S02.E13: Dragonfly in Amber

[Petunia846]

On rewatch, the only scenes where Bree bugged me were their picnic at the loch and in the storage shed. At the loch Roger bugs me too. I put those problems down to writing, though. The scene at the loch is very heavy on exposition and the things they have her say just sound very childish. The line about the bedroom was awkward in more than just the way they wanted it to be awkward. In the storage shed, I thought Roger's part was fine, but Bree's lines were very expositional again and also just over the top coincidental. "Oh hey, are these the Reverend's journals? Wow, what a coincidence that the ones we want are sitting out right here waiting for us. La dee da..." And then, let me just turn the flashlight over here randomly, "Oh look! I found a box that says Randall. How nice for us." So anyway, yeah. I put that down to some really terrible dialogue and situations she had to act through.

I don't see Bree as being totally hateful to Claire either. They were kind of weird when they first met Roger, but later when Bree comes back from hanging out with him and Claire is joking with her about his looks and stuff, I thought they seemed pretty playful. They both had little smiles as they joked back and forth.

[morgan]

I think Sophie isn't a lost cause, but I did have many moments like previous posters where while I can't put my finger on it exactly, I can "see" the acting.  Contrast with Rankin who just seems so organic.  Camera? Script? What are you talking about?

One moment where she didn't work for me was the picnic at the Loch.  She said a line where it reminded me so much of Malcolm Jamal Warner in the first ep of the Cosby show.  If anyone else is old enough to remember that show, In it he kept pausing during a speech to his father about his father's expectations.  I think the pauses were meant to show the character thinking and choosing words, but at least for me it came across as too deliberate and unnatural.  

I do think Sophie had some strong moments too.  And I do like Bree in the book so am hoping Sophie will grow and develop.  She has a really tough bar to try to reach with this cast.  She is charming and beautiful and I really do think that she has a high bar to reach but also has some great mentors in her fellow actors.  

Edited July 10, 2016 by morgan

[peacefrog]

I really liked this episode a lot but find I have a few different opinions on things.

I thought the Roger actor was excellent BUT for the first time with casting he did not feel like the character that I had in my head, both looks and personality. However, I do like his version.

I really liked Brianna. A whole lot more than the book. She took on a lot of Frank's personality as well as Jamie's. I hope she does get to show more of her own.  

Cait's performance in the 60's was a bit off for me with the exception of Lallybroch and drinking whisky with Roger. She was great in all the 18th century scenes. Sam was so good in everything here. One of his most consistent episodes, he was grim, concerned, heartbroken and carrying a great burden. Amazing that he pulled those lines off at the stones because they could have been really cheesy.  

That scene with Rupert was weird. It was so forced and just anti-climactic. 

My 2 favorite scenes were Jamie saying "that home is lost" and when he backed Claire to the stones. So devastating.

[AD55]

1 hour ago, WatchrTina said:

I think it's possible that one of the reasons that Sophie is coming across as sub-par is that she is in scenes with possibly the show's best actress (Cait) and with a newcomer (Rik Rankin) who is knocking it out of the park on the first outing. 

I agree. I have enjoyed shows where the acting wasn't awesome, but the quality was consistent so no one person stuck out as particularly good or bad. It's like shows about high school. Often the actors cast are in their twenties, but so long as everyone is of an age, I find it fairly easy to suspend my disbelief.

Edited July 10, 2016 by AD55

[CatMack]

12 minutes ago, morgan said:

I think Sophie isn't a lost cause, but I did have many moments like previous posters where while I can't put my finger on it exactly, I can "see" the acting.   

 

I may not agree with this personally but I can understand and respect this POV. It's the over the top "she's the worst she needs to be recast asap" reactions that are baffling to me. Go watch Kristin Cavillari on Veronica Mars sometime and then tell me Sophie is terrible. Hopefully she'll settle in and win people over, because I guarantee you they're not recasting. 

[molshoop]

11 hours ago, DancingD said:

I'm sorry, but she should be taller, have light eyes, actually look like a natural redhead

Why not at least give her blue contacts to wear?  Other than giving her the same dye job as Sam, I don't see any resemblance. 

She is a mediocre actress. The only thing she has going for her is decent chemistry with Rik.  That is crucial, but it is

hard to believe that out of all the actresses that must have tried out for the part she was the only one . 

I've read that they couldn't hire an American actress due to some rule, so that really cut down on the pool of choices.

I don't know if that's true.

I still loved this episode.  Sophie didn't ruin it or pull me out of any scenes.  I'm just very disappointed about her being cast as Bri.

[nodorothyparker]

I don't hate Sophie Skelton as an actress but she didn't exactly bowl me over either.

I am willing to cut her a certain amount of slack because the entire setup of this episode is basically asking her and Rik Rankin to do the impossible: Dump us headlong out of the gate into the lives of two entirely different characters than we've been watching for two seasons and suddenly expect us to care about their internal drama when they're not who we came to see.  Rankin for the most part exceeded all expectation in telling us who Roger is, curious and open minded, and what generally makes him such a good guy.  Skelton I think has an even tougher role because we enter her space with nothing more to go on than oh, she's Jamie's daughter and the impetus for whatever reason that Claire's even back here in the present.  And then she's in a full blown identity crisis before she's barely even had a chance to establish that.  

The book has plenty of space to let it all unfold at a leisurely pace and it seems like the show was mostly willing to let the 1960s scenes do that.  The problem then becomes that the 1700s scenes were so short and choppy that it was hard to get a sense of what anyone was really thinking at all.  Almost none of those characters even got as much screentime as Gellis/Gillian's poor flaming husband.  I have no idea if it was poor direction or poor writing but I got very little sense of Jamie as a character seeing himself increasingly fenced in on all fronts to the point that he grimly decides there's no choice left but back to the stones we go.  There was so little Jamie overall and he mostly felt underplayed.

The best parts of this for me?  Murtagh doing the 18th-century equivalent of a Kanye shrug at the news that Jamie had just killed Dougal and Roger's "Really?  I just asked you to stay the night to be polite. I don't really need to be here for all of your who's your daddy family drama."  My husband couldn't stop laughing at this.

Edited July 10, 2016 by nodorothyparker

[Amers]

My gawd, the ending was a big fat tub of cheese balls. It was like watching a different show. What in the world was up with the glowing stones and the fluttering lashes? 

