loyal one.

 

I think it is an interesting insight into his character -- and meant to be so -- that his character motivation would be influenced by this son, of whom he has no real proof, other than the word of people who lie for their living.  Not just Phillip's ability to trust that he isn't being lied to, but that he cares about the fate of this person enough to have it change his actions when it comes to Paige.  A child he knows is his, has raised and dearly loves.

 

 

Absolutely. And I don't even think it's about Philip trusting he's not being lied to--because we know from his reaction to Irina that he doesn't take this kid's reaction at face value--but that on this issue he will believe despite knowing that and let it change his actions, like you said. In the pilot when Elizabeth asks if he doesn't care about the Motherland he says he cares about "all of it" and I think that's been central to the character--he cares about his assets (even as he kills them/lets them die), cares somewhat about random people in that he hopes he can do his job without hurting them, cares about the kids, and Elizabeth, and the cause and the Motherland. Now when presented with this kid, when he repurposes the story for Kimmie, he says he "never took any responsibility."

 

Now, in Jim's version of the story, of course, he seems to have known his girlfriend was pregnant and just walked away, but that's the thing he stresses and it certainly reflects what Philip seems to feel (and the Centre wants him to feel) about this phantom Russian son. He has a personal responsibility to him to try to protect him even though he doesn't know him at all and there's no real reason for him to feel connected to him.

 

We don't know about Philip's backstory the way we do Elizabeth's, but it really seems like since Day 1 he's had an overdeveloped instinct for protecting himself and other people, and that this is central to his whole career. It would be really strange at this point if his backstory didn't hit this the way it hits Elizabeth's overwhelming need to prove herself devoted to the cause. He now seems to think he's not only got to try to protect Mischa Jr. on the battlefield, but he has to protect him from the Centre as well, knowing they'll punish him to keep his bio-dad in line.

 

All of which makes the fact that he tells Elizabeth about him even more significant. The week before he started to tell her and stopped when she started singing Gabriel's praises as "just wanting to help" with Paige. This week he seemed to separate the two again, and be able to trust that even though they disagreed on what Gabriel was doing with Paige he *did* want to share Mischa Jr. with her and trusted that she would be only protective of him despite the Irina connection. 

[Blakeston]

Respectfully, I've been a black person for more than 47 years, and I'm pretty comfortable with my ability to place comments on the racism spectrum. I just didn't think that Stan' s inclusion of Aderholt' s race was hostile, condescending, or coming from a place of power. It just was a fact, which we nowadays do notice but don't verbalize. Based on its tone I would not, personally, label it racist.

 

Let's say you overheard someone complaining about a black coworker, and they said, "He's annoying, and he's a black guy, and he's always asking too many questions." That wouldn't strike you as being potentially racist at all? I don't recall Stan's exact words, but he definitely threw in the "black guy" thing in the middle of a list of complaints.

 

So why panic and run to the bathroom, then?  That's destroying a valuable, presumably expensive, piece of U.S. gov't equipment for no reason.

 

The thing is, when Clark asked Martha to plant the bug, he didn't make it sound like she was doing it as part of an official investigation. He asked her to do it because it would help his career to have the inside info that the FBI was refusing to give out.

 

Even if the situation had been just as he said it was, Martha's actions still would have been illegal. That's why he felt the need to propose before asking her - because it was such a huge, dangerous favor to request, and she probably wouldn't agree to put herself at risk like that if marriage wasn't on the table.

[Archery]

Let's say you overheard someone complaining about a black coworker, and they said, "He's annoying, and he's a black guy, and he's always asking too many questions." That wouldn't strike you as being potentially racist at all? I don't recall Stan's exact words, but he definitely threw in the "black guy" thing in the middle of a list of complaints.

 

 

Since you asked, neither his tone nor his context raised my "this guy is racist" antenna.  He wasn't complaining that the guy was black, or using it in a derogatory way, just describing the man.  To me it has more to do with the fact that if you said "a person walked down the street," the default would be "white man," and everyone else gets a descriptor.  That is my perspective as a person of colour, and you really don't have to agree with me.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Archery

[lucindabelle]

Yes, it's like describing a criminal on the loose. Generally you DO put in race just as you put in height and approximate age. It doesn't make you ageist or heightist, either.

