Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Athena

S02.E01: Through a Glass, Darkly

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure Frank believes Claire either. I think he wants to believe her but can't quite believe it. Even if he does believe her, Claire thinks that he doesn't and as Frank doesn't want to hear about it any more, I don't think she will ever think that Frank believes her. Therefore, Roger believing her should still have an impact on her.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

 

A bit of unpopular opinion here, but despite of fine acting, I found the scenes in 1940s a tad too much on melodramatic side. I might even roll my eyes a couple of times,

 

Me too. I wanted to like it.  Although I liked her wandering about in those clothes and the car horn, Claire's wailing and screaming at the beginning, and later some of  Frank's dialogue,  just seemed like a silly romance novel (sorry!). Still, I found it worth watching anyway and necessary to the plot; I just scoffed a bit and imagined that a non-regular viewer would be scathing when seeing those scenes.  I though Rev. Wakfield was good and liked his baby without a father line, but why did Frank had to repeat a conversation we just saw? Tighten it up.  The sterility test seemed implausible too. I didn't buy the explanation for why he would bother. 

 

I like that Claire isn't perfect, cos neither am I.  She was not perfect throughout most of the episode and especially in 1948. I don't find it annoying, 'cos I like how Catriona does it. 

 

I am happy the show's back and look forward to the new setting and actors, though I will miss the old ones. It's a relief that Murtagh at least made the cut.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes shouldn't the title card have read 1744 not 1745? I loved the beginning because it gave us a reason to be conflicted about Frank going forward.

Share this post


Link to post

WE know it's a continuity mistake, but I'm wondering if Ron just changed the date and to make this season just one year, instead of two or three it was in the buik.  Since Diana is a consultant, why didn't she catch this?

 

Otherwise, I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post

I was reading the Outlandish Companion #1 and came accross this explanation, by Diana, for a glitch in Dragonfly's timeline.

 

Outlander and the UK version Cross Stitch also differ in their starting dates, as follows:

 

Reay told me, “The war (World War II) didn’t end as abruptly for us as it did for you in the United States. Rationing and wartime austerity were still in effect for some time after peace was declared—and there are still a number of people alive who remember that. Your story starts in 1945, but the conditions you’re describing would be much more believable a year later; the book really should begin in 1946.”
“Fine,” I said, and called my American publisher.
“We can’t do that,” they said. “You can make the other changes, as long as they’re small, but if you change the beginning date, that will change dates all through the book. We’d have to send the manuscript back through copy-editing, and we’re too close to production to do that.”
Consequently, Outlander begins in 1945, and Cross Stitch begins in 1946. This small dichotomy later led to a persistent error in Dragonfly in Amber (see “Errata”), which I have never quite figured out how to clear up, other than to explain its existence.

 

 

 And in the show Claire goes through the stones in November not May, so we were bound to be deprived of at least 6 months of their story  :(

Share this post


Link to post

 I just remember feeling so touched by her reaction to Roger believing her in the book because she never told anyone about her experience except Frank in the book and, as far as she knew, he never believed her.

 

Doesn't Joe Abernathy know everything too?

 

What was that burned out ring Claire had?  And what else was she looking for in the grass at the stones, that wasn't there? 

 

I thought she was looking for the stone for the ring?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Just watched this episode. Tobias Menzies acted the crap out of that. Whew. This was not my favorite book but I am looking forward to the season anyway.

Edited by Quickbeam
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

So good; I can't believe how excited and impatient I was for this premiere.

Just watched this episode. Tobias Menzies acted the crap out of that. Whew. This was not my favorite book but I am looking forward to the season anyway.

Truly, the expressions that moved across his face were an episode in and of themselves. Just give him the Emmy now. I loved the added material with Frank; in the book, Claire is an unreliable narrator when it comes to him.

Back in the forties, pregnancy tests were rare and expensive. The doctor would inject a sample of (I think) blood into a lab animal, which led to the expression, "The rabbit died," to mean a positive test. Mostly the second skipped period generally was the time pregnancy was diagnosed, and then you went to the doctor to confirm by exam. It's unlikely the doctor would perform a internal exam on Claire in her state, and at least in the book, she's barely late.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

So many frustrations this week, leading to this. And it delivered. :-)

 

I got choked up and happy again at the opening credits, but not a sobbing mess like I was when the first episode aired. (For that one, then, 20-some years of waiting came gushing out and I had to pause the episode after the credits just to compose myself. I'm a sap.) So glad to see the show again. These are story-tellers I can trust, and I can't wait to see what they do with the material.

