S02.E03: Useful Occupations and Deceptions

[areca]

love everything about Master Raymond and his shop. There is something magical and eerie about his little pharmacy, reminds me about "Harry Potter" and Diagon Alley. Perfect casting, interiors and Raymond's interactions with Claire are interesting.

 

Future book stuff - not sure if that needs to be spoilered, but just in case.  

I can't remember what he said, but at one point he used totally modern phrasing on something.  I only caught it because, well...

[AheadofStraight]

I think they added extensions to his hair in the first episodes until the duel, because then he will cut his hair. In the pictures and short clips we saw from Scotland he has his old Jamie hair and not the long fringe he's sporting in these early episodes. I also mean to remember I saw a short clip in a very early trailer (from comic con?) where we could see an upset looking Claire with a lock of his hair in his hand. So I think the hair cutting will still be in the show. 

 

Cool, I hope so!!

[AheadofStraight]

Does anyone have the link to the family tree image that was release ahead of this episode? I want to look at it again.

 

Something I noticed when I watched the episode for the second time was the way Jamie looked at Claire when she was relating her knowledge of Bach with Mother Hildegard. It's a slight thing but he looks at her like wow my wife knows a lot of stuff that I'll never know since I've never traveled back in time. I hope we see more of that in the coming episodes.

 

Family tree: http://www.farfarawaysite.com/section/outlander/gallery2/gallery3/hires/1.jpg

[maraleia]

Family tree: http://www.farfarawaysite.com/section/outlander/gallery2/gallery3/hires/1.jpg

Thanks!

 

The surname situation is interesting because it actually doesn't make sense. Take a look at the tree and tell me

[Lion]

Obviously Frank's last name is Randall and more obviously he's related to Black Jack.  These things aren't in question, so it's mostly a matter of thinking about how and why the grandmother's and great grandmother's names were listed as Randall.  It's suggested that Frank's grandmother was a sort of historian.  Perhaps she wasn't a very precise historian.  After all, she didn't even include dates of birth and death which Frank mentions is typical of family bibles like that.  Or perhaps she wasn't a historian at all and just decided to put the known family history in a pretty book and included herself and her mother in law without care of their maiden names.  

 

Of course, there could be some family secret or whatever to explain, but usually the easiest explanation is the right one.  

[Andorra]

I don't get the problem with the names? If his grandmother was married to a Randall her name would be Randall. The same goes for the great grandmother. On my family tree the women all have the name of their husbands, too? I know the maiden names of some of them, so I wrote them under it, but they're all listed under their husband's name.  Maybe it's an European thing?

Edited April 26, 2016 by Andorra

[Clawdette]

In their discussion, the Scot and the Sassenach commented that, while they liked Fergus, they had envisioned the character as much younger than the actor.  I didn't think about that when I viewed, but the actor is a teenager.  He does have childlike qualities, though and I think he can play younger than he is.

[Athena]

52 minutes ago, Clawdette said:

In their discussion, the Scot and the Sassenach commented that, while they liked Fergus, they had envisioned the character as much younger than the actor.  I didn't think about that when I viewed, but the actor is a teenager.  He does have childlike qualities, though and I think he can play younger than he is.

I didn't think that much of it either because the actor has a very cherubic face that will make him look a bit younger. However, they probably had to cast older than book Fergus. Similar to Game of Thrones. It's more feasible to find an actor who is a bit older.

[Dust Bunny]

So, just to double-check, book talk threads are now green, and non-book are red. Right? 

Edited April 27, 2016 by Dust Bunny

[Athena]

24 minutes ago, Dust Bunny said:

So, just to double-check, book talk threads are now green, and non-book are red. Right? 

Yes, the tags are coloured coded that way. This new system also allows multiple tags for each thread e.g. a No Book Talk + Spoilers thread or Book Talk + No Spoilers options. Things are still spotty on the forums so be prepared for a few more hiccups.

[WatchrTina]

Well, here it is, Friday after the airing of episode 203 and STARZ still hasn't uploaded Ron's podcasts for ep 202 or 203.  Color me disappointed.  

The good news is that I have discovered the joys of the twice-weekly podcast by "The Scot and the Sassenach" where they focus on the plot and writing in Outlander.  This morning I'm listening to their 2nd posting for episode 203, which is when they revisit their original reactions in light of the feedback they get from their fans.  I want to share one thing I learned there because it speaks directly to something that stuck in my craw in the episode.

When Jamie comes home at the beginning he blows through the house like a zephyr, dropping his weapons, dropping his belt and "purse" (more on that later) on the desk, and changing his vest, hardly breaking stride in the process.  I took particular note of a lingering shot of Jamie's belt and purse on the desk, which is immediately picked up by a servant.  It was very deliberate.  What did it mean?