I felt the killing of Dougal was rushed. It was like, was bam, we are done here. In fact, I don't feel we spent enough time in the past at all. 

 

It feels like there wasn't a lot of Jamie this season. Like, he should have had more screen time, but maybe it's cause I like the knee porn. 

 

I didn't hate Bree so much. Loved Roger. 

 

If I could have rewritten the ending I'd have had Claire throw up a "See ya suckers!" And run full tilt to the stones after dealing with that bratty kid. 

 

The Fort William scene was cool. I felt it could have gotten a little deeper though. 

My biggest issue is the inconsistent writing. Each episode seems like a different person wrote it and you can SEE that. The episode Diana wrote was leaps and bounds better than all others this season except for Faith. 

 

I love the show, and the books, but I wasn't as in love with this season as season 1. I can't see myself rewatching it, where as I could watch season one a million times. 

 

 

Love her makeup in the 60s. She was fabulous. 

[Rilla-my-Rilla]

I don't have feelings really one way or the other about Sophie's acting, but since Bree kind of bugs me during this part of the story in the books and kind of bugged me during the episode, I guess she worked well enough for me. My dislike, I think, is mostly due to the Daddy's Little Girl character trait. I'm glad Bree and Frank had a nice relationship, but the constant Daddy! Daddy! Daddy! is grating. Even more so, having to hear it vocalized. (I'm self-reflecting enough to realize this is mostly personal baggage. I have a terrible relationship with my father and my ex-stepdad was kind of a piece of shit. He treated me differently than his own kids and my sisters were his Daddy's Little Girls so puke)

Part of me was a tiny bit glad Claire yelled back a little. She let it roll and kept quiet when Bree said she wished Claire were dead instead of Frank so that was Claire enough for me. I usually feel bad for Claire when certain characters shit on her, when she hasn't done anything wrong to them, and she just takes it. (Marsali, Jenny) But I guess what Claire realizes is those times and the fight with Bree are coming from a place of hurt, anger, fear and not really malice or hate and it works out later.

I think the actor did a good job with Roger, he's not how Roger looks to me, but that's not a big deal.To me, the styling of Roger is the bad point. Gah, why does he have that beard now, that goes up to his eyebrows, and why is he wearing those old grandpa sweaters?? He looks so old to me. Rik is a good looking guy, but they're hiding it or something. Save the beard for later. Too late now I guess. And in the inverse of how I feel about Bree, I don't mind Roger now in the story, but as the story goes on? Boooooo! Unpopular, I know!

[AD55]

1 hour ago, CatMack said:

Yeah the level of hate she's getting *as an actress* is exactly what I was referring to. At the end of the day it's always going to come down to mileage varies but I really do think it's ridiculous.  Like I said if y'all think Sophie is terrible than I envy you never having to watch someone who actually has no talent. And frankly the fact that the book fandom has hated Bree for decades for displaying traits that they adore in their male characters makes it hard for me to see the level of vitriol the character and actress are both receiving without raising an eyebrow. 

I actually like book Bree quite a lot.

[Squirrely]

1 hour ago, WatchrTina said:

 

And now, on a different topic . . . I think Cait knocked this episode out of the park.  I cannot (alas) say the same for Sam.  I LOVE Sam as Jamie.  I generally think he gets it right and in this episode there is so much he gets right.  Almost everything he does with Cait works because he shows us Jamie's pain.  That farewell scene at the stones -- Oh. My. God.  But there are scenes when Jamie is running around trying to take care of everyone -- scenes that begin with his conversation with Rupert -- that just don't work for me.  I realize that at that point Jamie would be hopped up on adrenaline and acting with urgency -- bargaining with Rupert -- ordering Murtagh and Fergus around -- and I appreciate that Jamie does not have the luxury of subsiding into shell-shocked silence the way Claire does after the death of Dougal.  But there is something in Sam's performance during that sequence of events that bothers me.  Jamie looks "excited" for lack of a better word and I think it would have played better if he had been grim -- determined & effective -- but sober and very grim.  Even the flash of joy that you see when he speaks of the baby feels out of place. His revealing that he knows about the baby -- a child he will never know -- should have been unrelentingly sad for him.  I blame the director for not seeing those false notes.

I completely agree with you, and had the same feeling about some of his scenes. I think part of it is that Sam always has this natural grin, or smirk, on his face. It almost never goes away. And it needed to go away a bit more in this episode. It takes me out of the moment, wondering why he doesn't look a bit more grim. I feel he's grown into the Jamie role beautifully, but there's still a little work to do. Cait outshines everyone in this amazing cast, so that makes it a bigger challenge for him, IMO.

[juniemoon]

But there is something in Sam's performance during that sequence of events that bothers me.  Jamie looks "excited" for lack of a better word and I think it would have played better if he had been grim -- determined & effective -- but sober and very grim.  Even the flash of joy that you see when he speaks of the baby feels out of place. His revealing that he knows about the baby -- a child he will never know -- should have been unrelentingly sad for him.  I blame the director for not seeing those false notes.

I had more problems with this episode than most, but Watchrtina hits on something I've tried to define throughout the series. In general, I love watching Sam H., and there are moments where he truly rises above (the fight with Claire after rescuing her in The Reckoning, for example), but I've never been able to shake the sense that something's just a tad off. I think it might be the challenge of playing this epic, larger than life hero from another century, charging around, giving orders, etc., while also accessing modern notions of tenderness, intimacy and vulnerability -- emotions that likely wouldn't have found expression among men (or even women) in the 18th century. I often feel like Claire is more "real" and therefore accessible, while Jamie seems a bit trapped in more of a fantasy role. In the books, I think it's easier for our imaginations to reconcile and balance so they relate more equally, but Sam having to visually portray this masculine icon of his time who also connects deeply and emotionally with a modern woman is probably a greater challenge. I don't know, I keep trying to pinpoint it.

What I liked about this episode:

• The casting of Roger. I've only read the first three books, but TVRoger is a big improvement over my imagination's version of BookRoger. Thank you, Richard Rankin.
• The sets, especially the ruins, which were deeply affecting.