 

Tobias did an amazing job with the 1940's scenes, and so did Cait. I could just feel their distance, depression, and desperation. It was amazingly well-done. But to be honest, I was more than ready to return to Jamie by the time we got there. All in all though, a really good opener for the second season. Thank you, Outlander, for the balm of a good show to help heal Friday's wounds from Sleepy Hollow.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Regarding the changing of history thing . What if Claire and Jamie trying to prevent the uprising is what actually doomed it . That without their meddling BPC (are we calling him that ? ) would have succeeded . It's a thought I was having recently and now I'm kind of stuck  in  a thought loop about it .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

After my fifth viewing of the premier, I finally remembered who Claire reminds me of when she is in the hospital bed.  She looks so beautiful with her hair splayed all around her face.  Does anyone remember Barbara Parkins (60s & 70s)?  She was a beautiful actress with dark black hair.  Elizabeth Taylor and Vivian Leigh were close comparisons for me but not quite right.

 

Will we get streaming again next Thursday?  #hopeso

Share this post


Link to post

Frank (book & show) is so boring and creepy to me. The Wakefields aside I found the 40s segment dull for the most part. I hope we will not have to endure a 20th century segment in every episode. I just can't with Frank. I never found it very believable in the books that she stayed married to Frank for years after her return. I think she had already started to outgrow him before she went back in time. Is she going to have an ongoing sexual relationship with him? It was hazy to me in the books whether they returned to having regular marital relations, shared the same bedroom etc.

The heroine who can't get pregnant by her husband because he's sterile is a common romance novel trope. I suppose they had Frank knowing he's sterile this early on to make it more believable that he would raise another man's baby as his own( not ever wanting said baby to know the truth). I know book Frank before Clare went missing was opposed to adoption and had no interest in raising a child who wasn't his own blood. I always thought if Clare had not gone back in time this would have been the thing that broke them up along with her outgrowing him and finding life with him stuffy and boring.

I don't believe book or show(so far) Frank believes Clare. I don't think he believes she's making it up or willfully lying. I think he thinks something happened to her that was so traumatic or she did something she feels so guilty about her mind has made up this story to keep her from having a complete mental collapse.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Frank (book & show) is so boring and creepy to me. The Wakefields aside I found the 40s segment dull for the most part. I hope we will not have to endure a 20th century segment in every episode. I just can't with Frank. I never found it very believable in the books that she stayed married to Frank for years after her return. I think she had already started to outgrow him before she went back in time. Is she going to have an ongoing sexual relationship with him? It was hazy to me in the books whether they returned to having regular marital relations, shared the same bedroom etc.

 

 

Actually, it wasn't hazy at all.  There was as least one depicted directly and more alluded to.  Claire is a sexual creature and remember, there was a time when she loved Frank.  So yeah, they had ongoing sexual relations.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I remember the sex scene between them when Brianne was a baby but nothing else so it is hazy for me. There was a time she loved Frank but that was before she went back in time and saw his face on Black Jack and fell in love with Jamie. Her inability to respond to him sexually as she did before might be one of the reasons he took lovers. His pride might have been hurt if he thought she was only giving him pity fucks or using him as a human vibrator. Or thought she was as the song goes holding him while thinking of someone else.

Share this post


Link to post

I think the problems between them were emotional rather than sexual. In the first episode Claire says that it was through sex that she and Frank found their way back to each other.  I don't think that changed radically as time went on except to the extent that he had mistresses along with way.  

 

Wee Roger's book?  It's called The Picture Book of Tall Ships, which is an allusion to Ron Moore's production company, Tall Ships Productions.   I laughed out loud when I noticed it. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I rewatched it for the second time yesterday and one thing that struck me about Claire is how she seemed to relish in upsetting the Comte's plans, and the way she ignored Jamie as she ran towards the small pox victims (people that I don't think she could have helped regardless). For someone claiming to want to play the game to prevent the Rising, she sure as hell doesn't play it that day. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Wee Roger's book?  It's called The Picture Book of Tall Ships, which is an allusion to Ron Moore's production company, Tall Ships Productions.   I laughed out loud when I noticed it.

