S04.E09: The Day After

[Umbelina]

Checked AV club, you are right of course.  http://www.avclub.com/tvclub/theres-got-be-day-after-americans-236632

Quote

But only Oleg knows how close they all came to living the events of The Day After. After letting his privilege hang out in front of Tatiana, Oleg shares a bit of privileged information with her: On September 26, 1983, five inbound American ICBMs were detected by the USSR’s early-warning satellites. Our fraternizing Soviet diplomats are still alive because those nukes were properly identified as a false alarm. Because the officer on duty defied his training, “sunlight reflected off clouds” failed to start World War III. Today we know that officer’s name (Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov) and his reasons for ignoring the warning (if the United States intended to wipe the Soviet Union off the map, it would’ve done so with more than five missiles), but in the fall of 1983, he was merely the subject of questionably appropriate pillow talk. He was just one unknown person, doing what he knew to be right.

I wasn't reading the translation closely enough during that scene obviously!  Could his dad be in trouble for blabbing?  Anyway, that whole arrangement between Oleg and Tatiana just seems so fraught with tension and possible betrayal, so my mind went there.  Duh.

Edited May 15, 2016 by Umbelina

[Clanstarling]

15 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Checked AV club, you are right of course.  http://www.avclub.com/tvclub/theres-got-be-day-after-americans-236632

I wasn't reading the translation closely enough during that scene obviously!  Could his dad be in trouble for blabbing?  Anyway, that whole arrangement between Oleg and Tatiana just seems so fraught with tension and possible betrayal, so my mind went there.  Duh.

It would seem to me that the near miss was top secret - and his father would definitely be up the creek for telling Oleg about it. I'm not sure if this was information relayed over the phone or not - I think so, but I don't remember if there was any comment that Oleg had returned to the USSR after coming back . I would assume they talk only on "safe" Residentura lines.

[gwhh]

I do hope we will NOT have to see much middle age Asian male (or any middle age male ) butt this season!  

I wonder if they can take the cameo back to the USSR?  

We need to find Elizabeth a real friend!  

[lucindabelle]

On May 12, 2016 at 3:54 PM, sugarbaker design said:

Right, I was 18 when TDA aired, and while I don't remember anyone being traumatized by it (or at least admitting to being traumatized by it), I definitely remember people snarking on it.

We're about the same age. On avclu  people think I'm a monster or about 80 haha. 

On May 13, 2016 at 0:30 AM, CarpeDiem54 said:

I must have been in a coma in 1983.  I've never heard of The Day After and I was 29 at the time.  The only excuse I have is we were implementing a computer system at work and I was putting in a lot of hours.  I've never heard of the other movies mentioned either - Threads, Testament - and was only vaguely aware of David Copperfield.

I don't rememner any of the other movies or the david copper field thing either. Sometimes I think the writers just have a book a out what was popular in the 80s and go from that. Very occasionally they hit the wrong things.

On May 13, 2016 at 5:54 AM, RedHawk said:

I was in my early 20s amd didn't watch "The Day After", "Threads", or "Testament". I was skeptical and anti-Reagan and thought the films were released mostly to frighten people and make them see the Soviet Union as "the enemy" so our government could justify the massive defense buildup and questionable things like "Star Wars" defense system. I was not alone in this opinion.

Elizabeth also wasn't the only one who laughed at Reagan's excessive makeup and jeered his fear-mongering speeches; plenty of us did. We were more scared of what Reagan was doing than what the Russians might do that ridiculous short story that was in the magazines about how teachers in

On May 13, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Hanahope said:

You're not the only one.  I recognized the name, but I have absolutely no memory of watching this show or even the "event" around it, other people talking about, etc.  I was 19 at the time and in college, so maybe just being in a bubble at the time I didn't pay it any attention.  I know I wasn't watching very much TV at that time, out with friends a lot.  I don't recall hearing about the other movies or the big David Copperfield Statute of Liberty thing either (and I always loved magic, my 21st birthday was spent at the Magic Castle in Hollywood).  I really must have been in my own world then.  Either that or my memory of those events was blipped out.

