S01.E15: Wentworth Prison

[Pestilentia]

Holy smokes- I just looked up the McQuarrie actor (Douglas Henshall) and he is a youngish, nice looking guy.

50 being young to me as I am so ancient, but still- have a look. (<--clickable)

 

I don't know why this surprised me so much- I guess they just dirtied him up very effectively.

[lianau]

I think Claire loved Frank and Frank loved Claire and their marriage would have been a happy one.  However there were parts of Claire's personality that Frank never understood but that was not a problem until Claire met Jamie and realized that she was missing something .

[AD55]

I think Claire loved Frank and Frank loved Claire and their marriage would have been a happy one.  However there were parts of Claire's personality that Frank never understood but that was not a problem until Claire met Jamie and realized that she was missing something .

 

That's the thing for me. I love Claire and Jamie, especially now that I have Cait and Sam in my head. They are a couple with amazing sexual chemistry and that ain't nothing, but I've never been wholly persuaded they have more in common with each other than Claire and Frank. In fact, neither the show nor the book is particularly interested in what the two couples have in common. If I think about it, the thing that binds all three of them together is war. Perhaps it is their personalities/temperaments that make Jamie and Claire a better fit. The older I get, the more I think that is a better predictor of a good relationship than whether a couple has interests in common.

[paramitch]

Holy smokes- I just looked up the McQuarrie actor (Douglas Henshall) and he is a youngish, nice looking guy.

50 being young to me as I am so ancient, but still- have a look. (<--clickable)

 

I don't know why this surprised me so much- I guess they just dirtied him up very effectively.

Oh, my God, thank you! I couldn't figure out where I knew him from! My mind's blown, not just because I realized he was in that superb BBC/PBS thing Collision 5-6 years back, but because he was the arrogant brother in ANGELS & INSECTS! I can't believe that's the same guy. He's really a chameleon.

 

That's the thing for me. I love Claire and Jamie, especially now that I have Cait and Sam in my head. They are a couple with amazing sexual chemistry and that ain't nothing, but I've never been wholly persuaded they have more in common with each other than Claire and Frank. In fact, neither the show nor the book is particularly interested in what the two couples have in common. If I think about it, the thing that binds all three of them together is war. Perhaps it is their personalities/temperaments that make Jamie and Claire a better fit. The older I get, the more I think that is a better predictor of a good relationship than whether a couple has interests in common.

 

That's a really interesting perspective, and I actually agree that in both cases it may very well be the common thread between Frank and Jamie, that Claire is driven toward men with whom she can be a fighter, a healer, and a fellow combatant.

[Dust Bunny]

I know the argument about Claire coming back pregnant by another man and how much Franks loves Bree unconditionally. Both those things are big deals. Yet, I'll never really like Frank after knowing how many affairs and/or liaisons he had after Claire returned. That future knowledge clouds any and all notions of Frank for me before Claire went to the 1740s. I also know the possible arguments about Jamie's liaisons after Claire left, but I think they're contextually different. There can be whole dissertations written about all this, but for me personally, I just can't get back into liking Frank.

 

Of course, in all these things all our mileages - and opinions - vary.

 

And to try to stretch this post to fit into this thread's category, I'm guessing it never helped the future Claire and Frank's relationship when she would look at his face and think of BJR and all that happened at Wentworth. 

 

I don't blame Frank. I just stopped liking him.

 

Edited for spoiler tagging, just in case. 

Edited May 24, 2015 by Dust Bunny

[ulkis]

I don't blame Frank. I just stopped liking him.

 

I'll reply in the thread for the first book.

[WatchrTina]

Well, I just watched 115 again, this time with good headphones, on a new iMac with a high-resolution monitor.  I noticed a few new things.

 

Jamie's voice, when he says he won't surrender to any man and when he tells Jack he can look at his back if it will shut him up, is noticeably lower than usual.  I wonder if that's emotion or if that scene was filmed after a day of screaming that made him hoarse.  Either way, it works well in that moment.

 

When Jack threatens Claire with allowing Marley to "entertain" her in private and she asks "Don't you want to watch?" Jack's expression is perfect. Tobias' choice is perfect.  It's just so blasé -- so "Eh, maybe so, maybe no."

