The Americans Retrospective

[jimbritt75]

I didn't watch season one of The Americans, but all the positive reviews has me super stoked to watch it now. Can I start watching with Season Two and catch up with Season One over time, or do I need to see Season One before moving on?

[David T. Cole]

I think you are okay going into Season 2 with a quick read at Wikipedia. There's some cool stuff in S1 like the Russian training flashbacks but the situation going into S2 is easy to digest.

[jimbritt75]

Sweet! Thanks!

[Kierstyn]

FX did a repeat of episodes 3, 4 and 5 and then 11, 12, and 13 of season one... so that is all I have seen going into season 2.  I was completely perplexed by the decision to do these random chunks, and not all or nothing.  But I really enjoyed them, and now I am psyched to be getting into season 2. 

[maraleia]

A place to discuss particular episodes, arcs and moments from the show. Please remember this isn't a complete catch-all topic -- check out the forum for character topics and other places for show-related talk.

[Hal25]

I remember checking TV guide and I think they actually reran all the episodes of season one before two started... they just did them on different weeks so it would've been easy to accidentally overlook a few. Personally, I would watch season one (if I had access) before season two simply because I thought it was spectacular and some of the things that might be suspenseful in season one wouldn't be at all if you already knew their outcome in season two. But in any case, enjoy the series!

[sistermagpie]

Moved to Directives thread...

Edited February 15, 2015 by sistermagpie

[Umbelina]

http://www.fxnetworks.com/shows/the-americans/extras

 

There are several commentary videos and inside the episode clips as well here. 

[JustaPerson]

I love that the scenes that would realistically be in Russian, are. It always bugs me how tv shows (and movies) would have characters who are not supposed to be native english speakers only communicate in english (most recently Fresh off the boat is an example of this)

[5cents-worth]

I've kept all the episodes on my dvr, and yesterday i went back and rewatched the first episode.  Sometimes pilot episodes have little relation to a show a couple of seasons down the line, but this show was really strong from the beginning.  The writing, the period music, and the intensity were all there, and they have maintained the quality since then, which is really impressive.  I had forgotten that Phillip

killed the defector who had assaulted Elizabeth during her training,

and the moments that followed were powerfully (and wordlessly) performed. 

[Pet Gouch]

First, I want to congratulate Joe Weisberg for another great season of The Americans.  He has mastered the art of irony.  This is one of the tools the writer absolutely needs in his quiver to produce dynamic edge of your seat programs.  Like art irony is difficult to define but  we know it when we see it. 

     The cast and crew have pulled off a major score by amping up the suspense.  Spy craft is a sublime soup of usery, manipulation, black mail, betrayal, and gile. We see the Jennings in their home life.  They are proud parents of two sweet kids.  They have a booming small business and they are moonlighting for Mother Russia.  The Reagan era has now ramped up the suspense and fear.  Misunderstanding and mistrust have pushed the couple to the very edge of disaster on so many occasions.  Also Pages suspicions have transformed into shear terror as she discovers the truth.  To this we add Stan Beeman  FBI, is on the ropes after his marriage has fallen apart and blaming himself for Nina's arrest.  Nina herself is a survivor playing her cards carefully through the stern Soviet corrections system.   

     This exciting tale is only heightened by the viewers being manipulated.  We are sympathetic to the Jennings while being horrified at their behavior.  Talk about irony.  I can hardly wait to see what the next season has in store.

[BW Manilowe]

And the pre-S4 rebroadcast of S3 starts tonight on FX (very late Wednesday, February 17/very early Thursday, February 18)--apologies for the very late notice; maybe it'll at least help someone in the Mountain/Pacific time zones & westward. I just now saw the listings for the show.

Anyway, tonight (Wednesday into Thursday) FX is showing EST Men & Baggage (the first 2 eps of S3) at 2:01AM & 3:02AM Eastern/1:01AM & 2:02AM Central, respectively. Check your local listings for the correct time (& channel number) from Mountain time westward.

Next late Wednesday night/early Thursday Morning (February 25 on the calendar), FX will be showing the S3 eps Open House, Dimebag, Salang Pass, & Born Again from 1AM-5AM Eastern/Midnight-4AM Central. Check your local listings for the correct time (& channel number) from Mountain time westward.

Edited February 18, 2016 by BW Manilowe

[BW Manilowe]

Next late Wednesday night/early Thursday morning (March 3rd on the calendar) FX will be showing the S3 eps Walter Taffet, Divestment, & Do Mail Robots Dream of Electric Sheep? (eps 307-309) from 2-5AM Eastern/1-4AM Central Time. Check your local listings for the correct times from Mountain Time Westward, & for the correct channel number in your area.