[Blakeston]

Yes, it's like describing a criminal on the loose. Generally you DO put in race just as you put in height and approximate age. It doesn't make you ageist or heightist, either.

 

There's a pretty huge difference between mentioning race when you're giving a physical description of someone, and mentioning someone's race when you're making a laundry list of the things you don't like about them.

If Stan had been talking about the coworker in a neutral context, and described him as a black guy, it might have sounded a little odd, but it wouldn't have drawn the same reactions. This context was completely different.

[Umbelina]

Back when Irina showed up, I really thought "she's lying."  Not just about the supposed child they had, but also about defecting.  Elizabeth had already expressed doubts about Philip to Center after all.  I think they were testing him, would he show interest in defecting?

 

So, if my feeling then was true?  Irina wasn't caught and now in disgrace.  She's still an active agent, but not anywhere Philip would see her.  The child?  Maybe, maybe not.  As others have pointing out though, the threat from Gabriel was clear, "We have your kid.  Do what we say."

 

I'd believe that there is a kid before I'd believe that Irina was defecting and just stopped by to ask Philip to join her.

[lucindabelle]

I guess some one us heard him giving a description of the guy so the new person would know who he was talking about, while others heard it as yet another thing he minded.

That you think it would have sounded odd evn in a neutral context basically shows you're offended vy it being mentioned, but I don't see why, if all he's trying to do is specify which person he means, or how it's different from aging the tall guy, the redhead.b

If he'd said the Jewish guy that would be meaningful because it's not something visible, but again, people apparently took it to mean different things.

Edited March 19, 2015 by lucindabelle

[sistermagpie]

If he'd said the Jewish guy that would be meaningful because it's not something visible, but again, people apparently took it to mean different things.

 

 

My feeling was Stan meant it to be neutral, but he would have mentioned if he was Jewish too, because he was trying to describe the whole way the guy interacted with the audience and figure out his own reaction to him. You can read all sorts of things into him just dropping the information in there to Philip, from negative (he's black so he's trying to show off) to neutral (this is part of who he is, if it matters) to positive (he must be good at his job because he's not benefiting from nepotism).

 

The very fact that it could mean all those things is what makes it a better statement about race than pretty much all the overt statements people were making elsewhere about race, imo!

[lucindabelle]

Well no becauseJewih isnt something immediately Isobel unless the guy was wearing a yarmulke or something, that would actually be rather offensive, as would the mention of any religion, even if guy was wearing a cross.

I hope you're not actually saying being Jewish or black has some way a person interacts with others? If that's wha Stan meant, and it's not how I head it, I would also be offended. I thought it was just a simple visual thing.

[sistermagpie]

Well no becauseJewih isnt something immediately Isobel unless the guy was wearing a yarmulke or something, that would actually be rather offensive, as would the mention of any religion, even if guy was wearing a cross.

I hope you're not actually saying being Jewish or black has some way a person interacts with others? If that's wha Stan meant, and it's not how I head it, I would also be offended. I thought it was just a simple visual thing.

 

 

Stan wasn't describing what Aderholdt looked like physically--why would he be doing that? He didn't say anything else about his appearance that I remember. He was describing this new guy in the office as a co-worker. Him asking a lot of questions was part of that, being a good agent was part of that, and him being black was also a significant detail. He's the only minority in the whole office at the moment and it does effect the way people interact with him--as Taffett said in this ep where he asked if people resented him because he was "new." It's more like: there's a new guy at the office. Asks a lot of questions. Good agent. Black guy. Made me look foolish a few times...I don't know how I feel about him. It's part of the whole description, but it's not like saying he's average height. Doesn't have to be positive or negative, but it is something Stan felt was relevant to what he was saying or else he wouldn't have thrown it in. I thought it was realistic and intentionally didn't have a clear meaning for Stan.