 

 

Ah, an easter egg.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I rewatched it for the second time yesterday and one thing that struck me about Claire is how she seemed to relish in upsetting the Comte's plans, and the way she ignored Jamie as she ran towards the small pox victims (people that I don't think she could have helped regardless). For someone claiming to want to play the game to prevent the Rising, she sure as hell doesn't play it that day.

Claire is still a combat nurse, so she was running on instinct. She was right to upset the Comte's plan because it was evil: moving those people through the city and covering up that there were infected persons and items on that ship would have started a pox epidemic.

I had to smile at the Comte's dig about Scottish nobility titles being given out like pearls before swine. He doesn't realize that Jamie's little title has a thousand clansmen and allies behind it, who will come and fight just because Lord Broch Tuarach says, I need you. The Comte would have to bankrupt his treasury to raise a similar army.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Let's talk about that third ring, shall we? At the very beginning when Claire wakes up she reaches for her bodice and then starts digging frantically in the dirt and finds that ring with the stone missing. That's new. So here's my speculation. Remember how in the book, when Jamie and Claire marry he actually forgot the need for a ring so he pulls his father's ruby ring out of his sporran during the ceremony and they use that? She gives it back immediately after the ceremony because it's too big and would not stay on her finger. Later (back at Castle Leoch) he buys her the silver ring.

I think the ring in the opening scene is Jamie's father's ruby ring. I think it will be introduced this season -- he'll chose to start wearing it in public because he needs to make a good impression on the Parisians -- an impression that includes wealth so a ruby ring will go along well with his new fancy clothes and position as a wine-merchant. And I think he will give it to to Claire at the last moment before she goes back through the stones, saying "Name my son after my father and give him this ring in memory of him and me." My heart will break then, just so you know.

If they do that, then that would explain why she reaches for it immediately. (I assume she tucks in down her bodice before going through the stones -- just like she did with Frank's wedding ring before she walked through the church door). Her seeing the ruby missing -- burned away -- will give her her first clue that having a gemstone with you may aid in traveling through the stones.

This is total speculation of course but that ring needs to be explained before the season is over.

ETA: Okay now that I think about it it seems unlikely that a ruby ring would not have been stolen from Jamie's personal effects at Wentworth Prison so I'm betting Jenny gives it to Jamie just before he goes off to fight in the uprising. We've seen a flash of Jenny in one of the teaser trailers, hugging Jamie, so we know they go back to Lallybroch at some point.

ETA2: I now remember that we've seen a teaser where Jamie is wearing his father's coat again -- the one he first put on on quarter day in the episode "Lallybroch". So yeah, I think he's going to put that coat on again when it comes time to rally his men to fight in the uprising and that's when we'll see him put on Brian's ruby ring as well.

Edited by WatchrTina
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

I wanted to like this a lot more than I did.  It's weird because I'm generally fairly sympathetic to Frank as a character throughout the series because he really was stuck in a no-win situation from the moment Claire showed back up pregnant, but this episode actually made me feel less sympathy for him.  Framing most of the first days and weeks of Claire's return through his manpain certainly didn't help as all it did was remind me of how Ron Moore's great love affair with Tobias Menzies, who is indeed an amazing actor, ate so much of last season.  Most of the 1940s section felt overlong and at times bordered on maudlin, and I think it's become too much of a cliche at this point for especially a male character to show us anger by going and rampaging through some pottery.  I get that that and the clenched fist at the pregnancy reveal were supposed to show us the link between Frank and Black Jack (which as we know from this book isn't even as direct as any of them think it is), but tight fury and control would have worked so much better there.  It also would have been more in keeping with the man who basically ordered Claire to get over it and get on with their life just weeks after this hugely traumatic thing had happened to her because it would be easier for him.  The total effect here makes Claire seem terribly muted, but I suppose that works as we're always given the sense in the books that that's what her life was like with Frank after her return.

 

A lot of the individual scenes are gorgeous, like Claire's trudge along the paved road rating a particular mention.  The brightness of the scenes and the colors themselves in the 1740s worked well to show the dissonance between the two times.  The fleshing out of Murtagh to a fully fledged character is still one of my favorite things about the show even if he's expected to take "we know you want an explanation but we'll explain things later" as to why they're doing any of what they're doing.  Claire is still Claire there, blundering ahead without any consideration for possible ramifications like creating a new enemy before Jaime's even healed up from the last one.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

 2) Frank is an educated man with a large vocabulary. I'm sure that his doctor did not tell him he was infertile. The problem is that he's sterile.