[crgirl412]

I wish my hospital got FX since I am working nightshift that night and possibly could sit with my computer on wheels and chart by an empty room or a deep-sleeping patient's room if we are full!! 

 

I should tell my hospital that we get a lot of patient's requesting FX and it would raise our patient satisfaction scores considerably!   

[jjj]

Finally got to the end of Season Three after starting the entire series in late December -- and am so grateful for these boards! 

 

I have a big question from the end of Season Two -- given that the murdered spy family was absorbing so much of Stan's time, and that the FBI had strong suspicions that they were spys, and that Stan had interviewed Jared -- how did that all get dropped by the FBI?  I would think that the disappearance of Jared (who, I assume, was disposed of like Annelise) would make them crazy to find out what happened to him and move the family murder even higher on their priority list.  I think there was one reference (Season Two finale?) to Jared going off their grid, but no followup that I ever saw -- and the episodes are still fresh in my memory. 

 

For all the discussion of Stan as a sad sack in Season Three, he is the one agent who, all on his own, has rightly discovered the various threads that will create a rope to catch the Jennings.  He just needs a break to show him how all those threads come together.  I so look forward to the day he learns that Elizabeth and Philip are the people in the pictures he has been staring at for so long.   

[sistermagpie]

Yeah, that must have been quite a shock for Stan when he learned Jared had disappeared. Presumably there's just no way to trace him just as there would have been no way to trace him if he actually left the country. But I'll bet that's what Stan thinks happened, that the KGB took him. I'll bet he figured out the kid knew about his parents. He might start unconsciously noting some similarities between his nervousness and Paige's now. He's quick to pick up on that stuff.

 

I feel like they'll want to do some interesting things with Stan and Philip's relationship for when the reveal happens. Like so Stan can realize that the reason they got along so well is they actually were connecting in ways he might find disturbing later on. For instance, he might start out by getting a clue that Philip can have secrets just as a travel agent--just stuff that will give him some sense of who he really was all that time rather than him just seeing him as the friendly guy next door he can't believe was a spy the whole time.

[SunnyBeBe]

I wonder how Stan will feel too.  I hope that at the time Philip and Elizabeth will have some leverage on him though.  I've often wondered why they haven't worked to get more on Stan, so that if he did discover who they are, they would have some bargaining tools to use.  I suppose they could threaten to claim that Stan knew that Martha was planting bugs and that she could claim that it was STAN who was the mole in that office.  

[sistermagpie]

I guess they can only work with what they've got. Stan's not going to tell Philip that he passed some info to Oleg but Oleg knows that, so the Russians could use it as leverage against him if there was a way they could do that. Philip will probably know that Stan's on the trail of Clark and he and Elizabeth will start looking for angels to do something in that direction.

 

It's interesting that last season both Stan and Philip went a little bit rogue, and not only did they somewhat get opposite reactions (Stan got promoted for being a maverick, Philip got told he was being childish) but they were sort of acting in opposite ways. Stan's thrown some of his colleagues under the bus--Gaad obviously prefers Adderholt at this point for very good reason--he's just as good an agent as Stan and hasn't gotten Gaad in trouble. Philip's move about the trip to Germany was something he was doing for Elizabeth. It's about him too, of course, but he was also showing solidarity to his partner. Philip tends to see other Illegals as all his co-workers who all care about each other. 

[babyPhat279]

Hi, I'm sort of late to the party, just finished watching season 3. Now that I've caught up with everyone else, I had a couple of questions.

 

Why did the center want Phillip and Elizabeth to have kids? It seemed to be implied that the "2nd generation" plan was a newer one, but I could be mistaken. Was it just to fit in? Because I certainly wouldn't have looked at a childless couple at in the 80s and thought "OMG SPIES!!!" Do real spies have children? Because it seems like a terrible situation all around - even if the parents aren't killed before the child comes of age, and even if their side won the Cold War, what would have been the exit strategy?

 

I read that in formal settings (like work) the Russians use their first name and then their father's name, that's why you always hear Nina Sergeevna instead of just Nina. So if Phillip's son is real, does that mean people call him Mischa Mischa? I feel like that would get annoying real fast. Although maybe they don't since he may not even know who his father is. So what do they do in that case, or if someone is an orphan and didn't know their parents?

 

Speaking of, when Paige asked her parents their real names, was that the first time Elizabeth heard Phillip's real name? I know she asked about his son but I don't think we ever saw a scene where he told her his name. How crazy, for Paige to think she's learning information that they must already know about each other, but don't. And they said they were really married, but are they, technically?

