The Americans Retrospective

[stagmania]

Really interesting discussion. I tend to agree with @Umbelina that Phillip and Elizabeth have done the best they could with admittedly terrible options. I don't think there was any way out of this without Paige finding out. And while I do think that Paige is at fault for sharing the secret, I certainly understand why she did it and can't judge her too harshly. I don't think she truly understood the level of danger she was exposing the family to, or the lasting implications of confiding in Pastor Tim. It's a hard lesson that she won't forget.

[Bannon]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoliy_Golitsyn

Is a nice summation of perhaps the most prominent KGB defector.

Edited May 14, 2016 by Bannon

[Umbelina]

24 minutes ago, Bannon said:

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.

Can you imagine the costs of going up against the DoJ, or the other ways they could get out of this though, like planting information about them?  Also, if they fully confess, they didn't just SPY, they actually murdered several people, which I'm sure the KGB would make known, probably in the press, so damned if they do confess to the murders, and more damned if they don't.  The reality is, most spies don't really murder people themselves.  They did.  What competent lawyer would spend the resources it would take to take on the DoJ?

The other problem I see is that because of the compartmentalized nature of their job, they don't have many names to give the FBI.  Gabe, Claudia, Hans, Kimmie, the lady with the phones, and William.  They have a bit of information about a useless bioweapon, and useless plans they stole, that were in fact, planted as bait by our guys.  They can tell them about Martha, but the FBI already knows.  They could tell them about the mail robot.  What else do they really have to bargain with though?  They aren't like high ranking KGB defectors that have lists of valuable names and networks to share, because they are so isolated.

Although, eventually they may defect anyway, but if they do, I'd be they get screwed.  Ha.

I don't see what would be worth $1M though, let alone the rest.

Edited May 14, 2016 by Umbelina

[hellmouse]

15 minutes ago, stagmania said:

Really interesting discussion. I tend to agree with @Umbelina that Phillip and Elizabeth have done the best they could with admittedly terrible options. I don't think there was any way out of this without Paige finding out. And while I do think that Paige is at fault for sharing the secret, I certainly understand why she did it and can't judge her too harshly. I don't think she truly understood the level of danger she was exposing the family to, or the lasting implications of confiding in Pastor Tim. It's a hard lesson that she won't forget.

I agree about Paige not truly understanding. Even though Phillip and Elizabeth tried to tell her not to trust other people, their warnings were too oblique for Paige to understand. I'm thinking of that speech Phillip gave when he was helping her put up the Paris poster (farewell Rick Springfield), about trusting yourself and how no one else really knows what's best for you, etc... and she thought he was talking about drugs. She really didn't get it. As Elizabeth said later, they were trying to be nice to her, but that niceness obscured the grim reality for Paige. So it really wasn't until Elizabeth laid down the law and gave her a plan for how to handle it that Paige really started to understand the implications.

[Bannon]

53 minutes ago, hellmouse said:

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.

Sure, E in particular is still committed. My point is that they have been living in the West for a long time now. If they want to know the truth, that the government/ideology they kill for has itself murdered 100 million innocent people, so as to avoid allowing political competition, or the population being allowed to give consent to being governed, in just the previous 60 years or so, that information is freely available. They can know that Soviet citizens line up for hours to buy toilet paper, so dysfunctional and corrupt is the Soviet kleptocracy. In short, they can empirically observe reality, and conclude that it is, as a matter of pragmitism and ethics, a crappy idea to continue to work for the KGB. There were people who did that.

[hellmouse]

3 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Can you imagine the costs of going up against the DoJ, or the other ways they could get out of this though, like planting information about them?  Also, if they fully confess, they didn't just SPY, they actually murdered several people, which I'm sure the KGB would make known, probably in the press, so damned if they do confess to the murders, and more damned if they don't.  The reality is, most spies don't really murder people themselves.  They did.  What competent lawyer would spend the resources it would take to take on the DoJ?

