S03.E11: One Day In The Life Of Anton Baklanov

[sistermagpie]

Oops, wrong thread...

Edited April 16, 2015 by sistermagpie

[Guest]

I think Phillip knew only that it affected her somehow, either because she felt guilty and was 'making it up' to Phillip or because she felt the need to purge after what should have been a routine action.  In either case, not professional.  That's why he was looking a gift blowjob in the eye - something was up.  

 

I don't know about guilt... she knows full well it's not some breach of fidelity to Phillip.  And who purges with a blow job?  "I feel so dirty and violated.  I think I'll get comfort by sticking this dick in my mouth..."  

[RedHawk]

I don't know about guilt... she knows full well it's not some breach of fidelity to Phillip.  And who purges with a blow job?  "I feel so dirty and violated.  I think I'll get comfort by sticking this dick in my mouth..."

 

 

I don't know. I read the sex scene with hotel guy as Elizabeth getting legitimately, unexpectedly turned on and enjoying the sex. She felt a little thrown off and guilty so she wanted to give to Philip and reconnect with him. It may be that she has deeper feelings of sexual fidelity now, in recent months, than ever before, as their relationship has evolved. 

[henripootel]

"I feel so dirty and violated.  I think I'll get comfort by sticking this dick in my mouth..."

"I feel so dirty and violated.  I think I'll get comfort by sticking my husband's dick in my mouth..."  I think this is a point that is starting to mean something to Elizabeth and that's ... troubling, to Phillip.  It's professionally troublesome (as this is no small part of Elizabeth's repertoire as a spy) and alarming on a personal front - what if Elizabeth starts to resent (more than usual) Phillip's sleeping with other women?  This will just make the odd aspects of their marriage all the more difficult. 

[SlackerInc]

I honestly don't think it's the actor. The show runners seem to chalk it up to being in the Jennings pov, but I think the character himself is written as genuinely threatening and often played that way. Not threatening on a deadly level, but very provocative. It's not suddenly benign because it's a legit church or he's a legit youth pastor.

 

So you're saying the showrunners aren't clear on how their own show is being written?  For me, he's only "threatening" to atheists or those from a different religious philosophy (and I say this as an atheist myself).  Which is, I'd think, exactly what a pastor is supposed to be to those groups, or s/he's being too much of a "go along, get along" milquetoast.

[sistermagpie]

So you're saying the showrunners aren't clear on how their own show is being written?  For me, he's only "threatening" to atheists or those from a different religious philosophy (and I say this as an atheist myself).  Which is, I'd think, exactly what a pastor is supposed to be to those groups, or s/he's being too much of a "go along, get along" milquetoast.

 

 

No,  I'm saying that given some of the things they've said I'm not sure if they're really intending to come across as threatening as he comes across because people keep coming up with theories about how he must be a pervert, a cult leader or in the KGB. He doesn't come across to a large number of people as threatening simply because he's Christian because he doesn't come across as being all that Christian. He seems more just an egotist and he does things that people think are inappropriate for a pastor. The showrunners have occasionally said things that make it sound as if yes, it's just that people are in the pov of P&E who are atheists and threatened by Christianity, but that really doesn't seem to be it.

[Guest]

I don't know. I read the sex scene with hotel guy as Elizabeth getting legitimately, unexpectedly turned on and enjoying the sex. She felt a little thrown off and guilty so she wanted to give to Philip and reconnect with him. It may be that she has deeper feelings of sexual fidelity now, in recent months, than ever before, as their relationship has evolved. 

That could be.  I also thought she was legitimately turned on in bed with the guy, and then again by the quick necking before she left, but she took it home like a good wife and mother.  I think she's seeing her actions through Paige's eyes now.  

[Roseanna]

On ‎9‎.‎4‎.‎2015 at 6:28 AM, RedHawk said:

I liked this one. When Nina and Anton were talking over their meal, and she told him she wouldn't tell anyone, I really felt the actress playing Nina was doing an amazing job. Now, maybe she is making Nina that great an actress, but I felt Nina's heart softening and I believed what she said about "being traded" and not ever getting to be herself. 