 

 

That's exactly what he said, that he's sterile.  

Share this post


Link to post

I could very easily see them going that route with the ruby ring.  At least it would give Claire and Roger something concrete to go on when they're trying to figure out how the stones actually work.  Because in the book, they're basically trusting the notebook ramblings of someone who's already proved herself to be rather unstable (and eventually a murderer).  Gellis is more or less right, but they have no way of knowing that at the time and it's always struck me as a huuuuge leap of faith that they just blithely take her notebook as gospel.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I'm doing something new this season.  I'm listening to podcasts by "The Scot and the Sassenach" -- two Outlander fans who are also writers and whose analysis of the show focuses almost entirely on story (though they went on and on about the opening title song in this, their first season 2 podcast.)  I enjoy their opinions even if I don't always agree.

 

http://storywonk.com/category/podcasts/the-scot-and-the-sassenach/

 

One of the things I like best about them is that they revisit the episode after listening to feedback from their fans and they do, on occasion, alter their initial opinions.  They also note that their immediate reaction to an episode can change upon subsequent viewings, especially viewings in context with the episodes that come later.  They agree with nodorothyparker above that there was entirely too much Frank in this first episode and they said they hate the idea of ping-ponging back-and-forth between the Claire/Jamie and Claire/Frank story-lines, but they reserved the right to feel differently if this is the last we see of Frank for a good long while.  I predict is this IS the last we see of Frank -- possibly forever.  (That's pure speculation there.)  If so, that was a hell of a swan-song performance for Tobias and I'm glad they gave him a good long, meaty scene.

 

Then again, Frank has to teach Brianna how to shoot so maybe I'm completely wrong.

 

Oh, one more thing -- Ron's podocast for the episode is also up on the Starz website.  

 

https://www.starz.com/series/outlander/more/podcasts

 

It's not his best-ever podcast but I liked it a lot because it focused on post-production so there is lots of discussion of special effects, CGI, color correction, sound, ADR, editing, etc.  I love that stuff.

Edited by WatchrTina
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Ron said in an interview that this is the only episode with such a lengthy flashback, but that there will be a few shorter flashbacks to Frank/Claire. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Since they established the Frankbacks as a thing last season even when the scene didn't really seem to have much of anything to do with what the rest of the episode was about and once I realized they were revealing the time travel redux right out of the gate, I've assumed they'd continue this season only now as kind of a short update of Claire's life progressing forward with Frank and then Bree.  This potentially saves a lot of time of trying to get everyone caught up to the modern story heading into the overloaded mess season 3 could very well be unless they intend to streamline or cut quite a bit.  Just thinking about the possible pacing issues of that one gives me a headache.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

One more random thought -- someone, somewhere questioned the sincerity of Claire's smile when she offers her hand to Frank as she steps off the plane. I just assumed she was trying to put on a brave face. But that someone suggested that maybe that smile is because she had a sudden memory of Jamie offering her his hand as she stepped off the ship in France. That would nicely connect to the swooping, clever transition to . . . Jamie in the 18th century. I LIKE that suggestion. (I wish I'd thought of if.) After all, the episode opens with "I wished I were dead" so really the whole episode is being narrated by a future Claire telling the story to someone (just as was done in the very first episode.)

We have seen a hint of Claire thinking of one husband but showing her reaction to a different husband. They hinted at that in the wedding episode when they started off with the flashback to Frank & Claire's wedding, cutting from their pre-wedding kiss in the street to Jamie kissing Claire at the end of their wedding . . . and Claire unexpectedly responding. I've always liked the idea that Claire responded to Jamie's wedding kiss because -- at that particular moment -- she was thinking of Frank. And I say that as someone who is firmly TeamJamie!

Edited by WatchrTina

Share this post


Link to post

I saw this smile of Claire as the smile for Jamie. Her expression was completely different up until this moment and so I thought it was the moment where the memory hit her and the sadness left her face.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Reading the no-book thread, I had forgotten the whole "Do the stones work or not? Did Claire really choose Jamie?" debate after "Devil's Mark" from last season, since we didn't hear a Claire voice-over (out of all the times in the entire season). That was answered in a jiffy, wasn't it?

 

Hopefully, there will be enough Jamie-Claire happy times this season so non-book viewers can really understand the depth of their love.