The other problem I see is that because of the compartmentalized nature of their job, they don't have many names to give the FBI.  Gabe, Claudia, Hans, Kimmie, and William.  They have a bit of information about a useless bioweapon, and useless plans they stole, that were in fact, planted as bait by our guys.  They can tell them about Martha, but the FBI already knows.  They could tell them about the mail robot.  What else do they really have to bargain with though?  They aren't like high ranking KGB defectors that have lists of valuable names and networks to share, because they are so isolated.

Although, eventually they may defect anyway, but if they do, I'd be they get screwed.  Ha.

Their value would be as double agents, which wouldn't really provide any respite at all. It would be worse. 

[Umbelina]

1 minute ago, hellmouse said:

Their value would be as double agents, which wouldn't really provide any respite at all. It would be worse. 

Yup, I agree.  Or as trades.

I did edit to include the telephone lady as yet another fellow soldier they could rat out/betray.

[madam magpie]

27 minutes ago, Bannon said:

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

True believers didn't, no. Dedicated soldiers don't. People who feel that what they're fighting for is just and right and that the alternative is evil don't do that. These are diehard Soviets. You're suggesting they behave like people who see value and safety in the West. They, Elizabeth especially, see us as murderous savages who nuked hundreds of thousands of innocent people and are creating vile and vicious biological weapons to kill them and the people in their homeland. Would you turn yourself over to a country you viewed that way?

[Christina]

20 minutes ago, Bannon said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoliy_Golitsyn. .....

 

Is a nice summation of perhaps the most prominent KGB defector.

Bannon, your link has a period at the end, which creates a dead page when you click on it. I'm going to relink it here for ease, but you may want to edit your original for people who haven't read it yet. 

[Bannon]

5 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Can you imagine the costs of going up against the DoJ, or the other ways they could get out of this though, like planting information about them?  Also, if they fully confess, they didn't just SPY, they actually murdered several people, which I'm sure the KGB would make known, probably in the press, so damned if they do confess to the murders, and more damned if they don't.  The reality is, most spies don't really murder people themselves.  They did.  What competent lawyer would spend the resources it would take to take on the DoJ?

The other problem I see is that because of the compartmentalized nature of their job, they don't have many names to give the FBI.  Gabe, Claudia, Hans, Kimmie, and William.  They have a bit of information about a useless bioweapon, and useless plans they stole, that were in fact, planted as bait by our guys.  They can tell them about Martha, but the FBI already knows.  They could tell them about the mail robot.  What else do they really have to bargain with though?  They aren't like high ranking KGB defectors that have lists of valuable names and networks to share, because they are so isolated.

Although, eventually they may defect anyway, but if they do, I'd be they get screwed.  Ha.

Sammy Gravano murdered 19 people. The DOJ had no problem giving him immunity for those crimes, in return for testimony to convict John Gotti.  Yeah, E & P are isolated. They can still serve up Gabriel on a platter, and that is significant, as is all the information they provide on techniques and practices.

[stagmania]

15 minutes ago, hellmouse said:

I agree about Paige not truly understanding. Even though Phillip and Elizabeth tried to tell her not to trust other people, their warnings were too oblique for Paige to understand. I'm thinking of that speech Phillip gave when he was helping her put up the Paris poster (farewell Rick Springfield), about trusting yourself and how no one else really knows what's best for you, etc... and she thought he was talking about drugs. She really didn't get it. As Elizabeth said later, they were trying to be nice to her, but that niceness obscured the grim reality for Paige. So it really wasn't until Elizabeth laid down the law and gave her a plan for how to handle it that Paige really started to understand the implications.

Absolutely. It's also complicated by them not wanting Paige to know the real depth of what they do (Of course we don't kill people!), which means they haven't been able to sufficiently express what would happen to them if anyone found out. You can't tell her on the one hand that Mom and Dad are fine and really they're fighting to prevent violence and keep peace and she doesn't need to worry, and also that Mom and Dad would be arrested, tortured or killed if anyone finds out who they are. Paige is smart enough to see right through that contradiction, and it's clear that she cannot handle any more truth, so they're stuck at this impasse that definitely isn't enough, but is all they can manage for now.