What I didn't like:

• I agree with what others have already said about the pacing and the amount of time jumping. I wanted to feel the increasing tension and drama of the approaching battle and Claire's departure, but all the momentum was lost with every cutaway to the '60s. Dougal's death seemed almost perfunctory. The '60s music made the transitions all the more jarring, and I didn't think it was necessary nor added to the scenes.
• I also agree that the ending was downright silly. I couldn't believe Caitriona Balfe was actually fluttering her eyelids -- I'm guessing that was a director's terrible idea of what we do when blinded by sun -- and wondered why on earth TPTB assumed we needed to be spoon-fed such a heaping mouthful (eye-ful?) of cheese. 
• Agree that the actress playing Brianna is out of her depth. Maybe there is time for coaching before next season.
• I was hoping they'd leave out the emergency farewell quickie sex, which made me cringe in the book. When the enemy is bearing down on you, I'm thinking a few-second banging isn't quite as appealing as when your life isn't threatened. That said, I guess it was a little more tolerable in this ep, given that the enemy wasn't in pursuit. But I'd have rather they exchanged more heartfelt dialogue than 6 seconds of bodily fluids at that point.
• While I agree that Cait looked great in her "aged" makeup, I thought she looked too great. She's nearly 50 at this point, and I saw nary a line on her face. Even the most beautiful women, by age 50, have a few lovely lines to show they've laughed and cried for decades, and I don't think it would have made her less appealing to show them. I'll admit, I also found BookClaire's physical flawlessness hard to swallow -- gravity eventually has its way, even in the fittest women -- but I understand DG's dilemma in keeping her lead characters conventionally sexy after depriving them of togetherness during their physical prime. That said, I thought Outlander prided itself on its female point of view, and it might have been nice to see physical aging depicted realistically and still admired. I don't know how J&C's bodies will be depicted next season, but I hope they don't have perfect early 30-something bodies on 50-ish heads, lol. It's definitely a quandary.

[JennyMominFL]

3 hours ago, AheadofStraight said:

In a recent interview, I saw that the writers did look at having either Dr. Who or Star Trek but neither were airing in Scotland in 1968.(It may have been that the particular episode of Dr. Who they wanted to use, the one that inspired the show, hadn't yet aired)

 

 

 

 

As someone deep in DW fandom  and who is friends with actors from the show of that era, I can tell you that the main problem is that  many of the episodes from 1968 are missing. The BBC purged most of the 1960's DW episodes years ago. Some have been recovered 25 out of  38 individual episodes for 1968 are still missing. A few were only recently recovered and, many of the ones that still exist are in bad shape.    The Avengers 1968 season is fully intact and in good shape.

 

Ack.. I had to come back in and add that it's Frazer Hines, the inspiration for Jamie, that is a good friend. And he was in season 1 of this

Edited July 10, 2016 by JennyMominFL

[WatchrTina]

Quote

I hope they don't have perfect early 30-something bodies on 50-ish heads

Weeel, I've seen photos of shirtless Graham McTavish, and <ahem> he looked good.  I speculate that Sam has changed his workout routine to allow his body to go back to the lean, runner's body he had when he was cast (rather than the bulked-up upper body he worked so hard to give us for Seasons 1 and 2).  If he does that, I suspect shirtless Jamie in season 3 will look like shirtless Graham McTavish (in all his 50-something glory) and that will be A-OKAY with me.

ETA: The lead characters on Vikings had to age 20 years over the course of 3 seasons and I haven't had a problem accepting that, even as they both continue to wage war and swing a sword just as effectively as they did in their 20s when we first meet them.  Their faces are suspiciously unwrinkled but it's easy to just whistle past that if they carry themselves with appropriately aged gravitas.

Edited July 10, 2016 by WatchrTina

[DittyDotDot]

2 minutes ago, JennyMominFL said:

As someone deep in DW fandom  and who is friends with actors from the show of that era, I can tell you that the main problem is that  many of the episodes from 1968 are missing. The BBC purged most of the 1960's DW episodes years ago. Some have been recovered 25 out of  38 individual episodes for 1968 are still missing. A few were only recently recovered and, many of the ones that still exist are in bad shape.    The Avengers 1968 season is fully intact and in good shape.

And specifically the episode that inspired Outlander is one of the missing, I believe.

[peacefrog]

Eh, I'm going to have to disagree on the criticism of Sam especially in the back half of this season and this episode. I think he has a thankless role and not as "meaty" as it is in the books. I liked that his growing knowledge of what he had to do wasn't showy, but a gradual increasing of terror.

I think both leads have been inconsistent over the two seasons, however and can see the valid criticism. Cait gets a little one note at times, Sam gets a bit too theatrical for me.   At times I don't like either oftheir accents, find it distracting. They are both better than not though. Tobias even gets scene chewy. The show is best when the 3 are on screen together.

[JennyMominFL]

18 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

And specifically the episode that inspired Outlander is one of the missing, I believe.

It was the Highlanders. The whole thing is missing, however there  are audio recordings which have been put together to recreate it, at least on audio tape

[WatchrTina]

This just in from Terry on twitter:  Did anyone notice anything special about the outfit Geillis is wearing at the stones?  It's the same one she was wearing when she meets Claire for the first time in season 1.  Some people complained back during season 1 that the wrap Geillis was wearing in that scene wasn't period-appropirate. Terry says that was deliberate -- Geillis brought it with her from the 1960s.

[lianau]

2 hours ago, CatMack said:

 And frankly the fact that the book fandom has hated Bree for decades for displaying traits that they adore in their male characters makes it hard for me to see the level of vitriol the character and actress are both receiving without raising an eyebrow. 

That and her love for her father who is Frank , not Jamie . And since Jamie is pretty much the best thing since sliced bread and Frank is Evil McEvilface to a hardcore part of the fandom , Bree becomes their personal traitor . How dare you love your daddy and not the dead guy in a kilt you've never met . 

 

 

1 hour ago, morgan said:

I think Sophie isn't a lost cause, but I did have many moments like previous posters where while I can't put my finger on it exactly, I can "see" the acting.  Contrast with Rankin who just seems so organic.  Camera? Script? What are you talking about?

For me it was clunky parts of the script . She was completely fine in scenes that weren't so expositional but nobody can make a sentence like " I love seeing history made " work . Especially not if that sentence comes from a 19 year old . 