 

On ‎9‎.‎4‎.‎2015 at 7:50 AM, Boundary said:

How good is Nina? I actually internally rose up and clapped. That was masterful. Tell the guy you're spying on that you've been sent to spy on him but you haven't told anyone (and really, don't tell anyone). This buys you more trust and once you're in it's only a matter of time. That's some talent she's got. Nina's heart isn't softening, she's playing with the guy.

I agree with Boundary. After we have heard Nina's instructions and seen how she made Evi trust on her, can we ever believe her to be sincere? 

However, this episode is hardest to believe. The Soviets surely have many young beautiful women who have scientific training who could do this job much better. I can't believe that Anton can trust Nina who has no job in the workplace than give him tea and snack - it's obvious that she is an informer.

Most of all, Nina already knows the matter that could give Anton a motivation to work: he must have regular letters from his son and a promise that once his job is done, he may join him in the USA. (Any guard worth his salt would have found the papers.)

[Roseanna]

On ‎10‎.‎4‎.‎2015 at 2:32 AM, RedheadZombie said:

Has Elizabeth ever been shown evidence that her father was a coward/traitor?  I think that would be an exceptional manipulation tactic to recruit zealots.  I found it interesting that Elizabeth didn't share her father's supposed history with Paige.

We saw a flashback that as a child Elizabeth wanted to participate in some occasion - I don't know what it was exactly but something in honour of those fallen or war.  Her mother told her that she had no right (meaning she wasn't a child of the war hero, unlike other war orphans).

Anyway, it couldn't be held as a secret, at least if they lived in the same neigborhood. I don't know exactly what kind of benefits the families of the Soviet soldiers had during the war and after it, but they surely stopped if the soldier was captured (a POW was regarded as a traitor) or executed. The family was held responsible, too.

Considering this, it's strange that there was a photo in Elizabeth's hime about her father in uniform. It would more suit the character of Elizabeth's mother to destroy it and move elsewhere nobody knew of their past.

To Elizabeth, her father's fate is a shame, personally as well as ideologically and nationally (all Soviet people weren't heroic, unlike the official version tells). It's therefore quite natural that she didn't tell it Paige.  

[Roseanna]

On ‎16‎.‎4‎.‎2015 at 7:40 PM, RedHawk said:

 

I don't know. I read the sex scene with hotel guy as Elizabeth getting legitimately, unexpectedly turned on and enjoying the sex. She felt a little thrown off and guilty so she wanted to give to Philip and reconnect with him. It may be that she has deeper feelings of sexual fidelity now, in recent months, than ever before, as their relationship has evolved. 

I find this strange.

Philip, as a man, must be turned, otherwise he can't have an intercourse with Martha, Anneliese and others. Elizabeth, as a woman, can fake. But if she for once enjoyed sex with the hotel quy, it was an automatic reaction about which she had no reason to feel quilty. 

Just as before, she acted according her role. If an actress gets turned when making a sex scene, she isn't unfaithful to her spouse irl. 

Before all, unlike between Stan and Nina (at least from his side), sex included no openness and intimacy, it was just sex.

I think sex is overvalued in the concept of fidelity. One can be more unfaithful in other ways. The reason why Philip was angry about Gregory was that Elizabeth had shared "her innermost feelings" with him.  

Edited May 28, 2017 by Roseanna
clearing Stan's relationship with Nina

[sistermagpie]

5 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Philip, as a man, must be turned, otherwise he can't have an intercourse with Martha, Anneliese and others. Elizabeth, as a woman, can fake. But if she for once enjoyed sex with the hotel quy, it was an automatic reaction about which she had no reason to feel quilty. 

I think Elizabeth might have been more upset because she wants to be in complete control, rather than necessarily feeling guilty as if she'd cheated. For most of her career she probably never was unexpectedly turned on during sex. But after months of only sleeping with Philip her body would probably automatically respond more genuinely than it had in the past. So I can totally believe that she was upset by her physical reaction, even if there was no reason for her to be. She's always upset when she has feeling she didn't decide beforehand she was going to have.