 

I complained at first about it being unrealistic that Claire would be able to attack Jack and get that chain around his neck.  This time, I thought I saw something different -- I thought I saw Jack actually amused by her attack, like he allowed it to happen.  He's almost laughing as he throws her off and she goes down hard, tripping over Jamie.  Then he sees Marley and says "Oh Christ!" because (I now think) he hadn't intended for THAT to happen. I like this interpretation better because it addresses the question of why didn't Claire attack Jack when he walked her out.  She was right up next to him whispering in his ear.  I think that she realized he was toying with her when he "let" her get the drop on him and it taught her that it was pointless for her to attack him physically.

 

Speaking of perfect moments, perfect expressions by Tobias -- when Jamie places his ruined hand on the table and then reaches for Claire with the other, Jack's expression again is just so blasé it is painful.  He shoves her over with this attitude of "whatever."  These are the moments that make Jack so damn scary - these subtle little moments of give a little, take a lot, give a little, take a lot.  He does it again at the very end when Jamie grabs his hand to ask "Did she get away safe?" and he takes Jamie's (good) hand in both of his like he's f**cking Samwise Gamgee offering comfort to a recovering Frodo in Rivendell and assures Jamie that yes, she's safely away.  And then he pulls out a f**king Crocodile Dundee-sized knife and quietly begins cutting Jamie's shirt off.  Give a little, take a lot. Damn.

 

Jamie is shushing Claire when Jack flattens his ruined hand out on the table and the "shhhh" evolves into a sob from pain.  I don't know if it was the writers or the director who came up with that but, damn.

 

I'm sure most people look away when the first hammer blow falls.  I did on the first few viewings.  I looked this time.  You can SEE the nail on the underside of the hand after the first blow.  Damn.

 

I think the reason Claire's curse was effective is because almost no one knows Jack's middle name.  I'm mean seriously -- if your middle name was "Wolverton" would you let that be common knowledge?

 

The shot of Claire from inside the prison, just after she is pushed through he trapdoor is just stunning.  It looks like a framed photo hung on a stone wall.  The color contrast of the warm reds and golds of the torchlit floor and the cool blues and slivers of the moonlit scene below is just terrific.

 

Similarly, the shot of Jack's torch disappearing down that tunnel after the trapdoor scene is also beautiful.  It was well worth the tons of spiders they encountered.

 

I'm so grateful for the care that went into this episode -- from the rehearsals that gave the actors the time and space they needed to figure out how to play this, to the absolutely beautiful cinematography.  It's odd to call such a brutal episode beautiful but that's what it was.  I can't wait to see the finale.

Edited May 26, 2015 by WatchrTina

[ulkis]

Random thought of the day, I do think the show should have had all this take place in a private room like in the book. I mean, someone could just stroll on by at any time, no? it looks like you can see into the cell from at least two sides. (I forget the name for the kind of wall Jamie is leaning against . . . a lattice? I feel like it has another name though when it's a wall.)

[GHScorpiosRule]

Random thought of the day, I do think the show should have had all this take place in a private room like in the book. I mean, someone could just stroll on by at any time, no? it looks like you can see into the cell from at least two sides. (I forget the name for the kind of wall Jamie is leaning against . . . a lattice? I feel like it has another name though when it's a wall.)

 

 

Yeah. I was totally expecting to see the bed that Claire described in the book, and was left scratching my head, because I thought it was supposed to be a room. Oh well, Creative license, aesthetics, etc.,  I guess.

[WatchrTina]

Random Outlander-related thought for the day:   Remember when Claire demands that the soldiers take her to Sir Fletcher?  What if they had?  She would, most likely, have been revealed as a liar -- Jamie's wife, not his distant relation -- and at best she would have been tossed out of the prison.  At worst she would have been arrested. A follow-up search would probably have revealed the open back door.  And it wouldn't have mattered even if it stayed unlocked because Jamie would likely have been moved back into the general population once Sir Fletcher saw his hand and realized that Jack was torturing a condemned man down in that private cell.

 

So by intimidating those two soldiers into going away and leaving him alone to continue his "interrogation," Jack probably "saved" Jamie from the hangman's noose a second time. The only reason the rescue works is because they know where Jamie is and he's in an isolated place.  

 

Damnit.  I really hate that the rescue of Jamie all actually hinges on Jack's determination to keep Jamie alive and isolated.  But for that, Jamie would be dead.

[AD55]

 

 

Damnit.  I really hate that the rescue of Jamie all actually hinges on Jack's determination to keep Jamie alive and isolated.  But for that, Jamie would be dead.