[Dust Bunny]

1 hour ago, nodorothyparker said:

The book has plenty of space to let it all unfold at a leisurely pace and it seems like the show was mostly willing to let the 1960s scenes do that.  The problem then becomes that the 1700s scenes were so short and choppy that it was hard to get a sense of what anyone was really thinking at all.  Almost none of those characters even got as much screentime as Gellis/Gillian's poor flaming husband.  I have no idea if it was poor direction or poor writing but I got very little sense of Jamie as a character seeing himself increasingly fenced in on all fronts to the point that he grimly decides there's no choice left but back to the stones we go.  There was so little Jamie overall and he mostly felt underplayed.

I'm wondering if Toni and Matt each took one of the centuries. That way there can be consistency in tone for each century. The problem with doing it that way is that it's jarring, with little smooth transitions. And since the Culloden story happens in such a short time-frame (hence the minutes shown), it feels a lot more choppy, as you noted. I'm not sure how that could be fixed, outside of showing the 1700s first and then the 60s afterwards. I can't imagine how this episode could ever be 60 minutes.

As for the Bree discussion, I think there's much more expectations for her than other characters. She's supposed to be the offspring of two beloved characters. Those beloved characters aren't compared to their parents, and we don't know Roger's parents either. I think that plays to Brianna's character not measuring up for book readers too. That's why I appreciate Claire's line about how she came to love Brianna for herself, and not as Jamie's daughter. I'm taking that approach and giving Sophie room to breathe and grow. Again, we know that at least one of the audition scenes are from book 4; So, at this point, I trust in the casting, since they've seen more of her than we have.

Edited July 10, 2016 by Dust Bunny

[Moya the Leviathan]

Roger definitely has potential, but to steal shamelessly from Connie Verzak's recap of The Brave and The Bold 

I'll add that Roger should really put on a kilt because the knees might outweigh the beard or completely complement in the beauty competition (See Dougal McKenzie).  

I think they made a mistake emphasizing the Boston at this point and they should have waited until the action moves to the New World at least.  In 1968, I'm reasonably sure that Bree would have been enrolled as an undergraduate in Radcliffe, not Harvard, even if she took classes on the Harvard campus.  And I'm completely sure that Roger would have been safe in misquoting Nathan Hale to any other American visiting Scotland, even in 1968.  

[ulkis]

2 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

I think it's possible that one of the reasons that Sophie is coming across as sub-par is that she is in scenes with possibly the show's best actress (Cait)

Yeah, I agree with this. I don't see any overwhelming hate for the actress, here on this board at least. One or two people have said outright that she's horrible, but other than that people have just noticed/said she isn't as good as the actors playing other main characters, but hardly anyone has said she needs to go right now, just observing that she has a couple of funky line readings. (imo.) 

[AD55]

1 minute ago, ulkis said:

Yeah, I agree with this. I don't see any overwhelming hate for the actress, here on this board at least. One or two people have said outright that she's horrible, but other than that people have just noticed/said she isn't as good as the actors playing other main characters, but hardly anyone has said she needs to go right now, just observing that she has a couple of funky line readings. (imo.) 

To be fair, I did say she should be recast, but I'm starting to be persuaded by folks who have pointed out that she was stuck with a lot of clunky lines and exposition. Perhaps once Bree is fully established as part of the cast, as opposed to being, at this point, almost a MacGuffin (ie, the plot device used to separate Claire and Jamie), Sophie will be able to sink her teeth into the character.

[ulkis]

Just now, AD55 said:

To be fair, I did say she should be recast, but I'm starting to be persuaded by folks who have pointed out that she was stuck with a lot of clunky lines and exposition. Perhaps once Bree is fully established as part of the cast, as opposed to being, at this point, almost a MacGuffin (ie, the plot device used to separate Claire and Jamie), Sophie will be able to sink her teeth into the character.

I think she is having a bit of trouble with the accent and some of her line readings are due to that I think. 

[maraleia]

I think Sophie needs to jell a little more to fit in with everyone else in the cast, however, I see a lot of promise with her.

Someone upthread mentioned the rule about casting and it has to do with tax credits. Outlander can only hire a certain number of actors outside of the UK and since they already have Cait and some of the actors in the French section of the story they couldn't cast an American for Bree. Hence their limitations.

No bear with me here. Remember Bree was born in 1948 but unlike other mom's of the era Claire was a nurse on her way to becoming a doctor so their interactions as mom and daughter would be different than other moms and daughters of the era. Also, wasn't Frank trying to overcompensate with Bree in order to bond with another man's child? So this dynamic with Frank being a doting dad in the 1950s and 1960s which wasn't the norm coupled with Claire working would shift the family dynamic.

Earlier in the season we saw Claire and Bree at the library when Bree was a young kid and they seemed close. Also they had a jokey rapport before Claire started telling her time travel story in this episode.

Now Bree is 20 and in college so this is probably the first time in awhile she's spent with her mom and it's at a funeral for someone she never met so she would be a little off balance and that came through to me with Sophie's performance..

Bree's an American and out of her element in Scotland. Also, think about the pop culture she was immersed in and the time period she lived. This was the beginning of the counterculture movement.

Also, remember Gidget was on the air when Bree was 17 and the first thing I thought of was the parallels between Bree's relationship with Frank to the one Gidget has with her dad with the only difference being Claire isn't dead. Also, Bree's interests were more in line with Frank's so that is another thing to think about.

I hope this makes sense.

[juniemoon]

44 minutes ago, peacefrog said:

Eh, I'm going to have to disagree on the criticism of Sam especially in the back half of this season and this episode. I think he has a thankless role and not as "meaty" as it is in the books. 

I think both leads have been inconsistent over the two seasons, however and can see the valid criticism. Cait gets a little one note at times, Sam gets a bit too theatrical for me.   At times I don't like either oftheir accents, find it distracting. They are both better than not though. T

I agree, peacefrog, and I think that's what I was trying to say, that Sam's role is thankless. I'm not sure anyone could completely convincingly play a man with such extreme, multi-century sensibilities. I also agree on the inconsistency of both.

 

1 hour ago, WatchrTina said:

I suspect shirtless Jamie in season 3 will look like shirtless Graham McTavish (in all his 50-something glory) and that will be A-OKAY with me.

ETA: The lead characters on Vikings had to age 20 years over the course of 3 seasons and I haven't had a problem accepting that, ... Their faces are suspiciously unwrinkled but it's easy to just whistle past that if they carry themselves with appropriately aged gravitas.