Edited March 19, 2015 by sistermagpie

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Noah Emmerich talks about directing this episode:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2Sf83L7Fus

[stillshimpy]

Stan wasn't describing what Aderholdt looked like physically--why would he be doing that?

 

Truly, there isn't any reason that Stan would feel the need to draw a mental picture for Phillip in describing the coworker who was bugging him, unless Stan thought that his coworker's appearance was worth mentioning as an element of the tale.  There's no need for Phillip to know what Aderholt looks like and it is no way comparable to describing a suspect to the police. This is two friends, kvetching over beers about workplace and relationship woes.  

 

But I think it is important to remember that there are degrees of almost everything.  Clearly Stan was not displaying some "might as well head back to your undercover friends there, Stan" form of hatefulness.  I don't think he was being a bigot, but I do think that he was displaying the mildest form of racism....making the distinction of an Otherness, basically.   Someone different.  Someone outside of the known group.  

 

I have never bothered to stop and say, "Wow, a woman in my book group, a brunette with a button nose, has been bothering me...."   and in the context of the conversation -- which was Stan listing stuff about Aderholt that was bugging him -- he brought up something that was fairly neutral in how he phrased it, but significant in that it was a declaration of something that really shouldn't have any bearing in the situation and is a wholly unnecessary detail.  He didn't mention Aderholt's weight, height, shoe size, identifying characteristics like "He has a mustache"....so he wasn't providing information on what the guy looks like. 

 

It doesn't make Stan some "don a hood and burn a cross when you say that" racist, but Stan was singling out something about Aderholt that really was apropos of very little.  I might say to someone, "This man I met, he's super tall, I'd say at least 6'5"..." but if I was doing that, it would be because his height stuck out to me as being different.  Just speaking from personal experience, I don't describe anyone unless I feel there is something extraordinary about that person.  Something worth noting.  Something that sets that person apart.  Kind of like what Stan did.   Is it racism in its most distressing forms?  No.   It is making a distinction of "...this stands out in my mind, when I think about this person."  

 

ETA: In all fairness, part of the reason I thought Stan brought that up was not "because he's hateful" , but because he was aware, "Jeez, I'm not reacting to this guy like this because of his race....am I?"  and that's part of why he might have floated that out there to Phillip.  So he might have been practicing some full disclosure to see if Phillip said anything.  Just a "I'm testing the waters here, I don't think this has any bearing, but if I don't mention it when it is in my mind...what does that mean and....? Oh hell"   I think it's human nature to trip around in our own minds, trying to figure out how and what we feel.  

Edited March 19, 2015 by stillshimpy

[Guest]

 

There's a pretty huge difference between mentioning race when you're giving a physical description of someone, and mentioning someone's race when you're making a laundry list of the things you don't like about them.

If Stan had been talking about the coworker in a neutral context, and described him as a black guy, it might have sounded a little odd, but it wouldn't have drawn the same reactions. This context was completely different.

I see both sides.  I find myself sometimes wanting to include race in an anecdote I'm telling but I usually bite my tongue because I realize it's not appropriate to in today's world, in that particular situation.  Though I think Stan's in a different world, one where Love's Baby Soft commercials were another thing you didn't bat an eye at.  

 

I'm confused by Elisabeth being a little jealous over Phillip and Kimmie possibly getting physical but not over Phillip and Martha playing married.  I thought her concern might be more for Kimmie, her being a mother, but in the Slate insiders podcast the showrunner said it's jealousy.  It seems a little backward to me.  

[stillshimpy]

I don't think Elizabeth is jealous, I think she's uncomfortable because Kimmie is the same age as her daughter.  It's inherently uncomfortable on a lot of levels.  Using someone who is little better than a child, etc. 

 

 

 

Though I think Stan's in a different world, one where Love's Baby Soft commercials were another thing you didn't bat an eye at.