I'm not surprised Pastor Tim picked up on Paige seemingly burdened by something.  Gee Phil, you think?  I loved the visual of Paige in that huge car-boat.  I didn't learn to drive a car that big.

Bout time Elizabeth started to grow a heart and realize that her actions not only really hurt people, but herself as well.  I was wondering whether Don will do something bad because of feeling so shamed by the event.

Remember the short story that was in I think family circle about teachers coming into a classroom and teaching them that the pledge of allegiance ws bad? That was a year or two later. Many many eye rolls.

[sistermagpie]

9 hours ago, lucindabelle said:

I don't rememner any of the other movies or the david copper field thing either. Sometimes I think the writers just have a book a out what was popular in the 80s and go from that. Very occasionally they hit the wrong things.

I think from the pov of somebody Henry's age both the David Copperfield Statue of Liberty thing and The Day After would be things that he'd have been very aware of, and Paige too, whether or not they'd both be excited or traumatized by them. With these two things I think both showrunners are going on their own memories.

[smartymarty]

  12 hours ago, lucindabelle said:

I don't rememner any of the other movies or the david copper field thing either. Sometimes I think the writers just have a book a out what was popular in the 80s and go from that. Very occasionally they hit the wrong things.

I think from the pov of somebody Henry's age both the David Copperfield Statue of Liberty thing and The Day After would be things that he'd have been very aware of, and Paige too, whether or not they'd both be excited or traumatized by them. With these two things I think both showrunners are going on their own memories.

Remember the majority of people only had three broadcast channels at the time (cable existed, but it had far fewer channels than now, HBO ran the same movie for a month...). Everyone was aware of what was on TV. I was 18 in 1983, and certainly remember these events.

[lucindabelle]

I was 19 in 1983 and I remember The Day After and not David Copperfield.

I was in college and TV wasn't that important. My mother doesn't remember either.

[Milburn Stone]

For some reason, that year (I was 33 at the time), we all actually did think we were going to be blown up.

Seems silly now. We all know we're not going to be blown up until at least 2018.

[JennyMominFL]

I was 13 when the Day After came out. It's definitely a more impressionable age. I don't think I would have been as effected at 18

[DrSpaceman73]

I was not aware of the Petrov incident.  I recall last year, maybe even because of the this show, learning of the "Able Archer" simulation near miss.  The US was completely unaware that their actions were being reacted to by the soviets. 

Also didn't realize how close the movie Wargames was to real life, according to this history channel list of nuclear near misses :

http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/5-cold-war-close-calls

[shksabelle]

Hoping someone can help me out.  i don't know if i missed something or if i'm just dense, but i didn't follow the Young Hee storyline.

Was Elizabeth trying to recruit her?  Why did she have to seduce the husband.  If she just needed to end the relatonship, she could just have cut off contact; she was in disguise when she was with Young Hee.

[sistermagpie]

26 minutes ago, shksabelle said:

Was Elizabeth trying to recruit her?  Why did she have to seduce the husband.  If she just needed to end the relatonship, she could just have cut off contact; she was in disguise when she was with Young Hee.

They've never told us what her plan is. She's somehow trying to get William Level IV access at his lab, using Young Hee's husband Don--not Young Hee, it's Don who's the target. We have no idea how, but the first step is apparently making him think he slept with her.

Happily, you didn't miss anything and are definitely not dense! They're just showing us this mission without us hearing beforehand how it's supposed to work. It seems like it's a blackmail thing since she pretended to sleep with him, but many have noted that it's unlikely Don will just give her trade secrets because he thinks he slept with her.

[Moose135]

I was 23 when The Day After came out, and remember it well - I had recently graduated college, was commissioned through Air Force ROTC, and was waiting to report to pilot training.  Knowing something about how that stuff worked, it certainly made an impression on me.  A year and a half later, I was flying KC-135 tankers, pulling alert like the B-52 guys, waiting for the horn to go off - if the balloon went up, we'd end up flying someplace way up north, refuel a B-52 on their way to deliver holiday greetings to the Kremlin, then land someplace cold with almost no gas.  You developed a dark sense of humor about it, because if you really thought about what it was all about, it would make you crazy.