Good point, Watchrtina, about McTavish and about Vikings, although I think they've done an excellent job of aging Ragnar, and Travis Fimmel, as you note, is very good at portraying physical decline. With Claire though, I felt like I was seeing the younger Claire in modern costume. I think it's easier to "age" male actors and still have us think they're sexy than it is to do the same for women. Cultural bias and all that.

[calico]

Quote

I am pretty disappointed with the actress they cast as Brianna. 

My problem with her is her voice and mannerisms seem more 2016 than 1968.  Even her outfits, oddly enough, would fit in fine today (except for the egregious high waisters - may they never make a return).  Plus I don't think she looks like Sam/Jamie at all.  The actress really needs blue slanted eyes, a generally more angular appearance to her face, and a much more imposing physique.  The character bugged in the book.  I expect to continue to be bugged by her for the duration.

This was the best episode of the season for me.  Yeah, the ending was a big bowl of Velveeta, but I liked the visuals.  Now the looooong wait for next season. 

[ulkis]

2 hours ago, Grashka said:

I find it particulary odd juxtaposed with Jamie rebuking Claire for assisting Colum in his suicide ("It's a mortal sin") since he was willing to comit suicide at the abbey

I didn't find that odd. He later brings up in their argument at the end of episode 5 that Randall almost drove him to take his own life, so he sees it as Randall almost made him do something that he thinks is sinful.

[Summer]

This was the only episode that I actually enjoyed out of the entire season.  I had become so disinterested this season I wasn't even looking forward to the finale, but as a pre-Outlander Richard Rankin fan, I WAS excited to see his performance as Roger (and he did not disappoint!  Yay!!) 

I didn't mind Sophie as Bree, the first scene at the wake I thought, Oh, yikes, but then I thought she was fine.  And THANK YOU to TPTB who decided not to give Bree a Boston accent.  As someone who is from the great state of Massachusetts, an authentic sounding Boston accent is tricky to pull off and I can't tell you how many times my ears have bled listening to an actor trying to do it, Diane Lane in The Perfect Storm, I'm looking at you.   I thought Bree's generic American accent sounded fine.  

I actually got a little kick out of the  "fucking barbeque" line, but agree it was kind of out of place and seemed to be thrown in.  Also, all I could think of was that smell is burning human flesh...ewwwwwwwwww not barbeque.  At all.  Ick. 

Did anyone catch as Bree and Roger were running up the hill towards Geillis and the stones they both commented on the buzzing noise.  Thought it was a nice little pre cursor to who can travel and who can't, especially after Jamie told Claire he couldn't hear anything at the stones. 

I did like the J/C moment when they discovered Claire was pregnant again and how they used the lines from the book.  But there was a bit more to the "this bairn is all that will ever be left of me" line where Jamie says "please, Claire, I beg of you see it safe"  They left that part out.  Oh well, no biggie. 

Also, the part where Claire goes to the historic registry, I find it really hard to believe that the clerk would be handling a 200 year old document like it was a sales receipt.  Isn't paper that old at risk to disintegrate at a moments touch and is kept in climate controlled rooms and handled with gloves, etc?  I thought that was a little farfetched and a bit too convenient.  

I have to say , even though this episode wasn't perfect, it actually pulled this disinterested, almost non fan back into the mix!  And hey, look, I'm finally out of the Unpopular Opinions thread!  

Edited July 10, 2016 by Summer

[ihartcoffee]

I thought the actress that played Bree was attractive,  she was just a bit stiff.   Would never say I hate her, that's a bit extreme.  She's supposed to be head strong like Jaime.

The scene at the stones where she goes back was gut wrenching, but I didn't cry. Maybe it's because I've read what comes next.  (Can't wait for that part. )

The scene where they kill Dougal was so intense!  

[Thalia]

I liked Sophie, particularly given that I didn't like Book!Brianna at this point either.  It is a thankless role -- she's having to be "mean" to a beloved character.  That said, it always bugs me when two blue eyed characters in a movie/tv show have a brown-eyed actor playing their child.  At certain points it always throws me out of the story. 

My least favorite part of the story? Claire's line at the end, "I need to go back to my snuggle bunny!" or whatever it was she said.  Apart from being out of character (IMHO) at this point -- I mean geez -- shouldn't we have some time for shock or disbelief, I think it would make a better finale to leave what is next up to the viewer's imagination.  

Other than that I really enjoyed it, including the 1960s scenes.  Partly because I love the 60s, and also because I grew to love Brianna and Roger.  And I liked the foreshadowing -- Bree heard the buzzing at the stones, while Jamie did not.  Did Roger?  I'm rewatching right now, but I'm only to the part where he's singing the silly rat song. 

[Summer]

12 minutes ago, Thalia said:

And I liked the foreshadowing -- Bree heard the buzzing at the stones, while Jamie did not.  Did Roger?  

Yes, he did.  As they were both running up the hill, Bree says "What is that buzzing noise?" and Roger says something like "I don't know but it's getting louder and louder"  something to that effect...

[ihartcoffee]

5 minutes ago, Summer said:

Yes, he did.  As they were both running up the hill, Bree says "What is that buzzing noise?" and Roger says something like "I don't know but it's getting louder and louder"  something to that effect...

That was definitely foreshadowing IMO.  They made a point to show they all heard it but not Jaime. 

I thought the actress that played Bree was attractive,  she was just a bit stiff.   Would never say I hate her, that's a bit extreme.  She's supposed to be head strong like Jaime.

The scene at the stones where she goes back was gut wrenching, but I didn't cry. Maybe it's because I've read what comes next.  (Can't wait for that part. )

The scene where they kill Dougal was so intense!  

[CalamityBoPeep]

On 7/9/2016 at 8:36 AM, Petunia846 said:

I was only really disappointed by the end. I did not get chills by Roger's information about how the one Fraser guy escaped Culloden, because Claire wasn't as completely gutted at that point as she was in the books, there was a dead guy burning up on the hill that they were all just ignoring, Bree kept chiming in, and they didn't stop it at that line. I kind of hated everything that happened after that, the way it got brighter (both the color saturation and the light), the way they zoomed in on Cait's eyes, the music swelling, all the extra lines about how he could be alive and she had to go back, the zoom in on the stone. It was too much, it got really cheesy. The quiet moment in the book was better because it trusted the reader to reach all of those conclusions themselves. It trusted in the strength of what it was saying, it didn't have to rely on melodrama. It just laid it out and let it be. All that zooming and light brightening reminded me too much of the megacheese from last season with Claire and Frank both screaming at the stones, and in that moment, the last thing I wanted to be thinking about was Frank. Boo.