 

True, but this is also Stan we're talking about.  The guy who took two years to talk to his son about his undercover work and when he did, he spoke in sneeze-sentences.  "He was bad.  He was really bad.  You can ask me" , Stan is not a man prone to throwing in chatty details, would be my point there.  He's a guy who struggles for years to put together a sentence illuminating his feelings and motivations to his nearest and dearest. 

 

So I don't know, I'm really not condemning Stan, but he's the Anti-Chat when it comes to communicating things.  He doesn't throw words around easily, or even formulate sentences well.  He doesn't have the gift of the gab.  Stan saying something, pretty much anything, seems to indicate that it has weight with him and words do not come easily to him. 

Edited March 19, 2015 by stillshimpy

[sistermagpie]

In all fairness, part of the reason I thought Stan brought that up was not "because he's hateful" , but because he was aware, "Jeez, I'm not reacting to this guy like this because of his race....am I?"  and that's part of why he might have floated that out there to Phillip.  

 

 

Answering in the new Agent Aderholt thread I just started!

[Guest]

I don't think Elizabeth is jealous, I think she's uncomfortable because Kimmie is the same age as her daughter.  It's inherently uncomfortable on a lot of levels.  Using someone who is little better than a child, etc. 

 

I said it was the show runners who said she's jealous but it's actually Keri Russell who says Elizabeth is jealous of Phillip's outside sex life but she does say she's also uncomfortable with Kimmie's age.  I can see her getting jealous from Phillip's working sex but she just seems on screen to be indifferent to Martha but jealous when he's with Kimmie.  

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/03/05/the_americans_star_keri_russell_on_this_week_s_slate_tv_club_insider_podcast.html

[sistermagpie]

I can see her getting jealous from Phillip's working sex but she just seems on screen to be indifferent to Martha but jealous when he's with Kimmie.

 

 

She wasn't so indifferent to Martha last season when she thought she might be getting a different side of Clark, though. She looked at their bed and imagined Philip sleeping there. She also started calling Martha "your wife" in the way she said "your girl" about Kimmie--and Philip both times was annoyed at that. I don't think she's completely indifferent to Martha.

[Guest]

Yeah, true.  I don't know, she just seemed more amused or titillated by the Martha thing, more than disturbed or jealous.  I always expected her to show some real resentment like when Phillip leaves her alone overnight with the kids to go play house with Martha but usually Elizabeth acts like he's off to the office, or like she couldn't care less if he goes or stays.  Though if this season is about showing more c***** in her armor, there's that.  

[BW Manilowe]

Yeah, true. I don't know, she just seemed more amused or titillated by the Martha thing, more than disturbed or jealous. I always expected her to show some real resentment like when Phillip leaves her alone overnight with the kids to go play house with Martha but usually Elizabeth acts like he's off to the office, or like she couldn't care less if he goes or stays. Though if this season is about showing more c***** in her armor, there's that.

I remember 1 time when Philip needed a piece of jewelry to give (I'm pretty sure it was) Martha, or another female "mark", as a present for some reason. Elizabeth went over to her own jewelry box, took out 1 of her own necklaces/pendants, & gave it to Philip. And (I at least thought) she seemed to be kind of resentful, or at least not very happy somehow, about giving up something of hers for "another woman" of Philip's.

[sistermagpie]

And (I at least thought) she seemed to be kind of resentful, or at least not very happy somehow, about giving up something of hers for "another woman" of Philip's.

 

 

It's in Trust Me or right after and he's angry at her about talking to the Centre. He resentfully asks for a piece of her jewelry and she gives him something that obviously has personal significance-like she ups his passive-aggressively asking for her jewelry for Martha by giving him something that he specifically gave her as a gift to say it's worthless to her.

 

Later Clark has to ask Martha to take it off during sex because it distracts him!

 

I think when it comes to his ongoing relationships she's bothered by it but has learned to put up with it.

[Guest]

You guys have good memories.  I know Phillip just did that with Kimmie and the unnamed operative in the study-- took her earrings.  I guess the moral is 'be sure your gifts of jewelry are new in boxes'.  Even in the 80s, who gave gifts of unboxed jewelry?