Several older squadron mates had been on alert during some of those NORAD computer glitches in the late 70s / early 80s, and talked about having the klaxon go off, running out to the jet, and getting a "real" rather than "exercise" coded message.  Got real quiet in the cockpit...

[shksabelle]

Thank you, Sistermagpie.  i didn't realize Don worked at the same lab as William.  

[RedHawk]

11 hours ago, shksabelle said:

Thank you, Sistermagpie.  i didn't realize Don worked at the same lab as William.  

We haven't been told that, we're all just assuming the connection because the story is leading us that way. We may find out this week we've all been wrong!

[sistermagpie]

5 minutes ago, RedHawk said:

We haven't been told that, we're all just assuming the connection because the story is leading us that way. We may find out this week we've all been wrong!

Yes! Good point. I think this week Philip said something--I can't remember what--that was closer than we've ever come to that confirmation but I think it still wasn't said outright.

[DrSpaceman73]

Yes I don't think any of us are real clear on what Elizabeth's exact plan is on this mission.  I assume its some type of blackmail.  Not really clear on how it will work though

[bad things are bad]

I

Quote

I was 23 when The Day After came out, and remember it well

I remember TDA very well, but I also remember it wasn't a one-off. There was Special Bulletin in 1983, as well as a Whitley Strieber/James Kunetka post apocalyptic book, Warday in 1984. Plus WarGames in 1983 (and Red Dawn, to stretch a bit). A ripe time for post nuclear apocalypse/war with USSR stuff; TDA didn't appear in a vacuum (forgive me if these have already been mentioned, I only read about half the pages of posts!)

I read and saw all of these, as a 20-something. The body of work definitely left an impression.

The Day After was something "everyone" saw and discussed IIRC. The Americans got it almost as right as the JFK assassination in Mad Men.  

[Inquisitionist]

I was 27 when DTA aired.  I vaguely recall watching it.  I don't recall it being something "everyone" discussed, but I was focused on a demanding job and lots of volunteer activities at the time.

[reggiejax]

On ‎5‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 1:15 AM, VCRTracking said:

I never saw The Day After when it aired when I was around six, so I avoided the trauma. My nuclear nightmares cafe after seeing Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome on TV a few years later.  I did watch the 1987 miniseries Amerika when I was 10 where Russians took over the United States. It didn't make much of an impact on me but I loved seeing later a rerun of SNL that parodied it with "Amerida" where Canada were our new rulers!

For me, SNL's Amerida was easily the most nightmarish of all the post-apocalyptic worlds. A world where we punt on third down?! Horrifying, to say the least. ;)

Seriously, watching The Day After was as big as "Event Television" got back then. I was 13, and it scared the living crap out of me. Still, I kind of miss those days, when something truly could be watched by seemingly everyone. That type of mass viewing is now relegated to breaking news stories. And even then, only the truly big ones.

Edited May 18, 2016 by reggiejax

[Chaos Theory]

How much business is the Jennings Travel Agency getting from spying on their friends?

First Stan gets them FBI Friends and Family Business now it looks like Pastor Tim is bringing them the religious crowd.

The Jennings could actually retire and be Travel Agents just from the people they have screwed over.

[MsChipper]

On 5/12/2016 at 11:41 AM, ptuscadero said:

Great episode. I actually felt pain for Elizabeth, losing her only friend. I was like, yeah, I'll miss her, too.

Still not clear on what she accomplished with the husband, though. Other than potential blackmail, but she'll probably never see him again, right?

I'm guessing she'll blackmail Don into giving her the codes (or make an access card) for William so he can get into level 4.

Probably something along the lines of if he doesn't do that, then she'll tell Young Hee about it, maybe?

[Roseanna]

On ‎13‎.‎5‎.‎2016 at 0:33 AM, RedheadZombie said:

Was the Oleg/Tatiana sex scene necessary?  It was about as appealing as first season Martha/Clark.  Oleg especially grossed me out.  His post-coital glow of pasty white and sweaty made him look like he was dying, and not from pleasure.  I was never grossed out when he was with Nina.  He also seemed unbathed.  I was surprised by how repulsive I found it.  His facial expressions made me suspect he learned about acting sex scenes while watching porn.

