S02.E01: Through a Glass, Darkly

[chocolatetruffle]

So here's my issue with TV Frank. (I know I'm late to the discussion, but bear w/ me) This time we got a good 20 minutes solely in Frank's POV.  I do believe he "chose" to believe her for the sake of keeping the peace and really there were no viable alternatives if he wanted to stay married to a woman who had already referred to him as her ex-husband.  But his love for her was most definitely NOT unconditional.  He didn't say to her that he understood that she was grieving the recent loss of a beloved husband and that he was willing to give her all the space and time she needed to grieve and process. He didn't say to her that when she was ready he would be there, ready to go forward in their marriage.  He didn't say to her that he loved her and would support her and her child as his own.  No he said he had "a Condition" - stop cheating on me with your dead ex or there will be no marriage. So TV Frank sucks. He's not a good guy. He did a selfless act for selfish reasons (he wants Claire and he wants a kid).  There's no unconditional love here, folks.  He doesn't want Claire the shell-shocked grieving widow.  He wants Claire his old wife back.

 

At least Claire made it clear that she was agreeing to this condition because Jamie wanted her to let go of him. Unfortunately, for Claire (and Frank) one cannot turn off one's feelings like a faucet. If one or both of them had understood this and worked together to help Claire heal emotionally, the marriage might have worked, but as it is, it's clearly doomed.

 

And if Ron's intention was to make me feel that Frank is "a good guy" - well I have two words: Epic Fail

Edited April 13, 2016 by chocolatetruffle

[Lion]

wuh?  That doesn't even make sense.  I know unconditional love can seem romantic and all that, but the truth is, there are always conditions.  Claire has made conditions with Jamie, he's made conditions with her.  Claire's future is super dim if Frank doesn't stay with her.  That really is a pretty selfless act on his part, to stay with a woman that he's just been told doesn't really want him.  He's angry about it, but that seems pretty reasonable.  All of Frank's actions in that scene screamed that he loved her, would support her and the child.  I'm pretty sure he even explicitly stated that the child would know him as his own.  I think wanting Claire to stopping cheating on him is also pretty reasonable.  

 

I just can't see how anything about this scene indicated that Frank was some sort of bad guy.  Not a perfect guy, but it's not like Claire or Jamie are perfect.  I definitely get not caring for Frank.  I find the 20th century stuff a bore, and that includes all the characters there.  I'm more drawn to the fantasy/sci-fi and the 18th century stuff is more deeply rooted in fantasy since it's the time traveling element.  But as boring as Frank is, it's hard to see him as the bad person.  It's all a tragedy, honestly.  

Edited April 13, 2016 by Lion

[mledawn]

I enjoyed the episode and like most felt like Tobias killed it. I thought he showed us hints of BJR, and not just his rage in the potting shed. There were facial expressions and he actually did a little of BJR's cheek-chewing thing, or whatever he does when he's eating what remains of his soul.

 

I'm in the minority in that I thought Claire was a PITA in the 1940s, she wasn't even giving Frank a chance, she was speaking in ways to be difficult and to hurt him. It's not his fault he looks like BJR, she was punishing him for something he couldn't control.

[maraleia]

So wait if Bree was raised in Boston then why did they cast Sophie Skelton in the role. She's from the UK.

I really hope that the reason why they included Tobias in the media coverage about this season is because they wanted to give viewers/fans of him a chance to drink him in since he won't be featured much at all during this season.

I want the focus to be on Claire and Jamie and the people they encounter.

[CatMack]

So wait if Bree was raised in Boston then why did they cast Sophie Skelton in the role. She's from the UK.

 

1) Actors play characters with different accents all the time.  Whether it's a good idea or not, it's very common place.

2) Bree having an American accent in the book isn't "wrong" per se, but whether children of immigrants have their parents' accent or the regional accent where they live is a complicated issue with a lot of factors.  Bree's accent makes her stand out when she goes back in time but it doesn't really have any plot purpose, just a few throwaway lines that don't amount to much.  So they could theoretically have Sophie keep her accent.  Or she could, either on purpose or because accents are hard, end up with a kind of hybrid American/English accent, which would probably be fairly true to real life (my bff was raised in England by American parents - sounds mostly American but the British creeps in every now and then).