 

True, though to look at this from another perspective, it's more defensible on the grounds of morality and human rights for Randall to be exposed and drummed out of the service or even sent to prison or hanged as he likely would have been had Fletcher been apprised of his actions. At least, that's what Randall says would happen if he were discovered torturing prisoners. I'm a little skeptical myself about whether he is right -- the army might be more inclined to circle the wagons to protect one of their own from prosecution. Leaving that possibility aside, while exposing Randall would not help Jamie and Claire, it would mean he would not be able to torture other prisoners. As we know, Jamie is not his first and he surely would not be his last. Within the context of the novel and show, of course, that's not an option and I'm not saying I'd be happy about it.

[ulkis]

Damnit.  I really hate that the rescue of Jamie all actually hinges on Jack's determination to keep Jamie alive and isolated.  But for that, Jamie would be dead.

 

No worries, I don't think you have to feel any gratitude to Randall on that account. Jamie wouldn't even be in prison in the first place if it weren't for Randall. If Randall had admitted Jamie had done nothing wrong he would have been saved. So really, Jamie doesn't owe Randall anything, inadvertently or otherwise.

Edited May 27, 2015 by ulkis

[Archery]

I'm still confused about the timeline.  I know in the book, Claire comes through the stones in summer, tells Jamie she's a time traveler in October, and rescues him in the winter snow.  But in the show, she comes through in the winter, there's mention of being back to Leoch by Yuletide, and when they get to Lallybroch, the grass is gorgeous green. So that's summer, right?  But then when the Watch burns the hay, twice Jamie says they needed the hay for the winter.  (Yes, I've been rewatching and rereading during the two week wait.) Can someone orient me on the show's calendar, please? When does Wentworth Prison take place?

[WatchrTina]

Claire goes through the stones on Halloween.

 

Eight episodes later (Both Sides Now) Frank says Claire has been missing for 6 weeks and in the same episode Jamie observes that when they return to Leoch it will be Christmas so that makes sense -- it must be mid-December.

 

it snows in the episode where Colum and Dougal are feuding over the money -- that's episode 9, The Reckoning.  And the great hall seemed to be decorated for Christmas during the impromptu party for the newlyweds.  So that's looking like the last part of December.  

 

Ned is told to write to the Duke of Sandringham in episode 9 and he arrives at the beginning of episode 10 so you have to assume a little time has passed.  A week or more so that puts us in January.

 

The witch trial (11) follows immediately so, still January.

 

It's not clear how long Jamie and Claire are at Lallybroch (12) but it felt really fast.  Claire says she's starting to feel like she belongs there at the end of the episode so I'd like to think that they had at least a week of peace before The Watch (13) showed up.  Still probably January.

 

Murtagh and Claire are on the road for weeks in The Search (14).  That puts them into February.

 

So Wentworth had to have happened in late February or March.  I suppose one could fan-wank that THAT is why all those bodies are lying there unburied -- it's the end of the winter, the first thaw, and they'll be digging graves for them shortly.

 

But other than that one snow flurry in episode 9 the Clan MacKenzie does seem to have mysteriously gotten through a Scottish winter with nary a snow storm (unlike the books where a blizzard serve as a key plot point.)

Edited May 28, 2015 by WatchrTina

[chocolatetruffle]

WatchrTina, and anyone else who might want to posit an answer, I have a timeline question that has been bothering me ever since Claire's first trip back to the stones.  I am going to ask it in the Books v. Show thread, so please follow me over there.  Thx.

[Hybiscus]

Claire goes through the stones on Halloween.

 

Eight episodes later (Both Sides Now) Frank says Claire has been missing for 6 weeks and in the same episode Jamie observes that when they return to Leoch it will be Christmas so that makes sense -- it must be mid-December.

 

it snows in the episode where Colum and Dougal are feuding over the money -- that's episode 9, The Reckoning.  And the great hall seemed to be decorated for Christmas during the impromptu party for the newlyweds.  So that's looking like the last part of December.  

 

Ned is told to write to the Duke of Sandringham in episode 9 and he arrives at the beginning of episode 10 so you have to assume a little time has passed.  A week or more so that puts us in January.

 

The witch trial (11) follows immediately so, still January.

 

It's not clear how long Jamie and Claire are at Lallybroch (12) but it felt really fast.  Claire says she's starting to feel like she belongs there at the end of the episode so I'd like to think that they had at least a week of peace before The Watch (13) showed up.  Still probably January.

 

Murtagh and Claire are on the road for weeks in The Search (14).  That puts them into February.