Yes, the sex scene was necessary. As always in this serie, it tells something essential about characters, their relationship and situation. Actually, you made a good comparision how Oleg's relationship with Tatiana differs from his relationship with Nina.  

What I find unique in this serie is that I watch everything, including sex scenes, from outside: it's not about what is appealing to me but the protagonists. 

[Roseanna]

On ‎12‎.‎5‎.‎2016 at 10:29 AM, TheodoraK said:

i'm with Bama. i was totally disgusted by what elizabeth did to her one friend on earth. i agree with what was said about how she's going to miss who she was with Young Hee. she was actually sweet and fun and kind. i hope this is some kind of turning point for her because i won't be rooting for her on any level from now on. that was beyond evil. i could barely watch it. worse than the horrible disease episode. i know i'm being really dramatic. i'm glad that others are confused by where this is going. 

 

On ‎13‎.‎5‎.‎2016 at 2:10 AM, Stella Rose said:

I don't care if E. has/had misgivings. 

I don't give a pasty white rat's ass if she feels bad. 

Don't.  Nope.  That was, to me, tantamount to rape.  To make Don, an obviously honorable, decent man, think he cheated on his wife - is beyond despicable.  Of all the rotten things we have seen P & E do over the years, this just stuck out as - non-redeemable.     I will have a hard time watching  - or at least watching with any sympathy for E. after this.  What will happen to this decent, kind, awesome  family?  Will he, being honorable tell his wife what he did?  Will they survive?  At what cost?   What of the three kids?  Ptooey.  I would have rather she bashed him over the head, gave him Lassa fever, or strangled him with her bare hands.  I hate this storyline more than I have words to describe how much I hate it..

 

On ‎13‎.‎5‎.‎2016 at 4:13 AM, crashdown said:

These sorts of interpretations bug me a little, because I consider them completely ahistorical.  Yes, obviously, from our 2016 perspective, what Elizabeth did was morally repugnant, but it's repugnant because we know that it made no difference at all to anything.  That's the essential tragedy of Elizabeth and Philip: they believe that what they're doing is ultimately going to save countlessly more lives than it costs.  They're not doing this for money or fame or power--they're doing it because they honestly believe they're making the world a better place, and they're giving up any hope of real personal happiness to get it done.  Elizabeth believed that what she was doing--sacrificing someone who brings her comfort for the greater good--was a deeply moral act that was going to have a real effect on the world.  We know that it wasn't, that the Soviet Union is a ticking time bomb, that all her work is ultimately meaningless.  But she doesn't know that.  Imagine, for a moment, that what Elizabeth believes to be true actually were true--imagine that the US was planning to unleash a biological weapon of immeasurable destruction on the Soviet Union and that the only way that to prevent the horrific deaths of millions was to obtain the clearance to steal the virus and get it to Soviet scientists to develop an antidote.  Wouldn't entrapping the husband of your friend of eight months be worth it?  Wouldn't the sacrifice of your own happiness be a mere trifle?  Just because Elizabeth is fundamentally mistaken about what her actions are going to mean for the world doesn't make them any less noble.  She's a deeply ethical person, but ethics is a tricky, slippery business that sometimes results in doing the wrong thing for the very best of reasons.

I agree with Crashdown. 

Only, I woud stress on different points. Suppose it would be an American spy who made the same deeds in the Soviet Union, with the same motivation - would it then be wrong to misuse a friend to save your country?

Also, this series is about P & E who are not normal persons living in an ordinary lives, but (from their own POV) watchdogs whose deeds guarantee that ordinary people in their country can live in peace. If their enemy does something, they must be prepared to do the same, so they the enemy didn't dare to do it. And Stan and Gaad think just in the same way. Stan had scruples to use Nina when he fell for her, but to Gaad she was just an asset.  

Of course, it would be best that there would be some rules that both sides respected, in order not to destroy the whole world. But hopes can't change reality.       

