S02.E05: Untimely Resurrection

[nodorothyparker]

Quote

Maybe we won't see it, but hear a scream? That's my hope.

Mercifully, we don't see it in the book.  Just the brand afterward and then the retelling of what happened.  That's more than enough for me.

[vesperholly]

7 hours ago, Haleth said:

With all the Claire loathing at this point (and I agree, she's pretty annoying right now) I look forward to the scene when she figures out that Alex is the father of Mary's child, not BJR.

I am unsullied in that I have not read any books past the first few chapters of DIA but will read wikis and spoil myself, but I guessed that one right when Alex was introduced (and especially once shown as smitten with Mary). It's such an obvious plot - Frank is good and BJR is bad, so somehow Frank must not be actually descended from him.

[Starla]

The opening scene reminded me of Downton Abbey, with the camera following the servants through the house.

It was lovely and a bit sad to watch Jamie with the horses. So much has happened since his horse-tending days, I'm sure he misses it. I don't think we've seen him on a horse yet this season.

[AheadofStraight]

3 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

There is an image in the opening credits that I took to be Claire caressing Jamie's injured, scarred, but now recovered hand.  That makes me think you MAY get your wish.

There was a scene cut from one of the earlier episodes where she was massaging his hand. I'm hoping that's not the one from the opening scenes because *I* really want that scene too. A favorite, for sure.

[morgan]

So maybe if we don't get it in the show we will get it in deleted scenes?

[AheadofStraight]

Well, the one that was cut had Claire massaging his hand and alluded to that scene but wasn't the same. And actually, it was kinda gross and I'm glad they cut it.  Paraphrasing, she's massaging it and he holds it up and flexes it with delight then Claire says, "Now will you make love to me, Jamie?"  Ick. This was in episode 2 script. You can read them all at http://www.outlandercommunity.com. The writers annotate them and it is interesting to see what they cut!

Edited May 9, 2016 by AheadofStraight

[Clawdette]

I just read through Richard Kahan's script on the Outlander Community.  In his notes about the Apostle spoons, he wrote that there were several incarnations of that scene including a highly sexual one.  There was also an extended scene with Claire and Fergus at the beginning of the episode that was cut for time.  But the Scot and the Sassenach noted the episode was only 53 minutes and wondered why.  We could have gotten Fergus' conversation in that extra time.

[AheadofStraight]

I'm really disappointed that Fergus scene was cut. Non-book readers viewers barely know him and I think that is a very sweet scene (& straight from the book). Bummer. Don't really understand the "cut for time" thing when it was such a short episode. I'd like to hear that explained.

[Andorra]

Late to the party, but oh, I loved this episode! It is certainly one of my favorites in the whole show so far and I'm very happy about the new writer. 

The little moments between Claire and Jamie were very sweet and so much like the Claire and Jamie we know from the books, especially the Apostel spoon scene

Spoiler

(and I'm already crying when I think where one of that spoons will end. We know it from the trailer...)

. I also loved the Murtagh/Jamie scene. Jamie like a true Laird and Duncan Lacroix plays Murtagh so well. I really, really like him.

I don't get the point of "Annalise". Why is she in the story? Her lines so far could be all done by Louise instead. I found her very pointless in the book, too and the same goes for the show. It's clear Jamie doesn't have an interest in her any more anyway, so why is she there?

I seem to be alone in my opinion, that Tobias overplayed BJR in the "reunion" scene. I know "Claire" was meant to give us a reminder of the moment Frank will meet Claire again, but it just sounds wrong, that he calls her by her first name. He always called her "Madame" before so why did he change it now? Then the whole speech to her sounded too cartonish to me. He's an over the top villain now. Still fun to watch, but it just doesn't ring true and then Tobias even did some weird thing with his eye at one point, which was really too much. So I'm afraid I'm not joining the chorus of praise for him this time.

Instead I'll give it all to Sam today. What an amazing performance in this episode. He was perfect in all scenes, especially of course at the very end. His delivery of "Christ. God, Claire. You'd stop me taking vengeance on the man that made me play his whore?" was incredible. I had a big lump in my throat.