 

So Wentworth had to have happened in late February or March.  I suppose one could fan-wank that THAT is why all those bodies are lying there unburied -- it's the end of the winter, the first thaw, and they'll be digging graves for them shortly.

 

But other than that one snow flurry in episode 9 the Clan MacKenzie does seem to have mysteriously gotten through a Scottish winter with nary a snow storm (unlike the books where a blizzard serve as a key plot point.)

In the podcast for 109 "The Reckoning," I believe, Ron Moore said there was very little snow during the winter when they filmed season 1. They felt lucky because this past year Scotland got a ton of snow. So sometimes one just has to deal with what Mother Nature gives.

[Archery]

Thanks for the responses on the timeline, on this and the other thread.  I always feel unmoored in the story when I can't place the episode events on the calendar, even generally. 

[mizkat]

Those who haven't read the books may think they can imagine what happens to Jamie in Wentworth, but please trust me when I say that you cannot.  Jamie not only has his worst fears realized but as a result knows that he is no longer “Jamie” but is now only an extension of BJR, the embodiment of Black Jack’s filth.  He can’t be Claire’s husband, Laird of Lallybroch.  That man died in Wentworth’s dungeon.  BJR is with him always, in his waking thoughts and sleeping nightmares.  This is why we must see what happens to Jamie in order to understand (intellectually and viscerally) what it really means to have that safe place inside yourself destroyed. The destruction is systematic and thorough.  We must see it in order to understand the toll it takes on Claire to go into that darkness in order to find her husband and pull him out.

 

Again, late to the party but just had to add two cents: I see what you're saying here but I think that can be accomplished without so much visual explicitness. It's not like Outlander is a picture book--the story is told in words as we read it, and the words evoke the emotion. While I think Sam was masterful in these scenes (and in Ransom) I also believe he could have been trusted to relay this tale with fuzzy flashbacks to Claire and the audience and we all would have "got it". 

 

Totally personal opinion, but I find it interesting that the actors and writers and showrunner are saying they want to "challenge" the audience. We really don't need to be challenged. We need to be entertained, emotionally spent, and most of all, trusted that we have the intelligence and insight to understand Jamie's horror. But what that means is that the writers and directors end up with the bigger challenge--writing dialogue and framing scenes that evoke the chills and the sympathy and the tears that this story is meant to instill. As a novelist and screenwriter myself, I know how hard that is. It's easy to write and film things that are straightforward--it's much more difficult to make it subtle, nuanced, yet still chilling and emotionally heart wrenching. I think Outlander has the acting talent to do just that, but instead they chose to be explicit. Again, my opinion, but I think it was the wrong choice. 

[CalamityBoPeep]

Totally personal opinion, but I find it interesting that the actors and writers and showrunner are saying they want to "challenge" the audience. We really don't need to be challenged. We need to be entertained, emotionally spent, and most of all, trusted that we have the intelligence and insight to understand Jamie's horror. But what that means is that the writers and directors end up with the bigger challenge--writing dialogue and framing scenes that evoke the chills and the sympathy and the tears that this story is meant to instill. As a novelist and screenwriter myself, I know how hard that is. It's easy to write and film things that are straightforward--it's much more difficult to make it subtle, nuanced, yet still chilling and emotionally heart wrenching. I think Outlander has the acting talent to do just that, but instead they chose to be explicit. Again, my opinion, but I think it was the wrong choice. 

 

I want to stand up and applaud this, so much.  Hang on a sec, while I do so....

 

<--- stands... applauds...>  <aaaaaaaand... dogs come running.  Oh well, then.>

 

Anyway, that's all just to say I agree 100%.  I wish Ron, et al would read your post, and realize that not only are we fans very much in love with our story, but we also aren't idiots.

[Kim0820]

On 5/18/2015 at 4:16 PM, islagirl said:

 

Absolutely this.  Even if Claire herself doesn't say it, give some thought to who Claire would be in each world - give her some agency aside from who she loves. The Claire I see would choose the life of adventure and growth, where she is useful and valuable, over the quiet life as the Oxford professor's wife chatting over tea in the kitchen with the other wives.  We all wonder about the road not taken, and Claire got a chance to walk that road.  Add in the passion for Jamie and I think she realized she could never go back to 1940, knowing what she gave up in 1743. 

 

On 5/18/2015 at 8:41 PM, AD55 said:

 

Totally agree with this. And it's not just fantasy. Folks who watch the Tudors, Downton Abbey, or, God help us, Reign, for their historical accuracy need to reconsider.