 

I thought I saw a scene in a promo for the final episode of season 3 where Elizabeth told Phillip he might have to take the kids to Canada, but then I didn't see that in the episode. Was that something that was cut? Or did I imagine it?

[Chaos Theory]

Hi, I'm sort of late to the party, just finished watching season 3. Now that I've caught up with everyone else, I had a couple of questions.

 

Why did the center want Phillip and Elizabeth to have kids? It seemed to be implied that the "2nd generation" plan was a newer one, but I could be mistaken. Was it just to fit in? Because I certainly wouldn't have looked at a childless couple at in the 80s and thought "OMG SPIES!!!" Do real spies have children? Because it seems like a terrible situation all around - even if the parents aren't killed before the child comes of age, and even if their side won the Cold War, what would have been the exit strategy?

 

 

Maybe you wouldn't have thought "spies" but a childless couple does draw attention.  The Jennings were supposed to not only be "typical" Americans but to be stereotypical Americans.  Which meant 2.5 kids, a picket fence,  hell It wouldn't surprise me if they had a dog.     

 

They are supposed to blend in.  They want to be forgettable.  Which means nothing about them should stick out.  like the fact that they are seeming a loving married couple....with no kids.  

Edited March 4, 2016 by Chaos Theory

[crgirl412]

Maybe you wouldn't have thought "spies" but a childless couple does draw attention.  The Jennings were supposed to not only be "typical" Americans but to be stereotypical Americans.  Which meant 2.5 kids, a picket fence,  hell It wouldn't surprise me if they had a dog.     

 

They are supposed to blend in.  They want to be forgettable.  Which means nothing about them should stick out.  like the fact that they are seeming a loving married couple....with no kids.  

They are so not dog people.  They are barely people people- especially Elizabeth.   

[babyPhat279]

Then it kind of surprises me they weren't also required to join a church, even if they only went now and again.

[Epeolatrix]

Mischa would be Mischa Mikhailovich.

[sistermagpie]

Why did the center want Phillip and Elizabeth to have kids? It seemed to be implied that the "2nd generation" plan was a newer one, but I could be mistaken.

 

 

It is a new plan. They were supposed to have kids to blend in as a regular couple in the suburbs. Kids not only make them stand out less (childless couples definitely would stand out) but they make them look more innocent and ordinary. (Btw, anyone else surprised that Pastor Tim and his wife have no kids? That really seems like something there'd be a reason for, probably on his side. I don't mean physically.)

 

I read that in formal settings (like work) the Russians use their first name and then their father's name, that's why you always hear Nina Sergeevna instead of just Nina. So if Phillip's son is real, does that mean people call him Mischa Mischa? I feel like that would get annoying real fast. Although maybe they don't since he may not even know who his father is. So what do they do in that case, or if someone is an orphan and didn't know their parents?

 

 

Russians use their first name and their patronymic that is based on their father's name with a suffix. Philip's son's name would be like Mikail Mikailovitch--no more annoying than anyone else's really. Mischa is the short form of Mikail. (Note that Elizabeth makes a point of giving Paige her whole first name while Philip gives the more intimate version that's always more English-friendly. I think a lot of Russians who deal with tourists, for instances, often just give the short form of their name for that reason.) I think there's a number of things you could do if you didn't know who your father was--use a grandfather's name, use their own name twice, use another male relative or friend's name. I think the mother or whoever was choosing the name could pick one.

 

Speaking of, when Paige asked her parents their real names, was that the first time Elizabeth heard Phillip's real name?

 

 

We never heard him tell her his name but when he said his own son's name was Mischa she seemed to understand the significance just from her reaction, so she likely did know his name.

 

And they said they were really married, but are they, technically?

 

 

They never had any kind of wedding ceremony. Not sure if there's paperwork on file that says they got married in the US anywhere. Technically there are definitely ways they aren't married-but they weren't lying there. They are definitely really married in terms of thinking of themselves as married.

 

I thought I saw a scene in a promo for the final episode of season 3 where Elizabeth told Phillip he might have to take the kids to Canada, but then I didn't see that in the episode. Was that something that was cut? Or did I imagine it?

 

 

In Season 1 they had a plan for one of them to take the kids to Canada if the other one was caught with the Colonel but I don't think there was anything in S3 about getting the kids anywhere.

 

They are so not dog people.  They are barely people people- especially Elizabeth.

 

 

Also dogs sometimes react when people come and go. They don't want any barking or collar jingling in the middle of the night.

 

Then it kind of surprises me they weren't also required to join a church, even if they only went now and again.