I was disappointed in that last little bit at the end too, and I'm glad to read upthread that DG fought against it. It was just a little "After all, tomorrow is Another Day!" for me. And I love Gone With the Wind. I truly do. But it's hard for me to take that line at the end, in its own proper context. Here, I was supplying the line, unprompted, on the first viewing. That tells me that it was probably not a great choice to bang the viewer over the head with that particular mallet.

20 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

I’m sorry that the scene at the stones in the 60s is so much less dramatic than in the book.  BookRoger collapses and is involuntarily crawling toward the stones until Brianna stops him.  Claire collapses completely.  The power of the stones is so much more compellingly depicted in the books than on TV.   I appreciate how difficult it would be to visually depict a phenomenon that is mainly experienced by the characters as sound and feelings and mental confusion.  Still it’s a pity that TV viewers cannot experience the menacing atmosphere of the stones the same way the book readers do.

Yeah, I was trying to explain to my husband and daughter (non-book-readers) that the passage is so much more awful than they're depicting on the show. It seems more like a revolving door here, than a terror-inducing potential death-trap.

11 hours ago, Squirrely said:

My other nitpick was the genealogy search. You'd be lucky to get something that quickly in this day and age! What was wrong with finding his family tree on the board? Claire vaguely remembering the names from seeing it before made so much more sense than hearing a surname that is insanely popular and assuming he must be a distant relative!

Exactly! The family tree chart was a much better way to handle that. Why mess with what worked, in order to introduce something that'd make the viewers go "wait a sec..."?

8 hours ago, Pestilentia said:

Seems to me that they cast on facial characteristics alone, trying to find someone who looks like Jamie without considering her experience or abilities. She may mature into the roll but she'd better start working out that upper body if she expects to be building all those pipes and plumbing in the new world. Just sayin'.

I think she'll have some time to grow into the role too. She's just 22, and the character is 20, so I give her some slack on this. My son is 26, graduated from college 4 years ago, and his growth in the last 4 years has seen incredible changes. Now he seems like a grown-up. And thankfully, with Bree, we probably won't get a ton of episodes with her and Roger until at least Drums. She has time. Plus, she is working with some pretty great actors, so if she's open to learning, she'll be able to refine her performance more. Hopefully, she knows she'll need to be pretty fit, as time goes on, when she's building. (And killing and butchering animals!)

4 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

So what, specifically, do I think Sophie is getting wrong?  I honestly have a hard time pointing to specifics.  Her line deliveries don't sound "true."  I can "see" her acting and I don't see that with anyone else.  It reminds me of how, every now and then, I'll encounter a masseuse whose touch is just "wrong".  He or she does not work with confidence, does not hit the right spots while working, they miss the meridians.  I find those massages intolerable and usually end them early saying "it's me."  Sophie rubs me the wrong way in exactly the same manner.

I think you hit on part of it, when you mentioned the directing. The expository dialogue didn't really do her any favors either. The talk about their fathers at the lake just had me responding with an eye-roll at the writing. My god, that was a lot of "Father" in that talk. I don't mean the subject... I mean the word. "My father; your father; our fathers"... it just. I don't know... clunked like a lead ball. The writers could have mixed it up a bit. Or just changed some of them to "he" or "him". We probably could have still followed the conversation. As it was (after only 1 viewing, so far, so going on memory here), it felt too heavy handed.

3 hours ago, morgan said:

I think Sophie isn't a lost cause, but I did have many moments like previous posters where while I can't put my finger on it exactly, I can "see" the acting.  Contrast with Rankin who just seems so organic.  Camera? Script? What are you talking about?

One moment where she didn't work for me was the picnic at the Loch.  She said a line where it reminded me so much of Malcolm Jamal Warner in the first ep of the Cosby show.  If anyone else is old enough to remember that show, In it he kept pausing during a speech to his father about his father's expectations.  I think the pauses were meant to show the character thinking and choosing words, but at least for me it came across as too deliberate and unnatural.  

I do think Sophie had some strong moments too.  And I do like Bree in the book so am hoping Sophie will grow and develop.  She has a really tough bar to try to reach with this cast.  She is charming and beautiful and I really do think that she has a high bar to reach but also has some great mentors in her fellow actors.  

I think her strongest moments were when she was trying to pull some common sense and disbelief into the discussions about where Claire had been. That rang pretty true. Her anger also struck me as being fairly authentic seeming. It was the expository stuff that hit me poorly. The father-talk and the history-talk. I think emotionally, she'll probably grow into this and do fine. But delivering cheesy or poorly written lines isn't going to be her strong suit, at least to begin with. I think we're maybe a bit spoiled in just how well Sam, Cait, Duncan and Graham have handled the occasional cheesy line.

1 hour ago, calico said:

My problem with her is her voice and mannerisms seem more 2016 than 1968.  Even her outfits, oddly enough, would fit in fine today (except for the egregious high waisters - may they never make a return).  Plus I don't think she looks like Sam/Jamie at all.  The actress really needs blue slanted eyes, a generally more angular appearance to her face, and a much more imposing physique.  The character bugged in the book.  I expect to continue to be bugged by her for the duration.

This was the best episode of the season for me.  Yeah, the ending was a big bowl of Velveeta, but I liked the visuals.  Now the looooong wait for next season. 

It's funny, because the "yeah," and other American-isms just rang so true for us. We smiled. Yep... she sounded American, but it didn't seem 2015 vs 1968 to us. It sounded very much like when I was growing up as a kid in the early '70's in California (not far off from Bree's current time). I remember being in trouble in school when we moved from California to Tennessee in the late 70's for answering a teacher with "yes" (which my mother had told me was the polite response so that I wouldn't get in trouble with "yeah"), and the teacher insisted on a "yes, ma'am." So I think part of it is related to geography. 