Edited by Dust Bunny

Share this post


Link to post

That's exactly what he said, that he's sterile.  

 

Correct, but right after (or maybe just before) that, he mentions his infertility.

Share this post


Link to post

Correct, but right after (or maybe just before) that, he mentions his infertility.

He went on to talk about his fertility in general ("..with my wife gone, the question of my fertility was an academic one at best...").  When he described his condition, he clearly said he was sterile.  I'm not sure what's the problem here.  Fertility has been a word and understood concept for centuries.

Edited by Lion

Share this post


Link to post

nodorothyparker's post sums up almost everything I thought about the first 40 minutes of this episode.  I was totally onboard with the flashforward during the first 20 minutes and especially thought that Claire's waking up and realizing where she was was gut-wrenching.  But after about 20 minutes I started getting antsy to get back to the "real" story, if you will.  At 30 minutes I was impatiently tapping my feet and watching the clock (this during Frank's freakout in the barn which I thought was OTT) and when we were at 39 minutes I was ready to just turn it off because at that point I figured this episode was going to be all about 1947 and FRANK.  It was too slow and went on for too long.  

 

The transition to 1744 however was beautiful and once I heard Jamie call Claire "Sassenach" all was right with my world again.  Welcome Back Show!

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Heh. Know what I did when I rewatched it last night? I fast forwarded, that's right, fastfuckingforwarded until the transition to 1745! Because? Now that I know where the show is starting from and know that how Frank reacts to Claire coming back is portrayed, I don't care. Because Frank isn't a character I care aboot. That's not the same thing as saying I don't like Tobias, because I do, but Sam/Jamie is the pull for me and Jamie and Claire's story. So I sat back and just watched them again.

 

And I should have mentioned in my first post, that in addition to Sam's eyebrows, it's his eyes, or rather, how Jamie's eyes conveyed his thoughts as Claire is trying to convince him how they need to stop the Jacobite Rising. Very reminescent of his eyes when Claire was telling him that she was from the future.

 

Still not crazy about the clean shaven luik.  I need at least some scruff!

 

And I think Jamie showing his back to Jared was a departure from the buiks, aye? Because I don't recall Jamie and Claire having to convince Jared to get his help. Then again, this wasn't one of my favorite buiks, so I may have skimmed over that part.

 

I really can't wait until his hand is healed, though.

 

And now I'm going back to rewatching Season one, where I left off, before this season's premiere. "The Gathering."

Edited by GHScorpiosRule
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

In the books, the Abbot (also a relative of Jamie's) hooks him up with Jared.  No persuasion necessary.  Jared's main motivation for wanting Jamie around was to run his wine business while he was out of the country.  The politics were secondary.  Jared just assumed that Jamie was a Jacobite - remember the scene on the boat where they're toasting to the king over the water?  I don't know why but that scene bugs me.  Maybe it's too punny or something. 

Share this post


Link to post

I could put this in the "Unpopular Opinions" thread but I'm going to put it here.  I think the 1948 scenes are the best part of this episode.  Claire's grief is really moving but it is Tobias Menzies as Frank that has to win MVP for this episode.  He is just SO GOOD.  I've watched the episode about five times now and I never get tired of watching his face as we move through that segment.

 

Conversely, as much as I love seeing Jamie reappear in that lovely transition, I can cheerfully fast-forward through the next three scenes -- the talk on the dock, the talk in the bedroom at the hotel, the talk with Murtagh on the dock.  It's all just stage-setting -- reminding the audience what this season is about, defining the limits of what Claire does and does not know and how much they are willing to share with Murtagh, and introducing the idea of cousin Jared.  Once Jared shows up things get interesting again (I really like that actor -- too bad he's about to set sail for the West Indies) and of course the introduction of the conflict with the Comte St. Germaine was very well done.  The shot of the Comte and the look in his eye when he's told they have to burn the ship -- damn that was chilling.  But mainly the French portion of the episode left me impatient to get to Paris.  Ah well, based on the teaser for next week, we'll be there shortly.

 

BTW, I have a theory as to why they hung out in that port city for 3 weeks waiting to meet with Jared.  The show needs some time to pass so that Jamie's hand can be declared sufficiently healed to come out of that cumbersome bandage / splint contraption that Claire cooked up.  I  expect we'll see Jamie graduate so something more elegant next week (we've seen hints of it in the trailers.)