 

 

I can believe that not being a requirement if they're in a city where there's not that much pressure to go to church like in the Bible Belt or something. Stan and Sandra don't have one either that we see.

 

Mischa would be Mischa Mikhailovich.

 

 

He wouldn't put the short form with the patronymic, though.

Edited March 4, 2016 by sistermagpie

[PinkRibbons]

Without knowing his father's name, Misha Jr. could be called Mikhail Ivanovich, Ivan being the Russian version of John, as in John Doe. The one unbreakable rule of patronymic use is that you never use it with a nickname. That's why my Tyotya (Auntie -- although she'd not related; it's what Russian kids call their parents' adult female friends) Sasha is always referred to as Alexandra L'vovna in the few situations people use patronymics for. Fun fact: tons of Soviet ex-pats actually hate hearing their patronymics, and a lot of non-Russian countries have reverted to using some forms of Mr. and Ms. and Mrs. after independence.

 

This is an important distinction because in Russia there's almost only two ways to go with someone* -- either you use their formal full patronymic or you go with some sort of diminutive/affectionate nickname. Notice how Elizabeth's mother almost always refers to her as Nadia or Nadinka.

 

*Well, Russia of the 80s, apparently now people do occasionally use just the personal name the way we do in other parts of the world. I guess it hits the exact middle ground.

Edited March 4, 2016 by PinkRibbons

[sistermagpie]

This is an important distinction because in Russia there's almost only two ways to go with someone* -- either you use their formal full patronymic or you go with some sort of diminutive/affectionate nickname. Notice how Elizabeth's mother almost always refers to her as Nadia or Nadinka.

 

 

One thing I always wondered--is there a short form for Nina? I remember Vasily quickly calling her things like Ninotchka but what's NIna's equivalent of Nadia?

[PinkRibbons]

One thing I always wondered--is there a short form for Nina? I remember Vasily quickly calling her things like Ninotchka but what's NIna's equivalent of Nadia?

 

Shortened, no, but there are all sorts of affectionate endings to add like Ninulya, Ninyussa, Ninok. And you can add "otchka" on top of that so you could theoretically end up with the very affectionate andsomewhat silly Ninyussatcka, for example.

[Moose135]

After hearing about the series, and almost watching it when it first aired, I'm now trying to catch up via Amazon Prime.  I watched the first season and a half over the past week, and hope to catch up before they're too far into Season 4.  I was in college in the late 70s - early 80s, then went into the Air Force after that, so I remember these times well.  It has been a little unsettling watching though - the lead characters, who you should normally be rooting for in a TV show, are Soviet spies working against the country I wore a uniform to defend...

[Umbelina]

Welcome Moose!  Always love to hear we are getting more people who watch the show.

 

Every season has been great, and honestly this coming season looks like it will be the best of all.

[JennyMominFL]

After hearing about the series, and almost watching it when it first aired, I'm now trying to catch up via Amazon Prime.  I watched the first season and a half over the past week, and hope to catch up before they're too far into Season 4.  I was in college in the late 70s - early 80s, then went into the Air Force after that, so I remember these times well.  It has been a little unsettling watching though - the lead characters, who you should normally be rooting for in a TV show, are Soviet spies working against the country I wore a uniform to defend...

I'm  a bit younger than you, but I also served in the military in the late 80's. I went to a rodeo on Camp Pendleton in 1989 and our guests were USSR soldiers. Their ship had docked in San Diego. It was so strange to be sitting with Russian soldiers when they were "the enemy". I was working , in uniform when the wall came down.  The older I get and the more I study history, the more nuances I see in this issue. I'm actually planning to get a grad degree in the cold war. I'm actually writing a paper about the state of the cold war in 1983.. It's providing context for the movie Threads.

[hellmouse]

I always wonder about the Jennings' actual neighbors, whom we've never seen. Based on the layout of the homes, it looks like they share a wall and driveway. But I've never seen a car or people go in and out of the adjoining house. Does anyone live there? If so, do they hear Philip and Elizabeth (and Paige) going up and down the stairs to the basement all the time? Do they hear their garage door opening at all hours of the night? Did they hear when Elizabeth was forcibly taken from the home?

It's probably not important to the overall narrative of the show, but I always find myself wondering about those invisible neighbors.

[madam magpie]

11 hours ago, hellmouse said:

I always wonder about the Jennings' actual neighbors, whom we've never seen. Based on the layout of the homes, it looks like they share a wall and driveway. But I've never seen a car or people go in and out of the adjoining house. Does anyone live there? If so, do they hear Philip and Elizabeth (and Paige) going up and down the stairs to the basement all the time? Do they hear their garage door opening at all hours of the night? Did they hear when Elizabeth was forcibly taken from the home?