The Sassenach thought it was ominous.  She was already uncomfortable about the fact that Jamie and Claire are openly discussing their plans in front of the servants.  She thought that shot was a hint that the servants should not be trusted and she further thought the discovery that Sawny the snake was missing was another beat in that effort (as in "what else might be missing?")  The Scot scoffed at that by rightly asking "Why would a servant take a carved wooden snake?" I thought (on the 2nd viewing) that the writers were giving us a red herring, wanting to misdirect us as to what happened to the snake so that they could reveal later that Fergus took it.  But on first viewing I didn't get that -- I just thought the shot was odd.

The Scot, on the other hand, had a completely different take on the purpose of that shot.  He thought it was a humorous beat, showing how busy Jamie is and also reminding us that he is "The Laird" -- someone who is quite comfortable with having servants around and confident that he can drop his possessions anywhere he likes, knowing that people are walking behind him picking up after him.  I think that interpretation provides a nice contrast to Claire who has to make an effort to NOT fold her clothes and make her bed.  In this episode we actually see her doing some mending that she gave to Suzette.  Those beats help to reinforce the widening gulf between Jamie, who is so busy he barely has time to sleep, and Claire, who is so bored and feeling so useless that she actually starts doing her maid's work (mending the lace.) All of that helps serve as justification for her later decision to take her pregnant self into a hospital where, no matter how careful she is, she does run the risk of encountering people with infectious diseases.

The Sassenach also made another really good point vis-à-vis the tension created by Jamie and Claire talking in front of the servants. She said it was out-of-character for Claire to be so open because Claire has just come through a World War where the notion that "loose lips sink ships" had been drilled into her.  She was married to a member of the intelligence service for heaven's sake.  So Claire talking freely about their plans seems a bit out-of-character.  But (and this is MY observation) Jamie speaking freely in front of the servants IS in character.  Remember the scene in season 1 where they return home to Lallybroch and Ian says that Jamie has arrived just in time to see all the tenants at Quarter Day?  Claire wonders aloud if it is wise for Jamie to appear openly before the tenants before his pardon comes through, but Jenny shuts that down, asserting that none of their tenants (or servants) would ever betray Jamie.  So it make sense that Jamie, having been assured by Jared that his servants are trustworthy, would speak freely in his own house.  It still feels risky to me -- after all they are trying to undermine Jared's wishes as a Jacobite and the servants are loyal to Jared, not them -- but I can fan-wank my way around that by observing that English is a second language to the servants and that fact, coupled with the convoluted machinations and double-dealing that Jamie and Claire are up to, would be sufficient to make it impossible for the servants to understand what Jamie and Claire are actually doing.  Furthermore, if Jamie opens the subject with Claire in front of servants, she can't help but answer.  If she became evasive or shushed Jamie that would actually draw the servants attention to what they were saying.  On top of that, Claire hardly every sees Jamie these days (he's so busy) so they need to share information between them when they can.

Okay, one more thing -- I learned from "The Scot" that whatever Jamie is storing his possessions in in that first scene, it's not a sporran.  He says it can only be called that if it's worn with a kilt.  Call it a purse or a bag, but not a sporran.

 

Okay I'm off to listen to the rest of the pod cast (I have the day off -- YAY!).  But where-oh-where is Ron Moore's podcast?

Edited April 29, 2016 by WatchrTina
punctuation matters

[ElsieH]

Did anyone notice in this episode that Germany is now an actual country? Remember in the last season when Claire asked if the monks who built the monastery at the Black Kirk were from Germany and Jamie looked at her funny until she corrected it to "Prussia"? Seems odd now that they are intercepting letters written in German.I think I remember folks discussing that she shouldn't have had to clarify because Germany was a country but I guess if you re-watch as much as I do, it stands out as a continuity error.

[Archery]

German as a language has been around for centuries (actually Deutsch).  It is one of the main branches of ancient languages that evolved into English (Latin, a Romance language, being the other main one).  It's why, if you read Chaucer aloud in the original old English, it sounds very much like German.  On the other hand, Germany, as a country, has had many names and borders over the centuries, depending on who ruled it, until fairly recently in its history.  So it's not a continuity error to refer to German as a language in 1743, but would be to refer to Germany as a country. 

[Kim0820]

On 4/23/2016 at 10:34 PM, tcay said:

I haven't gone to look at the script yet, but I thought I heard Fergus say "ok" in English? Silly nitpick, but it stuck out to me.

 

 

 

 

Claire said to Jamie, "It's OK" when he imagined Randall in bed with her.  I wondered is that something a British person would use in 1945. And Jamie wouldn't know it.  But the moment was too serious for him to bring it up.