Edited by WatchrTina
  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

I could put this in the "Unpopular Opinions" thread but I going to put it here.  I think the 1948 scenes are the best part of this episode.  Claire's grief is really moving but it is Tobias Menzies as Frank that has to win MVP for this episode.  He is just SO GOOD.  I've watched the episode about five times now and I never get tired of watching his face as we move through that segment.

 

Conversely, as much as i love seeing Jamie reappear in that lovely transition, I can cheerfully fast-forward through the next three scenes -- the talk on the dock, the talk in the bedroom at the hotel, the talk with Murtagh on the dock.  It's all just stage-setting -- reminding the audience what this season is about, defining the limits of what Claire does and does not know and how much they are willing to share with Murtagh, and introducing the idea of cousin Jared.  Once Jared shows up things get interesting again (I really like that actor -- too bad he's about to set sail for the West Indies) and of course the introduction of the conflict with the Comte St. Germaine was very well done.  The shot of the Comte and the look in his eye when he's told they have to burn the ship -- damn that was chilling.  But mainly the French portion of the episode left me impatient to get to Paris.  Ah well, based on the teaser for next week, we'll be there shortly.

 

BTW, I have a theory as to why they hung out in that port city for 3 weeks waiting to meet with Jared.  The show needs some time to pass so that Jamie's hand can be declared sufficiently healed to come out of that cumbersome bandage / splint contraption that Claire cooked up.  I  expect we'll see Jamie graduate so something more elegant next week (we've seen hints of it in the trailers.)

 

I watched again tonight and appreciated the way Sam moved, as if he is still in quite a bit of pain, especially in the Inn. By the time they're with Jared, 3 weeks later, his body movements are smoother but he's still very cautious about the hand... which again... subtle and well-done.

 

I didn't fast forward, but I nearly did when Frank was trashing the potting shed and then when he was burning the clothes. (And god, Frank! "Very Valuable!" Send them to a museum!) I really enjoyed Claire's conversation with Mrs. Graham on the re-watch, and Rev. Wakefield's conversation with Frank about being a father. Interesting how different things capture the attention with each viewing. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Ron said in an interview that this is the only episode with such a lengthy flashback, but that there will be a few shorter flashbacks to Frank/Claire. 

That's interesting because Tobias said in an interview that the premiere is the only time we see Frank and that his (the actor's) participation is reduced this season. 

 

I could put this in the "Unpopular Opinions" thread but I going to put it here.  I think the 1948 scenes are the best part of this episode. 

Ha. Truly unpopular is liking the 1940s stuff more than the 1700s stuff which is probably where I am. (And yes, I have been told I'm watching it wrong.) It''s why I don't watch as regularly but I am curious about the French stuff since that's history I've studied. 

Share this post


Link to post

Gah. My partner and I ended up binge watching the entire first season today because why not. Right after, we rewatched this episode.  The gut punch of Claire breaking down on the roadway hit much harder immediately after watching her and Jamie sailing off together.  The first time I watched that scene, I barely had an itchy throat.  This second time, I filled a bath with my tears.  All of her loved ones in the 18th century are just gone.  It's so final, in the blink of an eye.  I mean, I know it's not final obviously since she goes back in 20 years.  But it's really terrible to realize that everyone you knew and love is literally dead and dust in that moment.  I think Catriona sold is so well.  All sorts of feels and hurts going on in my house.

Edited by Lion
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Regarding her clothes, it makes perfect sense to me that he would burn them. I know he's a historian, but this is different. This is personal.

 

For one thing, he needs that "returned from the fairies" story to die down, and how will it ever go away if someone finds those clothes? Those are the most conspicuous evidence of what has happened. We saw already the kind of excitement they would cause in the academic community from the note he got back from his friend wanting to know where he got them. He can't very well explain, can he? He has a reputation in academia to preserve. He just got a post at Harvard. Would they let some lunatic who believes his wife traveled in time through a bunch of standing stones teach history? I doubt it.

 

Also, the clothes are the most obvious link Claire has to her story of what happened. If he gets rid of them permanently this way, then a) maybe she'll start to let go or doubt herself, and b) she'll have less evidence for her story if she ever tries to convince someone else of what happened (which again, would be embarrassing and potentially could damage Frank's career). Plus, if he left them lying around the house, tucked away somewhere, he'd probably always worry that one day she'd put them on, walk out, and try to go back to the stones. This way, without them, she's a bit more stranded in our time, with Frank.