It's probably not important to the overall narrative of the show, but I always find myself wondering about those invisible neighbors.

I thought the whole house was theirs, no? No sharing of walls/driveway. The house looks pretty big on the inside, and sharing walls could get tricky for spies.

Edited May 10, 2016 by madam magpie
Because "walks" and "walls" are different things

[sistermagpie]

11 hours ago, hellmouse said:

I always wonder about the Jennings' actual neighbors, whom we've never seen. Based on the layout of the homes, it looks like they share a wall and driveway.

I think it's clear they don't share anything. They would never have bought a house with that set up and I can't remember ever seeing any hint of shared anything.

[hellmouse]

6 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

I think it's clear they don't share anything. They would never have bought a house with that set up and I can't remember ever seeing any hint of shared anything.

I think in the narrative of the show, you are correct. We aren't meant to think they have neighbors directly next door. It wouldn't make sense.

But the interior of the house is shaped differently than the exterior, so I always think about it. You can see it in the pilot, around the 28 minute mark, when Elizabeth gets the mail and Paige and Philip get in the car to go to the mall. There are actually three front doors (corresponding to the A, B, C on the mailboxes when Elizabeth gets the mail). The Jennings' garage has an A above it, and you can see a two car garage opposite the one car garage used by the Jennings. 

However in subsequent episodes, they've been careful not to show the two car garage and have hidden the A, B, C letters. Sometimes you can see the door opposite theirs  behind a lattice fence, but they usually take care not to show it.

At any rate, I think for the purposes of the story, they do not have neighbors or share a wall or driveway. It's probably something they'd choose to hide better if they could reshoot the pilot. 

Edited May 10, 2016 by hellmouse

[sistermagpie]

It's probably like the opening of All in the Family where the camera comes up to a two person house, but since there's never any mention of them (and God knows there would have been!) we assume that's not really their house in that way.

Weird they used a house like that, though. Do they still use the same house? I know it's in White Plains somewhere.

[madam magpie]

To continue from the media thread...

 

Quote

Yup, I too was a latchkey kid. I was also babysitting by 12. It was very very normal back then. Numbers wise  86% of Soviet Baby boomer women  worked outside of the home compared to 42% of American women. Soviets had the highest rates of  female employment in the world

 

I'm confused. Are you all saying you don't see Elizabeth and Philip as indulgent because the kids stay home alone a lot? I was a latch-key kid too from the age of 10, but my mother was neither absentee nor indulgent. So I don't see the correlation at all. 

Everyone worked in the Soviet Union. That's a primary way communism sustains itself. Labor is a machine. The Bolsheviks were fairly into gender equality, and my understanding is that later under Stalin, Soviet women were put into certain jobs to fill labor shortages. But I see no comparison culturally between that ideology and women in western countries who were part of movements to gain equality in the workforce. Plus in the 1980s, we were in the throes of Reaganomics. Capitalism was in full swing, and women were participating at record numbers. Philip and Elizabeth are benefiting from that and raising their children in the midst of it. Yet they do very little to change the lesson the kids' are learning from that experience. Instead, they indulge, both emotionally and materially. I think that's perfectly fine, but also super interesting given their backgrounds. I'd expect Elizabeth especially to have a much heavier hand with the kids than she does.

Edited May 11, 2016 by madam magpie

[JennyMominFL]

9 hours ago, madam magpie said:

To continue from the media thread...

 

 

I'm confused. Are you all saying you don't see Elizabeth and Philip as indulgent because the kids stay home alone a lot? I was a latch-key kid too from the age of 10, but my mother was neither absentee nor indulgent. So I don't see the correlation at all. 

Everyone worked in the Soviet Union. That's a primary way communism sustains itself. Labor is a machine. The Bolsheviks were fairly into gender equality, and my understanding is that later under Stalin, Soviet women were put into certain jobs to fill labor shortages. But I see no comparison culturally between that ideology and women in western countries who were part of movements to gain equality in the workforce. Plus in the 1980s, we were in the throes of Reaganomics. Capitalism was in full swing, and women were participating at record numbers. Philip and Elizabeth are benefiting from that and raising their children in the midst of it. Yet they do very little to change the lesson the kids' are learning from that experience. Instead, they indulge, both emotionally and materially. I think that's perfectly fine, but also super interesting given their backgrounds. I'd expect Elizabeth especially to have a much heavier hand with the kids than she does.