Edited May 14, 2016 by stagmania

[madam magpie]

1 minute ago, Bannon said:

Sammy Gravano murdered 19 people. The DOJ had no problem giving him immunity for those crimes, in return for testimony to convict John Gotti.  Yeah, E & P are isolated. They can still serve up Gabriel on a platter, and that is significant, as is all the information they provide on techniques and practices.

Sammy Gravano was an American citizen and part of the fairly narrow sector of organized crime. He didn't work for the KGB and wasn't a threat to national security.

[Umbelina]

16 minutes ago, madam magpie said:

True believers didn't, no. Dedicated soldiers don't. People who feel that what they're fighting for is just and right and that the alternative is evil don't do that. These are diehard Soviets. You're suggesting they behave like people who see value and safety in the West. They, Elizabeth especially, see us as murderous savages who nuked hundreds of thousands of innocent people and are creating vile and vicious biological weapons to kill them and the people in their homeland. Would you turn yourself over to a country you viewed that way?

This is very true.  At the time we were the only nation to ever actually use nuclear weapons, and we did it twice, on two civilian populations.  A Hollywood film star was currently president and talking tough.  I'm sure that in their minds we were not "the good guys" and at least in Elizabeth's case, she's not attracted or impressed by the availability of goods. We were also involved in some pretty dirty things in Central America at the time, that they are touching on in the show. 
http://www.aasc.ucla.edu/cab/200708230009.html

Quote

 

The real mortality of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan will never be known. The destruction and overwhelming chaos made orderly counting impossible. It is not unlikely that the estimates of killed and wounded in Hiroshima (150,000) and Nagasaki (75,000) are over conservative.

At no time during the period between 1943 and 1946 were facilities allotted, or time provided, for the Medical Section of the Manhattan Engineer District to prepare a comprehensive history of its activities. Regulations forbade notetaking. Official records were scanty. There were few charts and photographs.

 

I mean, we were raised to be terrified of the Russians dropping bombs on us, so imagine how the Russians felt, when their enemy was a country that already did that.

I'm just saying, it may be clear cut to us, especially since we know the soviet union will collapse for a time (sorry but with Putin head of that government now, who knows what will happen now...it certainly seems to be trying to rise again.)

I still don't know of a lawyer that would take the case, unless the Jennings have stolen a lot of money to pay them enough to spend their future possibly trying to sue the DoJ if they default.

Edited May 14, 2016 by Umbelina

[Bannon]

1 hour ago, hellmouse said:

 

 

14 minutes ago, madam magpie said:

Sammy Gravano was an American citizen and part of the fairly narrow sector of organized crime. He didn't work for the KGB and wasn't a threat to national security.

The point is that E & P have information of great value to trade, and the DOJ allows murderers to go free in return for things of great value.

Were committed Soviet communists likely to become alienated and defect? No, but it did happen.

Edited May 14, 2016 by Bannon

[Umbelina]

So @Bannon, are you saying that if your kid was unhappy, just miserable, you would defect to the KGB, and rat out your American contacts?

[Bannon]

8 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

This is very true.  At the time we were the only nation to ever actually use nuclear weapons, and we did it twice, on two civilian populations.  A Hollywood film star was currently president and talking tough.  I'm sure that in their minds we were not "the good guys" and at least in Elizabeth's case, she's not attracted or impressed by the availability of goods. We were also involved in some pretty dirty things in Central America at the time, that they are touching on in the show. 
http://www.aasc.ucla.edu/cab/200708230009.html

I mean, we were raised to be terrified of the Russians dropping bombs on us, so imagine how the Russians felt, when their enemy was a country that already did that.

I'm just saying, it may be clear cut to us, especially since we know the soviet union will collapse for a time (sorry but with Putin head of that government now, who knows what will happen now...it certainly seems to be trying to rise again.)

I still don't know of a lawyer that would take the case, unless the Jennings have stolen a lot of money to pay them enough to spend their future possibly trying to sue the DoJ if they default.

A prominent D.C. defense attorney would take this case in a moment, on contigency of the U.S. government paying up.

KGB agents did defect, albeit rarely, and they likely at one time were all committed Soviet Communists. People have been known to lose their Faith.