[Roseanna]

On ‎18‎.‎4‎.‎2015 at 6:29 AM, sistermagpie said:

 

No,  I'm saying that given some of the things they've said I'm not sure if they're really intending to come across as threatening as he comes across because people keep coming up with theories about how he must be a pervert, a cult leader or in the KGB. He doesn't come across to a large number of people as threatening simply because he's Christian because he doesn't come across as being all that Christian. He seems more just an egotist and he does things that people think are inappropriate for a pastor. The showrunners have occasionally said things that make it sound as if yes, it's just that people are in the pov of P&E who are atheists and threatened by Christianity, but that really doesn't seem to be it.

I think that it's good that the audience has different interpretations about a protagonist - that means his/character and action is successfully created. And that's how it's also irl: what is normal to some people, can be weird to others.

The showrunners should be satisfied with that and not to say how they inteded Pastor Tim to be (which I think it's quite useless anyway).

Also, unlike P&E, Paige, Stan, Oleg and Nina, we have seen Pastor Tim only from outside when he is with Paige and her parents. So far, we have never seen him talk about Paige and her problems with his wife, not even seen how he behaved with Paige and other young people until we saw how he had influenced on Paige so that she became so committed to his church that she gave all her money to it. 

I am not blaming that we don't know, on the contrary it's a good decision dramatically, especially as it makes an opposite situation to the relationship with Martha and Kimmie. We know Phillip's intentions towards them whereas they don't. Now we are as ignorant as P&E about Pastor Tim's intentions towards Paige if he has indeed any.

[vavera4ka]

On ‎4‎/‎8‎/‎2015 at 10:28 PM, RedHawk said:

I liked this one. When Nina and Anton were talking over their meal, and she told him she wouldn't tell anyone, I really felt the actress playing Nina was doing an amazing job. Now, maybe she is making Nina that great an actress, but I felt Nina's heart softening and I believed what she said about "being traded" and not ever getting to be herself. 

I'd like to comment on semi-authenticity of that meal 

The salad they got is a classic staple salad in USSR (still in those countries actually). Why I add "semi"? It's a "holiday salad". You would be hard pressed to find a celebratory table anywhere in former USSR or in the families of immigrants without this salad. To the point that my friend, when going through vegetarian stage she still ate that salad for NYE even though it has meat (usually bologna, sometimes boiled chicken or beef). Cause NYE without Olivier salad is not NYE.

It was rather expensive to make for a regular day, especially in a cafeteria... But I'll give them a pass, taking into account that it was a high level military research facility. I can see them having a larger budget for cafeteria.

[Umbelina]

3 hours ago, vavera4ka said:

I'd like to comment on semi-authenticity of that meal 

The salad they got is a classic staple salad in USSR (still in those countries actually). Why I add "semi"? It's a "holiday salad". You would be hard pressed to find a celebratory table anywhere in former USSR or in the families of immigrants without this salad. To the point that my friend, when going through vegetarian stage she still ate that salad for NYE even though it has meat (usually bologna, sometimes boiled chicken or beef). Cause NYE without Olivier salad is not NYE.

It was rather expensive to make for a regular day, especially in a cafeteria... But I'll give them a pass, taking into account that it was a high level military research facility. I can see them having a larger budget for cafeteria.

I don't remember it, what was in it?  Does it have a name I could google?  Thanks!  I love details like this!

[vavera4ka]

17 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

I don't remember it, what was in it?  Does it have a name I could google?  Thanks!  I love details like this!

This is the closest to traditional that I was able to find. Thought "traditional" depends on a family. Literally, every person I meet has their own version. Basics are the same, but some add apple, some ad fresh cucumber, some ad corn, etc...

http://www.olgasflavorfactory.com/recipes/ontheside/salads/russian-salad-olivie/