 

NO, it was more to point out that working mothers and latchkey kids were something that both people shared and that  both cultures of the time would not have viewed Elizabeth's time away from home as shocking or unusual.  But it also means that the Jenningses would not have seen it is a negative characteristic of Capitalism, for  both parents to be working long hours and leaving kids at home.

I too would expect Elizabeth to be more strict, and certainly my own mother spoke to me  many times, in way that was more harsh than Elizabeth did with Paige in this episode.

[sistermagpie]

10 hours ago, madam magpie said:

Instead, they indulge, both emotionally and materially. I think that's perfectly fine, but also super interesting given their backgrounds. I'd expect Elizabeth especially to have a much heavier hand with the kids than she does.

Yes, it always surprises me when people call them terrible parents. I mean, obviously in terms of lying to their children and bringing them into a dangerous situation they are terrible! But there's also sometimes arguments that they're particularly distracted or unaware or not loving when it seems the opposite to me. They actually seem to take their children's emotions very seriously for all that Elizabeth told Paige not to be precious about her feelings. Even in the scene this season where they were realizing they'd fallen down on the job by not helping Henry study for his test, they were being indulgent by thinking they needed to help him study rather than just expecting him to do well on the test. The kids very believably see their parents as ordinary American 80s parents to whom they can snark, talk back to and roll their eyes at when they feel it's necessary. Sometimes they get called on this, but no much more than any other kid would be.

[atua]

28 minutes ago, Midnight Cheese said:

That's what I think umbelina - I think you lie like Philip has lied on occasion.  You apply your supposed amazing skills to tracking your kid, and you let things slip on your missions.  Perceptions of competence aren't an 'outing' scenario IMO. 

17 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Now the KGB would prefer to keep all of them in play, and the family intact, but if it came to a choice? They want Paige and Henry more.

Faking incompetence isn't a good long term plan. Phillip & Elizabeth might be able to stall for a little while like that, but as the whole Jared debacle proved, Centre wants a Directorate S offspring for future operations so badly that they'll do whatever it takes to get it, so they won't wait forever. There's also the risk that Centre will just recall Phillip & Elizabeth back to Russia if they think the pair are becoming a liability.

[scartact]

Just gotta say I've really enjoyed reading this debate between you both, @Midnight Cheese and @Umbelina! Thank you for illuminating more of your point of view Midnight Cheese, even though I also know I don't necessarily agree completely with what you are saying, it definitely makes me understand better where you pinpoint the inherent problems of Paige being accused of betrayal. So as I understand your argument, you are saying that even though Paige had asked for the truth point blank in Stingers, Philip and Elizabeth not just the adults, but as her parents in this situation should have ultimately recognized they would be giving her undue burden that they themselves could have pretended by continuing to uphold their regular suburban family image? Please feel free to correct me if I have interpreted your argument incorrectly!

Ultimately, I believe either option they could have taken would still create undue stress on Paige. They're either liars who refuse to grant Paige this one request (a big one at that), which continues to drive her further apart from them, or... basically what is happening now happens.

[hellmouse]

I have wondered if part of why Paige told Pastor Tim even though her parents expressly told her not to was partly because she didn't understand the true nature of their work. I think it was 90% because she truly trusted Pastor Tim, but it could have been also that she thought maybe her parents were exaggerating about jail. She might not be able to imagine what they actually do that could cause them to wind up in jail. 

I wonder if the upcoming threat by Alice will lead Phillip and Elizabeth to be more explicit with Paige, which could both frighten her and help her understand the danger of this secret even more. I could see Paige saying "can't we do something to stop her" and Phillip and Elizabeth exchanging glances, like hell yes, we could do something. But I don't think they are going to kill the pregnant wife of a clergyman who was at one time the only person their daughter trusted (I don't think she trusts Pastor Tim anymore). So might instead serve as another unintended step in Paige's training - she will have to try to work Alice to get her to calm down and not act on her threat. That would require a level of acting and manipulation that we have not seen Paige show at any time. But maybe she'd be willing to try with the stakes so high. 

Edited May 14, 2016 by hellmouse

[Umbelina]

Part of the reason I'm putting forth the argument is that I've tried to think of what else Philip or Elizabeth could possibly do here.

The other thing is they were shocked that the KGB wanted Paige and Henry to spy.  They had the kids, as ordered, to maintain cover, so they went into this blind, because I pretty much think that the KGB had the eventual pipe dream of natural born Americans as moles.  Now to get there, first these families had to remain undercover, and second they had to have kids.  So were Philip and Elizabeth conned by their own agency?  I think so, more like 75% than 100%, but yes, I think they were used.

It would be interesting for one of them to consider that.