Edited April 13, 2016 by CatMack

[LadyPenelope]

I wonder if we, the viewers, would feel more unequivocal support for Frank and his situation if he had not been played by the same actor who plays Season 1's biggest, baddest villain.  We'll never know but I can't help wondering if Frank had been played by a handsome, likable actor who was not Tobias Menzies, would the viewers sympathize with him more?  I actually sympathized with Frank a LOT in this episode despite my unabashed support for Jamie/Claire as the show's OTP but it's clear that many people did not.

 

Non-book reader here, but that is 95% of the reason I cannot bear Frank. To be fair, I binge watched S1 recently so that I could start watching S2, so the final episodes are still fresh in my mind (and god they were awful - I've got PTSD, let alone poor Jamie!), but every time I see Frank I just want Claire to hit him over the head and run far, far away. Objectively, I have no problem with the character - he's no Jamie, but he seems like a decent man who has been through hell and is just trying to restore some normality to his life. Really, he reacted better than a lot of people would under the circumstances. I really think with a different actor I would have felt for him a lot more - as it was I don't know how Claire can continue with any sort of relationship with him, let alone sleep with him. When he got angry and was standing over her shouting, I literally flinched and had to cover my eyes. Tobias Menzies is just too good an actor - not sure I'll be able to watch him as Edmure Tully without having panic attacks now! I did like that they let Claire express some of those feelings - particularly when she asked him never to use the word 'flog' again. I can think of a few more words I'd like to add to that list.

[Atlanta]

1) Actors play characters with different accents all the time.  Whether it's a good idea or not, it's very common place.

2) Bree having an American accent in the book isn't "wrong" per se, but whether children of immigrants have their parents' accent or the regional accent where they live is a complicated issue with a lot of factors.  Bree's accent makes her stand out when she goes back in time but it doesn't really have any plot purpose, just a few throwaway lines that don't amount to much.  So they could theoretically have Sophie keep her accent.  Or she could, either on purpose or because accents are hard, end up with a kind of hybrid American/English accent, which would probably be fairly true to real life (my bff was raised in England by American parents - sounds mostly American but the British creeps in every now and then).

I used to work with a guy who had British parents and they sent him to a vocal coach to sound American (he was partially raised in England). I was floored to learn he was English. He was the most southern sounding guy. lol On the other hand, my BFF's parents were born and raised in Israel and kept their accents, but she is US born with no trace of their accents. I guess it depends. I imagine that Bree would be more like my best friend with foreign born parents with accents but born and raised in the US. In the audiobooks, she's voiced with an American accent by the narrator, the talented Davina Porter.

[GHScorpiosRule]

my BFF's parents were born and raised in Israel and kept their accents, but she is US born with no trace of their accents. I guess it depends. I imagine that Bree would be more like my best friend with foreign born parents with accents but born and raised in the US. In the audiobooks, she's voiced with an American accent by the narrator, the talented Davina Porter.

 

 

This is me. My parents were born and raised and lived in India for 30 some years; I was born and raised here. BUT didn't know any English when I started school--had to take ESOL in the first grade. But I have no Indian accent. 'Tis American.  Though I do wonder how I managed to make it through Kindergarten not knowing any English. I think I understood it...because Bugs Bunny! Super Friends! But I didn't know how to speak it! Huh.

 

So there's my wee contribution to this conversation!

[Athena]

Bree will grow up in 1950s and 1960s America. At that time, the accent was closer to being slightly Mid-Atlantic than it is now. You can hear it in the newscasts. Globalization of the American accent we hear now was not as widespread. She will be more English sounding around her parents, but both Frank and Claire have strong RPs anyway so they are fairly standard. Having an accent is easier than speaking a language so she could move between them. I think it would not be out of character for Bree to sound even more English when around other Brits. Even I modulate my accent when around other Brits because I've spent enough time with them before. People do not do it consciously either. The actor John Barrowman of Torchwood and Doctor Who grew up in the US, but goes full on Scottish when he is at home with his parents. 