But I loved the high-waisted cords. I loved them. LOL So, yeah... maybe I'm not the best judge. ;-)

1 hour ago, Summer said:

 Did anyone catch as Bree and Roger were running up the hill towards Geillis and the stones they both commented on the buzzing noise.  Thought it was a nice little pre cursor to who can travel and who can't, especially after Jamie told Claire he couldn't hear anything at the stones. 

 [...] 

Also, the part where Claire goes to the historic registry, I find it really hard to believe that the clerk would be handling a 200 year old document like it was a sales receipt.  Isn't paper that old at risk to disintegrate at a moments touch and is kept in climate controlled rooms and handled with gloves, etc?  I thought that was a little farfetched and a bit too convenient.  

I'm glad folks caught the buzzing thing and who can hear it. Seems like some of the non-book-readers got that too. Though, I did check in with my husband and daughter to see if they got it, too. They did. Yay!

And ditto on the handling of that historic document! I couldn't believe it wasn't in a protective sleeve and being handled with gloves. My goodness, that wouldn't have been too hard to add in. What in the world?!

Anyway...

Other thoughts on the episode (as if I haven't said enough! LOL)...

I loved how Cait so effectively acted a woman living a shell of her life. I love that her existence seemed so brittle, and then cracked in stages, finally crumbling with relief in final hug with Bree.

I thought they could have done a nicer make-up job with Gillian, to soften her look so that she'd seem younger. She was only supposed to be in her 20's in 1968. Oh well.

Loved, loved, loved, Jamie walking Claire backward toward the stone, then holding her hand on it. Wow. Swoon-worthy, indeed!

And finally, I questioned the choice to have the sounds of the battle interrupting Jamie and Claire. I'd estimate that the trip to the stones took the better part of an hour on a horse, given the distance to the battlefield (indicated by the smoke in the background), and if the battle's already started by the time he left the stones, then it wouldn't really be surprising that he survived it, since he would have necessarily missed most of it. It wasn't a super-long battle, after all. Longer than Prestonpans, certainly, but still not very long. 

DG's timeline on all of that is way more screwed up in the books, though, so I guess I'll just hand wave it away. It just seemed like they were being so specific about planning the timeline of that day, with the timestamps, and everything, so it took me out of the moment a little. I was like "Jamie.... better hurry up, if you intend to die today." ;-)

Edited July 10, 2016 by CalamityBoPeep
Spelling matters

[calico]

Quote

It was just a little "After all, tomorrow is Another Day!" for me. And I love Gone With the Wind. 

Ha!  Yes, that was the visual for sure.  

[Moxie Cat]

Since she's being discussed to death in this thread, here are some tidbits about Brianna from Entertainment Weekly's interview with Ron Moore today. Hope it's OK to quote and post a link.

On casting Brianna: "It was difficult. They’re very tricky roles to cast, especially when you’re casting the adult child of two of our leads. So, you want to see both characters in her immediately, which is a big challenge in terms of who that actress is going be. She also has to literally play the daughter of Claire in the episode. She has to have a certain chemistry with Roger."

On casting an American: "We did talk about that. We looked at Americans. I think there were some Canadians in the mix. It was a fairly wide net."

Interview here: http://www.ew.com/article/2016/07/09/outlander-season-2-finale-ron-moore

My interpretation, from reading between the lines, is that Skelton was the best they found  in terms of physical resemblance to CB and SH, and had chemistry with Richard. But my guess is that he/they are not 100% over the moon about her. I can't find anything resembling praise for Skelton in this interview. Compare that to what he says about Rankin: "He just needed to be charming and funny, and you had to instantly like him and feel like he was a good match for Brianna. Richard Rankin had that in spades. Everyone just immediately likes him when they meet him."

He also notes that even though she is in this episode a lot, she's not as present next  season  - that the roles of Brianna and Roger grow over time. So those who really don't like her won't have to take her in such large doses next season, and (hopefully) her acting choices will improve. Whoever compared her to Lennon Stella: unfortunately, you're right on the mark - that's who she reminds me of as well. The problem is, the Stella sisters were cast on Nashville because of their performing ability, and were only recurring for the first few years. This actress plays a main character on a well-cast, well-acted, award-nominated show. I'd love to know why she was chosen, because I haven't seen it so far.  

Edited July 10, 2016 by Moxie Cat

[theschnauzers]

22 hours ago, Petunia846 said:

Fair enough. What I was trying to get at was that, for me, anytime a line felt a little weak or off I just chalked it up to the character herself being young and in a strange new place (literally and figuratively). I don't know. I'm not an acting expert.

Petunia846, I think you hit the nail on the head, re: Sophie/Bree; she was cast fairly late as far as production for this episode and I think she was trying to reflect how a 19 year old college student of that era would have been like at the time having recently lost the only person she had known as her father and coming over to apparently see places in England that were important to him. In book 3 we will see a more adult Bree emerge and I think some of the criticism I've seen about Sophie in this episode will go away. Ron has said in a couple of interviews posted overnight that they were looking at the longer term because this was an important role to the story and the actors playing Bree and Roger had to have a strong chemistry just as Cait and Sam do, as well as the four of them. Ron also mentioned they're not only prepping book 3, but thinking about locations for book 4 as well, while keeping the hq for the show in Scotland. 

Edited July 10, 2016 by theschnauzers
Darn typos

[whoknowswho]

4 hours ago, AD55 said:

Thanks for posting the quotations from DG, AheadofStraight.  I often disagree with her, but I think her criticisms are spot on in these two cases. For me, the tragedy of Dougal's death in the book is that he doesn't realize that Claire and Jamie had decided not to kill CS.

This is apropos of nothing, but my mother was a Chisholm, and I grew up singing Skye Boat Song with my sisters--and being proud that our ancestors helped harbour Bonnie Prince Charlie, to safety in Skye. 

This entire series I've watched Prince Charles Stuart portrayed as such a silly, vacuous man that no one should take seriously--and thought to myself--how could my people have helped him?  The song "Rise and follow Charlie" (The Clancy Brothers did a great version) is another--how they were so ready to fight and die for the cause, and did so.

I am sure the truth is somewhere in the middle, but it has bothered me how he has been played. Is it historically accurate?  I don't know, but the whole slaughter of Culloden, could have been stopped if one single person HAD poisoned the man...

I haven't seen tonight's episode yet, it airs in Canada at 11:00 pm, looking forward to it with sadness, though.