[Roseanna]

On ‎13‎.‎5‎.‎2016 at 11:15 PM, Knuckles said:

That said, I would love to see Elizabeth and Philip suffer personally for all their murders. I don't care that Philip feels badly for destroying Martha, and I am still angry with Elizabeth first driving that sober woman back to drink and then killing her...the same game plan...first destroy them, then kill them. And her betrayal of Young Hee is especially heinous. They are doing a good job grinding down their own daughter, but it is hardly enough payback. Consider the damage Philip is doing to the offscreen Kimmie. So Henry is just sailing along...be a shame if something were to happen to him. That might remind Philip and Elizabeth what murder feels like to the victim's family.

And would you also love to see Stan to suffer for what he did to Nina and Sandra? 

Actually, Phillip has not done damage to Kimmie. Her father has, by neglecting her daughter because his work in CIA.  And, considering that Kimmie tried to  seduce the father of the child she babysit, Kimmie may now have a sexual realatioship with another older man if she hasn't have Phillip as a father substiture. Now, as far I understand, she has a boyfriend. 

I find it really vindictive to hope that something bad happens to an innocent child in order to revenge on his/her parents.      

Edited August 4, 2017 by Roseanna

[Roseanna]

Continueing: I find it interesting how just personal relationship arise such a great moral condemnation. It's special human trait: we tend to feel empathy towards one offer who is from our group, and are often indifferent towards 1000 offers, or much more, who belong to different group.

Remember how that soldier who P&E blackmailed got furious that they had killed his comrades, even though it wasn't their intent. To him, it was perfectly OK to train contras who made horrible things to their enemies, like that girl whose relatives had been murdered and who was too emotional for the spy job.      

[sistermagpie]

8 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Actually, Phillip has not done damage to Kimmie. Her father has, by neglecting her daughter because his work in CIA.  And, considering that Kimmie tried to  seduce the father of the child she babysit, Kimmie may now have a sexual realatioship with another older man if she hasn't have Phillip as a father substiture. Now, as far I understand, she has a boyfriend. 

I love when the show gets into how complicated these relationships are. It's like with Martha when the showrunners said they were eager to show that the marriage to Clark was actually good for her--until the deception destroyed it, of course. But that's why it makes sense that Martha could care about this guy. Kimmie shows that even more because Philip actually does care about her as a person in a selfless way that sits alongside his selfish reason for wanting to be in her house. She's not wrong to trust him in some ways.

Maybe one of the issues with Young Hee was that in the end, it was Elizabeth who benefited from that relationship. She may have helped Young Hee out by babysitting etc., but Young Hee is a funny woman with what seems like a big family. It was Elizabeth who suddenly got to have fun with a friend. So in the end it felt like Elizabeth not only hurt the woman and possibly destroyed her family, but even personally before that she was getting a lot more out of the relationship. I could be wrong, but I wonder if that's one of the reasons that people judge this operation more harshly than others. Elizabeth is always more careful to not care as much personally about the person, but here she allowed herself to truly enjoy what the woman was giving her.

[Roseanna]

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

Maybe one of the issues with Young Hee was that in the end, it was Elizabeth who benefited from that relationship. She may have helped Young Hee out by babysitting etc., but Young Hee is a funny woman with what seems like a big family. It was Elizabeth who suddenly got to have fun with a friend. So in the end it felt like Elizabeth not only hurt the woman and possibly destroyed her family, but even personally before that she was getting a lot more out of the relationship. I could be wrong, but I wonder if that's one of the reasons that people judge this operation more harshly than others. Elizabeth is always more careful to not care as much personally about the person, but here she allowed herself to truly enjoy what the woman was giving her.

I agree that Elizabeth's deed was bad: she misused Young Hee and Don's trust by make Don believe that he slept with his wife's friend - which would feel as a twofold betrayal to Young Hee if she found it. I suspect that it hits too close many people - what if it happened to my family? 

But if their marriage will fall apart, is it entitely did Elizabeth's fault? I don't think so. It depends also on how the handle the situation. Many couples succeed to build again their marriage after much greater problems. I suspect that the greatest problem is that they were so happy - they haven't learned how to handle problems. Plus, Don sees himself so good a person and therefore he feels so great shame that he hasn't lived up to his ideal.