I also think Gabe's story about killing his friend was there for a reason beyond "these kids today!"  I have no doubt he, or Claudia, would kill Philip and Elizabeth in a heartbeat if they thought they were disloyal or lying, or if they were ordered to.  Frankly, I really expected much more fall out from that jaunt to Germany, but apparently the show has bigger fish to fry here.

So, if anyone has any ideas about a way, given the basic circumstances, that they could have been better parents here, I'd love to hear it.  Anyway I look at it though, they are doing the best they can with their kids, considering their circumstances. 

Edited May 14, 2016 by Umbelina

[madam magpie]

30 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Part of the reason I'm putting forth the argument is that I've tried to think of what else Philip or Elizabeth could possibly do here.

The other thing is they were shocked that the KGB wanted Paige and Henry to spy.  They had the kids, as ordered, to maintain cover, so they went into this blind, because I pretty much think that the KGB had the eventual pipe dream of natural born Americans as moles.  Now to get there, first these families had to remain undercover, and second they had to have kids.  So were Philip and Elizabeth conned by their own agency?  I think so, more like 75% than 100%, but yes, I think they were used.

It would be interesting for one of them to consider that.

I also think Gabe's story about killing his friend was there for a reason beyond "these kids today!"  I have no doubt he, or Claudia, would kill Philip and Elizabeth in a heartbeat if they thought they were disloyal or lying, or if they were ordered to.  Frankly, I really expected much more fall out from that jaunt to Germany, but apparently the show has bigger fish to fry here.

So, if anyone has any ideas about a way, given the basic circumstances, that they could have been better parents here, I'd love to hear it.  Anyway I look at it though, they are doing the best they can with their kids, considering their circumstances. 

I agree. I do think they were used, and continue to be, by their govt, and it's interesting too that they both said at one time or another that they'd made a pact not to involve the kids in their work. And then they both wanted, at different times, to break that agreement. 

Edited May 14, 2016 by madam magpie

[Bannon]

22 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Part of the reason I'm putting forth the argument is that I've tried to think of what else Philip or Elizabeth could possibly do here.

The other thing is they were shocked that the KGB wanted Paige and Henry to spy.  They had the kids, as ordered, to maintain cover, so they went into this blind, because I pretty much think that the KGB had the eventual pipe dream of natural born Americans as moles.  Now to get there, first these families had to remain undercover, and second they had to have kids.  So were Philip and Elizabeth conned by their own agency?  I think so, more like 75% than 100%, but yes, I think they were used.

It would be interesting for one of them to consider that.

I also think Gabe's story about killing his friend was there for a reason beyond "these kids today!"  I have no doubt he, or Claudia, would kill Philip and Elizabeth in a heartbeat if they thought they were disloyal or lying, or if they were ordered to.  Frankly, I really expected much more fall out from that jaunt to Germany, but apparently the show has bigger fish to fry here.

So, if anyone has any ideas about a way, given the basic circumstances, that they could have been better parents here, I'd love to hear it.  Anyway I look at it though, they are doing the best they can with their kids, considering their circumstances. 

They could walk into the office of the best criminal defense attorney in D.C., write the attorney a check, and say, "We are deep cover KGB agents, living in this country illegally under false identities. We are alienated from the cause that motivated us to come to this country, we now have children, and we want two things. We want new identities, to raise our children in a safe environment, and we want cash, so we can live without bringing attention to ourselves. In return, we will tell the Department of Justice and the CIA everything we know about Soviet operations. We suggest you call the Attorney General of the United States immediately. We want 10 million dollars, and this offer is on the table for 48 hours."

[hellmouse]

9 minutes ago, Bannon said:

They could walk into the office of the best criminal defense attorney in D.C., write the attorney a check, and say, "We are deep cover KGB agents, living in this country illegally under false identities. We are alienated from the cause that motivated us to come to this country, we now have children, and we want two things. We want new identities, to raise our children in a safe environment, and we want cash, so we can live without bringing attention to ourselves. In return, we will tell the Department of Justice and the CIA everything we know about Soviet operations. We suggest you call the Attorney General of the United States immediately. We want 10 million dollars, and this offer is on the table for 48 hours."

I think the big problem with this approach is that they are not 100% alienated from the cause. Maybe something will happen to cause them to be 100% alienated, but they're not there yet. IMO.