It wasn't a good episode for Claire. I hated that passage in the books as well, but I'm glad I know they'll overcome all this and will be closer than ever in the second part of the series. 

[WatchrTina]

Quote

I don't get the point of "Annalise". Why is she in the story? Her lines so far could be all done by Louise instead. I found her very pointless in the book, too and the same goes for the show. It's clear Jamie doesn't have an interest in her any more anyway, so why is she there?

Yeah I hated the conversation between Claire and Annalise.  The only thing I can think of is that the writers needed Claire to be somewhat isolated in the gardens when Jack sees her and then they needed a plausible way for Jamie to get to the scene very quickly.  Louise would have been savvy enough to recognize the tension between the two of them (Jack and Claire) and as such it might not have been plausible for her to go off leaving Claire (who has declared she is unwell) alone with someone she's having a negative reaction to.  Annalise barely knows Claire so it seem plausible that she would misread the signals.  Perhaps she thinks Jack is a former attachment of Claire's -- he did call her by her first name.  If Annalise thought the English officer WAS a romantic rival to Jamie I would not put it past Annalise to deliberately leave Claire alone with him AND fetch Jamie so that he could catch them together.  There, that's me putting the worst possible interpretations on Annalise's actions.  A more innocent interpretation is that she runs to get Jamie and leaves Claire with a man she clearly knows well, believing that's the best, most kind action to take in that moment.  Her motives could be totally pure.  But the bottom line is that she's just a plot devise to get Claire and Jamie where they need to be in the garden for this scene.

ETA:  I'm pretty sure it was a breach of etiquette for Jack to introduce himself to Annalise. He should have waited for Claire to do it and the more high-ranking of the two (presumably Annalise) should have indicated a desire to be introduced.  Annalise let it slide -- she is very young and Jack is a good-looking man.  (Annalise even seems disappointed that he only has eyes for Claire.)  I'm sure Jack figured that he could get away with introducing himself to Annalise (and thus forcing a conversation upon Claire), but I'd like to think that Louise would have shut him down completely when she saw that Claire was unwilling to make the introduction.  I'm pretty sure Louise outranks Annalise (she's actually a "princess" in the books, which I never quite understood) and she's older and she would (I presume) have been more mindful of the rules.  I'd like to think Louise would have responded to Jack's introducing himself in the same way that Mr. Darcy responded to Mr. Collins' speaking to him without a proper introduction in Pride & Prejudice -- with a cold response and a quick walk-away (preferably arm-in-arm with Claire.)

Edited May 10, 2016 by WatchrTina

[Andorra]

1 hour ago, Grashka said:

Oh. That trailer you mention in "hidden contents" - is that one on STARZ channel on YouTube? Because I don't remember seeing that.

As for Randall adressing Claire by her first name, I think it was because he wanted to create a sense of "intimacy" and "closeness" between the two of them - afterall, they both have shared Jamie's body - as awfull as it sounds. Randall alludes to it in DIA, later when they are in Edinburgh and he has that conversation with Claire in church.

It's one of the official trailers for season 2. 

Spoiler

It shows Jamie and Claire at Faith's grave and there's a spoon on the tombstone. 

[Clawdette]

When Randall is abusing Jamie, he asks him to call him Claire, in essence melding himself with the love of Jamie's life.  I would think this would create a sort of familiarity in Jack's mind that translated into him showing this intimacy during their encounter in the garden.

[Clawdette]

Here's a screen capture of the scene referenced above.

Spoiler

[WatchrTina]

So in my write-up I hated on Annalise's outfit at Versailles and said I was glad Terry gave her an ugly outfit.  Terry would disagree.  Turns out she loves that costume, especially since it is one of the few reproductions they did (meaning it was based on a museum piece they found).  Here's her blog on the subject: http://www.terrydresbach.com/god-is-in-the-details/

[Kim0820]

On 5/7/2016 at 11:03 PM, chocolatetruffle said:

However I absolutely loathed Claire through most of this episode. Starting with her even considering leaving Alex in the Bastille for the sake of Frank; then watching her manipulate poor Alex, again for Frank, made me want to punch her; and finally, the "you owe me a life" scene was just gut-wrenching. On a shallow note, Sam looked extremely fetching in that last scene, but I digress. This episode was officially NULOCH* ("C" for Claire instead of the she-beast from GH) for me. It also bugs me (and really bugged me in the book) that Claire does not seem to care about the consequences for Mary of being married to that sadist who enjoys raping and degrading women as much as men.