[WatchrTina]

Random Outlander thoughts of the morning:

Claire has only been at the Reverend's house for a week when Frank gets her clothes back from his colleague, authenticating them as 18th century. But he didn't authenticate their age -- just the manner in which they had been constructed. If he had actually carbon-dated the fabric it would have been revealed to be only a few years old. Claire didn't age 200 years by passing through the stones so the clothes would not have aged either. This makes me slightly less sad to see them burned. If they had gone to a museum they would have eventually been revealed to be a "fraud" (or at least an enigma.)

Remember that scene from season 1 where Clare recollects Frank telling her and the Reverend the key to lying under interrogation? He tells them to stick to the truth as much as possible, changing only what must be changed. I assume Frank thinks that is what Claire has done. I assume he believes that she did not leave him by choice but that she eventually stayed by choice because she fell in love with another man -- a man who is now dead. As for the rest of it -- the time-travel story -- I assume he believes she cobbled that together based on tales she had heard from Mrs. Graham before she left and from others while she was gone. Remember that Mrs. Graham is the first person Claire asked to speak to and she and Mrs. Graham clearly talked through the story many times before Claire told it to Frank. I think Frank believes she constructed the story during that week, weaving in as much truth as possible but -- for reasons surpassing his understanding -- constructing a fantastical tale about where she was the whole time. I'm betting at this point he thinks she was living with some deep-in-the-Highlands cult that eschews modern conveniences and lives as they did back in the 18th century. He may even think that they entertain themselves by making up stories round the fire like our ancestors did and that those stories have formed the basis of the tale Claire has told him. I assume he thinks she made it all up to keep their existence a secret -- to protect their strange way of life because she came to think of them as family. All this speculation is the result of that line from the first episode that Claire says when she sees the first Redcoat -- the line about how, 'When confronted with the impossible, the rational mind will grope for the logical." I think that's what Frank is doing, but he's hiding it from Claire -- pretending to accept her story -- so that they can move on.

Edited April 14, 2016 by WatchrTina

[GHScorpiosRule]

Bree will grow up in 1950s and 1960s America. At that time, the accent was closer to being slightly Mid-Atlantic than it is now. You can hear it in the newscasts. Globalization of the American accent we hear now was not as widespread. She will be more English sounding around her parents, but both Frank and Claire have strong RPs anyway so they are fairly standard. Having an accent is easier than speaking a language so she could move between them. I think it would not be out of character for Bree to sound even more English when around other Brits. Even I modulate my accent when around other Brits because I've spent enough time with them before. People do not do it consciously either. The actor John Barrowman of Torchwood and Doctor Who grew up in the US, but goes full on Scottish when he is at home with his parents. 

 

I'm quoting EVERYBODY today, it seems!

 

I'm the same way! When I go to India to visit my family and friends (who speak Oxford English due to their schooling), they can't understand my flat and "bastardized English" so I end up emulating them and speaking in Proper English, if you will, if not the Queen's English.  My English deteriorates and my Hindi improves, so when I come back home, my friends and co-workers think I'm affecting an accent apurpose! Which, just 'tisn't true!

 

It takes awhile for me to return to my "normal" way of speaking that dastardly Bastardized English!

 

I just assumed that Bree sounded like JFK or Ted Kennedy. Ye ken?

[Archery]

 

There's no unconditional love here, folks.  He doesn't want Claire the shell-shocked grieving widow.  He wants Claire his old wife back.

We know that Claire is a shell-shocked grieving widow, but Frank has no reason to believe that.  To him, her account is something that simply does not make sense, and the only thing he knows for sure is that she was gone for two years (willingly or unwillingly) and is pregnant by another man.  Everything else is fiction to him.

 

As the American daughter (raised in Boston) of British parents, I always imagine Briana's accent sounding like mine:  weirdly Americanized to my British relatives, weirdly British to my American friends, unaccented to my own ears.

Edited April 13, 2016 by Archery

[asp]

Maril acknowledges wrong S2 timeline:

 

https://twitter.com/TallShipProds/status/721005283204444160?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

 

https://twitter.com/TallShipProds/status/721006113722732550?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[toolazy]

Good for her for acknowledging the error and promising to correct it.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

Maril acknowledges wrong S2 timeline:

 

https://twitter.com/TallShipProds/status/721005283204444160?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

 

https://twitter.com/TallShipProds/status/721006113722732550?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

 

 

Good for her for acknowledging the error and promising to correct it.  