[madam magpie]

29 minutes ago, Bannon said:

They could walk into the office of the best criminal defense attorney in D.C., write the attorney a check, and say, "We are deep cover KGB agents, living in this country illegally under false identities. We are alienated from the cause that motivated us to come to this country, we now have children, and we want two things. We want new identities, to raise our children in a safe environment, and we want cash, so we can live without bringing attention to ourselves. In return, we will tell the Department of Justice and the CIA everything we know about Soviet operations. We suggest you call the Attorney General of the United States immediately. We want 10 million dollars, and this offer is on the table for 48 hours."

Would you do that if the tables were turned? Turn yourself over to the KGB and sell out the US and everything you believe is right for $10 million? Not to mention that you'd then be CIA Enemy #1, and historically, neither the KGB nor the CIA has been above plots to assassinate people. I don't think that's really a choice here. 

They could also kill themselves, but I think we should stick to reasonable options.

Edited May 14, 2016 by madam magpie

[gwhh]

14 minutes ago, Bannon said:

They could walk into the office of the best criminal defense attorney in D.C., write the attorney a check, and say, "We are deep cover KGB agents, living in this country illegally under false identities. We are alienated from the cause that motivated us to come to this country, we now have children, and we want two things. We want new identities, to raise our children in a safe environment, and we want cash, so we can live without bringing attention to ourselves. In return, we will tell the Department of Justice and the CIA everything we know about Soviet operations. We suggest you call the Attorney General of the United States immediately. We want 10 million dollars, and this offer is on the table for 48 hours."

 

I agree!  with this idea! 

[Umbelina]

31 minutes ago, madam magpie said:

Would you do that if the tables were turned? Turn yourself over to the KGB and sell out the US and everything you believe is right for $10 million? Not to mention that you'd then be CIA Enemy #1, and neither the KGB nor the CIA is above plots to assassinate people. I don't think thats really a choice here. 

 

This is the thing, they are as loyal to the USSR as any United States soldier, CIA or FBI agent is to USA, they may have doubts, but push comes to shove, these people are loyal to their country.

Did you read the story about the walk-in now living in Portland Oregon in the "real life spy" thread?  Although I think this guy is an asshole, it's an interesting read.  http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/26/russian-defectors-spies-dead-end-american-dream

I can't imagine, under any circumstances the United States turning KGB spies loose with new identities in America, or frankly, any other country.  Even if they said they defected, to me that's a real long shot.  In the meantime, while they were drained of every possible bit of information, complete traitors to their country, where would the kids be? 

Although it's certainly an interesting answer.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_KGB_defectors  This is the list of KGB defectors, but it's wikipedia, so who knows?  Not one defected to the United States...kind of interesting.  Anyone know of any?  The one that defected in the 80's was returned to the Soviet Union. 

It's just that I seriously doubt they would trust us.  Hell I wouldn't trust us back in the eighties!  Or now, for that matter.  I can't see Philip or Elizabeth believing the USA about anything, lawyer or no lawyer (but I really love that touch!)  Where would the kids be while they were debriefed?  What if the United States decided to use them, forced them to double?  Or traded them back to get someone we wanted out of Russia?  It's a pretty scary proposition, it would be like asking us to trust the KGB or USSR to keep their word.  They are experienced spies, they know how this works.

44 minutes ago, Bannon said:

They could walk into the office of the best criminal defense attorney in D.C., write the attorney a check, and say, "We are deep cover KGB agents, living in this country illegally under false identities. We are alienated from the cause that motivated us to come to this country, we now have children, and we want two things. We want new identities, to raise our children in a safe environment, and we want cash, so we can live without bringing attention to ourselves. In return, we will tell the Department of Justice and the CIA everything we know about Soviet operations. We suggest you call the Attorney General of the United States immediately. We want 10 million dollars, and this offer is on the table for 48 hours."

Sorry Bannon, I meant to include your post, hopefully this merges!

ETA

Wait, when I clicked on the name of one guy who "defected" to Great Briton, it turns out he really defected to the United States.  The wiki article sites the country where they were when they defected, but it could have been to the American Embassy there.  I'm editing and reading up.  Ha.  I keep clicking on the names in that article, and so far, many died young, in suspicious ways, poison twice so far...

Edited May 14, 2016 by Umbelina

[Bannon]

37 minutes ago, madam magpie said:

Would you do that if the tables were turned? Turn yourself over to the KGB and sell out the US and everything you believe is right for $10 million? Not to mention that you'd then be CIA Enemy #1, and historically, neither the KGB nor the CIA has been above plots to assassinate people. I don't think that's really a choice here. 

They could also kill themselves, but I think we should stick to reasonable options.

Sure it is. People defected for cash and safety, in real life.

[Bannon]

The reason you use an attorney is to get the commitment in writing, and yes, your attorney can sue the DOJ to adhere to the agreement.