Life would have more intensity, greater ups and downs in an earlier era, and perhaps Claire felt integrated into 1743 enough that she realizes it might seem too boring to live in the 20th century again.  With the earlier comments about not giving up 20th century conveniences, medicine, etc., I came to realize that Claire doesn't have any complaints at all on that score - don't recall any lines like "if only I had a bloody flashlight" or "I wish I could take a real shower."  She had the interest in herbs and their healing powers and can feel more useful in the 18th century and more in charge.  More able to help, demanding clean cloth and water, knowing they don't get the importance of that, because they don't know the science of bacteria/infection.

To me, it's the opposite when it comes to history.  I knew little of Culloden Moor or what the Scots problems were.  Shows like this get me to look for information about it online or in documentaries, so I don't expect to learn total accuracy from the show, but it inspires me to find out more.  

On 5/18/2015 at 10:27 PM, CatMack said:

See, this is why I get frustrated by fandom. When it comes to rape, torture, and wife beating, it's excused as being historically accurate so what do you expect. But when people point out things that aren't historically accurate, suddenly it's just a fantasy show and you shouldn't expect historical accuracy.

Pick a side. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either historical accuracy matters and it's valid to call the show out on its inaccuracies, or it doesn't matter and you don't get to use it to excuse sexist writing.

The cultural changes that have happened are facts.  We don't expect 18th century people to think something we since assigned to barbarism is barbaric.  It's not excuses.  Here the writing does show that Claire has some adjustment to make on that score, but it's not total; Claire is a person that would have been outspoken no matter what century she was in.  There always were such women.  They are the ones we owe the improvements to.  The human condition always changes.   It's hardly sexist to recognize those changes.  The time travel is the unrealistic part, but it raises a chance to consider all those changes.  

On 5/22/2015 at 3:04 PM, islagirl said:

 

I think we're just seeing different things from Frank.  I really like show Frank, but what I saw on their second honeymoon is a man who was fine with bringing her along on his expeditions or allowing her to go off on her own, but never actively took part in something that was about Claire.  We never saw them have an activity or conversation focused on her interests, despite many conversations and visits focused on his genealogical quests. If she wanted to do something related to her unique interests, she was on her own. She played the dutiful wife following her husband (except when it came to sex, where they were again out of balance with her initiating every encounter). Overall, I see a lot of her accommodating him, but very little him accommodating her.  Perhaps it would have been okay with her over the long haul if she'd never gone back, but after being thrown back and experiencing a world where she was useful and needed and loved with a passion that matched her own - and by someone who loved who she actually was, as opposed to a role she was adapting herself to - she couldn't go back to what she'd had in the future. 

Useful, needed and more passionate - yes that might have suited her better.  Enough to overcome the  other problems, which, again, she did not complain of.  

On 5/23/2015 at 7:00 PM, Dust Bunny said:

  Reveal spoiler

I know the argument about Claire coming back pregnant by another man and how much Franks loves Bree unconditionally. Both those things are big deals. Yet, I'll never really like Frank after knowing how many affairs and/or liaisons he had after Claire returned. That future knowledge clouds any and all notions of Frank for me before Claire went to the 1740s. I also know the possible arguments about Jamie's liaisons after Claire left, but I think they're contextually different. There can be whole dissertations written about all this, but for me personally, I just can't get back into liking Frank.

And to try to stretch this post to fit into this thread's category, I'm guessing it never helped the future Claire and Frank's relationship when she would look at his face and think of BJR and all that happened at Wentworth. 

 

 

That could have been a huge factor, too.  Can't explain it to Frank.  And he would have a certain admiration for his ancestor, not knowing details about him - the family history most likely would not be detailed enough.  Though I think there was a 1945 discussion about how he had a protector and they thought it was the Duke of Sandringham.  How to live with Frank now, personally knowing the Duke and BJR?  That would be a big problem for future Claire. 

It is interesting how Claire thinks she might change history, yet she can't, since she was already there.  How fascinating it would be to do research in the future, looking for your earlier presence.  BJR put the document she signed into the fire, so it wouldn't be around, but you'd look for other mentions in people's letters or writings and see if you could find yourself.  

I had only read the first book, and so long ago that I do not remember anything, but Jamie calling Claire "Sassanach" as a nickname.  I'm interested now in reading them again, especially reading in these threads that she did think long about staying while at the stones after Jamie left her there.  The show just left me with an interest in that question and a lot of speculation.