[DancingD]

Don't hate Sophie either, she's lovely, and this is only her second acting job. The other was a kid's show, I think. I do hope she improves as an actress. But I won't get past the fact that a dark eyed brunette with dyed looking hair is Brianna. Nope. She is tall for a woman (5'8") but the other leads are taller and it seems off.

And I do know that Sam's hair is dyed. But he has the coloring for a natural redhead and it looks good.

Edited July 10, 2016 by DancingD

[WatchrTina]

Quote

I actually got a little kick out of the  "fucking barbeque" line, but agree it was kind of out of place and seemed to be thrown in.

I just listened to Ron Moore's podcast (with Toni Graphia and Maril Davis) and he said that line was thrown in in one take as a joke but when it came time to edit the episode, they ended up liking it and keeping it.  Meh.  I'm not sure that was a good decision.

[Nidratime]

Quote

Someone upthread mentioned the rule about casting and it has to do with tax credits. Outlander can only hire a certain number of actors outside of the UK and since they already have Cait and some of the actors in the French section of the story they couldn't cast an American for Bree. Hence their limitations.

I would be shocked if they wouldn't hire an American for one of the lead roles of the series in which the character *is* an American because of a tax credit. Makes me wonder what they're going to do when the action shifts to North Carolina.

[CatMack]

46 minutes ago, Moxie Cat said:

My interpretation, from reading between the lines, is that Skelton was the best they found  in terms of physical resemblance to CB and SH, and had chemistry with Richard. But my guess is that he/they are not 100% over the moon about her. I can't find anything resembling praise for Skelton in this interview. 

I think that's reading an awful lot if your own personal bias into his interview. He said in his TVLine interview that Richard and Sophie both nailed their auditions and that just like casting Sam and Cait once they saw the tapes of the actors the characters clicked for them. We've established I don't agree with a lot of people about Sophie's skills but I recognize that people have a right to their own opinions especially in things so subjective. But that doesn't mean that Ron or Gabaldon (as I saw someone in another site claim) shares the negative opinion of Sophie's talents. 

[Summer]

Forgot to mention in my previous post, I was very relieved how they aged Claire.  Caitriona is such a lovely woman and even though she looks like the youngest 50 year old I know, I am glad they didn't go too far with aging make up or prosthetics.  

And as cheesy as that last scene was at the stones, my goodness Caitriona looked stunning!  

And yeah, agree with those who felt the last scene didn't have the impact that it did in the book.  I was happy Rik got to deliver the he meant to die at Culloden but didn't line, but it just wasn't the same.   

[WatchrTina]

I just listened to Ron Moore's podcast for the finale in which he was very complimentary about Sophie and there was even a comment (by Maril or Toni) that they loved how Sophie flinched with Cait reached out to touch her during the audition (this was during their big fight scene) which is an instinct that none of the other actresses had had.  I was pretty negative about Sophie up thread but I'm hoping for the best.  Brianna is a very tough role and the material Sophie had to get through in this episode was very challenging (and some the writing for her was not the best.)  I'm betting the cast and crew will close ranks and support Sophie (I saw some very complimentary tweets to her from Sam & Cait yesterday).  She's a young actress who has been tossed into the midst of a very large, active, outspoken and (let's face it) occasionally obnoxious fandom that is not afraid to be very critical of the cast & crew.  And she's playing an unpopular character.  I wish her well and I certainly don't plan to criticize her in a more public forum than this (I feel pretty confident that no one from the show ever comes here.)  I hope she's getting a lot of positive feedback from the people whose opinions matter to her (like Ron Moore.)

Edited July 10, 2016 by WatchrTina

[AD55]

3 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

 She's a young actress who has been tossed into the midst of a very large, active, outspoken and (let's face it) occasionally obnoxious fandom that is not afraid to be very critical of the cast & crew.  And she's playing an unpopular character.  I wish her well and I certainly don't plan to criticize her in a more public forum than this (I feel pretty confident that no one from the show ever comes here.)  I hope she's getting a lot of positive feedback from the people whose opinions matter to her (like Ron Moore.)

I hope this is true, but I bet it isn't, especially for someone as new to the profession as Sophie. And now I feel like crap.

[toolazy]

2 hours ago, calico said:

My problem with her is her voice and mannerisms seem more 2016 than 1968.  

I saw someone make this point on another forum and I have to strenuously disagree.  I believe that the sense that she's too modern is because she is shockingly modern compared to the stuffy old-fashioned background of Inverness and the manse.  But she isn't anachronistic for 1968 - not at all.  

[Quickbeam]

No one will convince me that they could not have found a tall, big boned, size 16 actress who's a red head to play Brianna. They didn't look hard enough.

I love TV Roger. He's perfect. 

[bluestocking]

5 hours ago, Amers said:

2 hours ago, calico said:

Ha!  Yes, that was the visual for sure.  

My gawd, the ending was a big fat tub of cheese balls. It was like watching a different show. What in the world was up with the glowing stones and the fluttering lashes? 

 

Yeah I actually laughed at the ending.  (But then I also laughed at the parallel Claire/Frank race to the stones in "Both Side Now" too, especially when the caption {Swelling music continues} appeared on my TV screen.)

 

There's a Gone with the Wind/Outlander final scene mashup that DiElle posted on YT.  (Hope the link appears and it doesn't embed.  Mods, please fix if necessary.) 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaqbaFikXas

[ulkis]

40 minutes ago, toolazy said:

I saw someone make this point on another forum and I have to strenuously disagree.  I believe that the sense that she's too modern is because she is shockingly modern compared to the stuffy old-fashioned background of Inverness and the manse.  But she isn't anachronistic for 1968 - not at all.  

There was one line that struck me as too modern - when Brianna said "have you been?" I feel like people didn't really start leaving off the "there" till the late 90s but maybe I'm wrong. But when she said that I thought that she should have said "have you been there?" No big deal, but it did stand out to me.

[Amers]

26 minutes ago, bluestocking said:

Yeah I actually laughed at the ending.  (But then I also laughed at the parallel Claire/Frank race to the stones in "Both Side Now" too, especially when the caption {Swelling music continues} appeared on my TV screen.)

 

There's a Gone with the Wind/Outlander final scene mashup that DiElle posted on YT.  (Hope the link appears and it doesn't embed.  Mods, please fix if necessary.) 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaqbaFikXas

This.is.perfection.