 

 

I hope Athena or someone who is not a buik reader also saw that and will post it in their thread, because I know it was driving some of them nuts about the dates as weil.

 

And no, those are no' typos!

Edited April 15, 2016 by GHScorpiosRule

[Iju]

conflicted on this episode. i adore jack and want the best for him, i totally understood why he was so willing to throw any story claire gave him out the window because not only was she alive but she was safe. while i partly understand claire's mourning, what i don't get is her screaming at the man to tell her who won the war. ummm, would it have really mattered? jaimie and co would be long dead anyway. i know it would have been better for jaimie not to have been murdered of course, but claire would have been mourning anyway since he's dead either way.

i was also angry at the writers who made jack almost hit claire, but when he explained why, and how he looked so painful explaining to his friend, i guess that was okay in the end. i was also really sour over claire being so selfish and giving all the reasons why jack shouldn't like her anymore, but again she is in mourning so i can let that slide. jack even let her keep the wedding ring. what a good man.

random but i don't like jaimie's new hairstyle. makes his face look weird imo. he looks "domesticated", if you will.

[abbey]

5 hours ago, Iju said:

conflicted on this episode. i adore jack and want the best for him, i totally understood why he was so willing to throw any story claire gave him out the window because not only was she alive but she was safe. while i partly understand claire's mourning, what i don't get is her screaming at the man to tell her who won the war. ummm, would it have really mattered? jaimie and co would be long dead anyway. i know it would have been better for jaimie not to have been murdered of course, but claire would have been mourning anyway since he's dead either way.

i was also angry at the writers who made jack almost hit claire, but when he explained why, and how he looked so painful explaining to his friend, i guess that was okay in the end. i was also really sour over claire being so selfish and giving all the reasons why jack shouldn't like her anymore, but again she is in mourning so i can let that slide. jack even let her keep the wedding ring. what a good man.

random but i don't like jaimie's new hairstyle. makes his face look weird imo. he looks "domesticated", if you will.

I think you mean Frank and not Jack.

[Iju]

19 hours ago, abbey said:

I think you mean Frank and not Jack.

i always assumed his name as jack, lol. thanks for the correction^^

[Kim0820]

On 4/7/2016 at 5:28 PM, Glaze Crazy said:

I'm glad they showed Claire searching the Reverend's library for information about Culloden and how Frank asks her to stop looking and live in the present.  

I was glad to see the addition of Claire talking to Mrs. Graham about it.  Goodness, this woman dances around the stones and retells the legends, she was probably the best one to accept the bold truth without physical proof. 

On 4/8/2016 at 1:27 PM, AD55 said:

I loved this episode. I can think of only two things I would change, both very minor: 1) For me, it felt off to have Claire ask who won the battle of Culloden. As I recall, the whole point of the intrigue was to avoid the showdown at Culloden moor. 

 

If she could go beyond that library, surely since Jamie was a laird, there would be a record of him and his death.  She might even find his grave - she knew or could find out where Lallybroch was.  It would be creepy to find he'd lived past Culloden - but that would mess up the plot since she could then just go back.  A previous thread mentioned that Jamie might not have lived past the day he met Claire, without her medical help.  It would be creepy for her to find he had died in 1743.   Like her going back didn't change anything.  It did change things for a lot of people, who would have died sooner had she not been there in 1743.

Frank might not believe her - By the 1940s, people are too science based and can't believe it - but then it does happen in the novel's world, and Mrs. Graham is right rather than credulous.  

When Claire first got there, she had apparently come from a day in 1746 when she did not know who won - I guess the Season will show how far she got or how reasonable it might be for her to think the Jacobites might have.  

I felt sad for her.  She is a widow, emotionally, recently bereaved.  And learning the British won Culloden after all made her break down.

It is a good twist to have a baby conceived in 1746 but born in 1948.  

We also learn about the stones.  They can take you back, and in addition, the amount of time you spent in the past has passed too.  

Also raises the question - can Claire find 1968 Geillis in time to tell her what's going to happen to her unless she avoids Craig na Dun?

I also hope the "beat up Jamie" theme doesn't continue.  From the floggings, the dislocated shoulder, taking Leery's punishment and all the rest of it, that's been done to death.