 

Also, as I read someone else say either here or on some other boards, the clothes probably smell like her and Jaime's last time together *cough cough* so he'd want to get rid of them out of jealousy.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I was sympathetic to Frank until he became angry and we saw a glimpse of the underlying violent streak.  Thus starts the deconstruction of Frank and the martyrdom of Claire.  Tobias did knock it out of the park with his performance.  (However, burning the clothes?  Not cool!  I can understand why, but it was still hard to watch.)  I'm not sure we needed 40 mins of Frank's perspective, but it was important to see his point of view rather than only hearing Claire's thoughts about her return as in the book.

 

I predict is this IS the last we see of Frank -- possibly forever.  (That's pure speculation there.)

 

I'm positive we'll see Frank with baby/young Bree to establish he was a doting dad to her, even if his relationship with Claire turns chilly.

 

I was happy when the setting melted into the 18th c.  Claire just can't stay out of trouble, can she?  What, were they in France for like a day and a half before she made an enemy?  LOL

 

Loved the bits with Wee Roger and the empty ring foreshadowing the need for gems.  

 

Incidentally, the non readers (unsullied?) have already noticed the time/pregnancy discrepancy and are speculating that this isn't Claire's first pregnancy.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Anyone know if a wee Bree has been cast? I'm still hoping we see that story maybe next season as opposed to this one (other than Bree/Roger stuff from DIA that I would like this season.

Share this post


Link to post

Frankly, I don't think it's unpopular to like the 1940s stuff more.  Even thought I think Ron's dialogue can be clunky, far more care was given to providing Frank and Claire meaningful dialogue and interactions in those first 35-40 minutes.  Not as much care was given to Jamie and Claire in the latter part of the episode.  Which has been my problem with this show staring from "Both Sides Now."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

Anyone know if a wee Bree has been cast?

 

Yes, Bree has been cast.  There are pictures of her in the "Casting News and Wishlist" thread.

 

 

Claire just can't stay out of trouble, can she?  What, were they in France for like a day and a half before she made an enemy?  LOL

 

Weel, technically it was three weeks.  There is a "Three weeks later" tag on the first scene with Jared.  I said above that they needed some time to pass so that they can justify Jamie's hand healing soon but they also needed Jamie's body to heal.  He's moving like he's sporting a lot of injuries in that first scene -- he has trouble just getting into bed -- so they needed some time to pass to make it credible that he can run down the dock after Claire and shove that one guy backward over the barrels when he threatens Claire.

 

But yeah, Claire can't stay out of trouble.  And now she'll have access to unlimited quantities of wine.  Great.

Edited by WatchrTina
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Anyone know if a wee Bree has been cast? I'm still hoping we see that story maybe next season as opposed to this one (other than Bree/Roger stuff from DIA that I would like this season.

 

Yes, Bree has been cast.  There are pictures of her in the "Casting News and Wishlist" thread.

 

I took the original poster's question to be whether a child actress had been cast for Bree—the way there's been a wee Roger—to play any domestic scenes of Claire and Frank's early years in Boston. Casting for babies/small children really wouldn't require an exhaustive search and could pretty easily fly under the radar.

Share this post


Link to post

Frankly, I don't think it's unpopular to like the 1940s stuff more.  Even thought I think Ron's dialogue can be clunky, far more care was given to providing Frank and Claire meaningful dialogue and interactions in those first 35-40 minutes.  Not as much care was given to Jamie and Claire in the latter part of the episode.  Which has been my problem with this show staring from "Both Sides Now."

I saw DG say on compuserve that the Jamie/Claire dialog wasn't very Jamie/Claire-like, but that it had to accomplish a lot of exposition. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, I might a baby/child Bree. I guess we will find out! I stil can't believe we are getting another new episode this week! Lol. It's been so long since last season it feels a little like Christmas. And I guess I'm glad that they don't put them out all at once. Well. Sort of.

Share this post


Link to post

The best part of this season? No BREAKS!!!! No HIATUS of months!

 

Okay, now I've got a really stupid question, and I suppose I could Google it, but I'm too lazy.  Is a stillbirth considered a miscarriage?

 

I'm totally going to sit down and continue rewatching the first season while waiting for availability of the second episode.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size