This section of the series and book revolves around a giant plot-hole that really irks me anyway.  That is, they are trying to make a rather extreme change to history.  That means that everyone's history would change in ways they can't imagine.  Frank may end up never being born or Claire may never be born or any number of other variables may happen because of what they're doing.  So why balk at killing BJR (who everyone thought was dead) when they have already changed things - and if Frank is meant to be born, then he'll be born.  Or why not let the relationship happen between Mary and Alex come to its logical conclusion w/o interference, since their initial meeting wasn't tied to Claire & Jamie's plotting and therefore, we must assume, was supposed to happen.  I just get annoyed that it's o.k. to try to change the future one minute, until some event comes along that you think should not be changed. But just by being there in Paris in 1743 you've already changed the future.  Oh, never mind... it just makes my head hurt.

*NULOCH = No Upper Limit Of Claire Hate

Claire is braveandstrongandloveswithherwholeheart!  

Claire could have left Mary and Alex alone completely and it looks like Alex is not long for this world anyway.  

The weird thing is she has Frank's wedding ring.  So why would she think it was even possible for him not to exist?  She never does think deeply about whether she has the power to change things.  Does she consider that she had always been there in the 1740s?  And that the child she is going to have could have descendants who she may have run across in the 1940s.  Maybe Frank is even descended from her!  (There are enough generations that it wouldn't be close enough to be incestuous).  

On 5/8/2016 at 12:06 AM, insubordination said:

 

Yes, Frank may be innocent, but so is Mary.  Claire is determined to get what she wants, no matter what. She uses every tool in her arsenal to make it happen (you owe me!). Yet I can't hate her for being so driven and strident.  That quality is admirable in other scenarios, but infuriating here - that's Claire.

I do agree that it would have been better if Claire had  pointed out that if she had never married Frank, it would mean she wouldn't be standing here now. I would actually like a further "Can we really affect the future?" conversation.  The time travel element of this show is too often overlooked.

On the ship, Jamie said we can only play our part in it.  Claire was the one with the bright idea to alter a major part of history.  By this point, Claire may have already caused Frank not to exist - maybe another one of Frank's ancestors is a child of Jamie and Leery or some other person who got killed because she's there.  Maybe Jamie wouldn't have been alive to be tortured by BJR had Claire not come.  Maybe Frank is descended from someone Claire saved who would have died and therefore she is responsible for his ever existing in the first place.  It is not like Claire to analyze all this though.  It is in her character to jump to conclusions and feel she must do something to save somebody immediately.

On 5/8/2016 at 8:45 AM, Haleth said:

With all the Claire loathing at this point (and I agree, she's pretty annoying right now) I look forward to the scene when she figures out that Alex is the father of Mary's child, not BJR.  I want to see her face when she thinks back to this fight and realizes how horrible she was to Jamie, all for nothing.  Having BJR turn up alive after being trampled by a herd of cows should have been her first clue that she can't meddle with history.  Frank will be born, one way or another.  

Couple things to add:  About Claire drinking, I tell myself she's only taking a small sip.  No harm to the baby.  About Annalise's "man" comment, I took that as her complimenting Claire on taking an immature, rash, hedonistic? kid and turning him into the sophisticated, charismatic man.

Claire isn't a person to just trust to fate - but she could have realized maybe Frank's genealogy had some errors, Mary Hawkins is a common name and for all Claire knows, BJR is married already and already has the key child.  Frank existed without her meddling before (time travel is strange) so maybe he exists anyway.  The way to convince Jamie was that he would get killed or arrested and hung, so if he loved her and the child, why is he going to abandon them in one of those two ways?  

Claire drinking - they didn't know there was any problem in the 1940s yet, and they smoked on top of it.  No one in the 1740s will disapprove.  But when Jenny wanted a shot of whiskey to get through the birth, Claire suggested the baby would be born drunk, seeming to discourage that idea.