[Bannon]

5 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

So @Bannon, are you saying that if your kid was unhappy, just miserable, you would defect to the KGB, and rat out your American contacts?

No, because I can empirically observe reality, and conclude that the Soviet regime was ethically, economically, technologically, and socially inferior. At least I'd like to think I'd have enough intellectual honesty to reach that conclusion. Yes, people often lie to themselves with great vigor and frequency, but not everybody does, at least not all the time.

[Umbelina]

11 minutes ago, Bannon said:

No, because I can empirically observe reality, and conclude that the Soviet regime was ethically, economically, technologically, and socially inferior. At least I'd like to think I'd have enough intellectual honesty to reach that conclusion. Yes, people often lie to themselves with great vigor and frequency, but not everybody does, at least not all the time.

Well, they feel the same way, that the USA is an awful country, much worse than their own in ways that matter to them.  They certainly don't feel it's ethically or socially inferior, and they are working to improve the technology and economy.

Since we are talking about parenting, and what parents are obligated to do here, defecting is off the table unless they completely change their minds about their country?  It's not to defect for their children, it's simply to change a lifetime of beliefs, something they've sacrificed for, and to suddenly be "rah rah USA, screw you my country," and the people I've known best?  Gimme a million bucks and everything I've been fighting for is over?

OK then.

Edited May 14, 2016 by Umbelina

[sistermagpie]

17 hours ago, stagmania said:

Re: Martha, I don't believe it was ever Phillip's intention to bolster her confidence (and make her harder to control), I think it was an unexpected byproduct of their relationship that ultimately made his job more difficult. I certainly don't think he was good for her in the end, even if she had some temporary personal growth over the course of their relationship. That confidence and self-assurance disappeared real quick as soon as she had to contemplate a life without him.

I didn't say it was his intent. It was the byproduct of the way the relationship was lived day by day--but didn't have to be. Of course the marriage wasn't ultimately good for her--she lost everything. But the personal growth was also real. It just seems like that's one of the intentional ironies of the show--maybe even more so with Kimmie. Would it be better if she was making a mistake with a real sleazy Jim who wanted to have sex with the 15-year-old? She wouldn't be the first. It doesn't justify what Philip is doing to her. But yeah, it seems like if Jim was a real person without a hidden agenda he might be the better choice.

17 hours ago, stagmania said:

I don't think it's fair to say Elizabeth would have easily slept with Kimmie-the whole point of that story is that Kimmie is far younger than their typical marks, and thus makes the usual routine harder to carry out. We've never seen Phillip hesitate to sleep with a mark until then. And I think we did see Elizabeth show concern for Lisa's situation, but with an abusive husband back in the mix there wasn't a whole lot she could do to intervene. She didn't cause Lisa to fall off the wagon and she certainly didn't encourage it. 

But wasn't one of his main arcs last year that he was defying the Centre and Gabriel telling how to do this to avoid crossing a line. Elizabeth at the same time was doing...well, not exactly the opposite since she didn't actually tell Paige herself. I think she was actually more hesitant to tell Paige the truth than she admitted. But she was assuring Gabriel she was bringing Paige along, sending weekly reports, assessing her, all thinking this was the right thing to do as a parent. Elizabeth generally follows orders unless she has a personal attachment to the person themselves.

Young Hee puts Elizabeth in a position where she genuinely feels uncomfortable with what she's doing to a source who has no interest in the cause at all.  It seems odd to have Elizabeth characterized the way she's been so far and then assume that Elizabeth kind of been just like Philip all along but circumstances weren't right to show it.  Philip still makes the same choice as Elizabeth often, and sometimes Elizabeth makes the choice Philip would. But him questioning whether this kind of damage to people is justified has been pretty explicit in ways it hasn't been with her.

17 hours ago, Midnight Cheese said:

The idea that Paige deserves adult-like scrutiny for her 'choice' to try and find a little oxygen in the air by sharing a tragic piece of information with someone who actually does care about the state of her actual soul is just ridiculous to me.

I'm not sure what this means, though. Some people have strong emotional reactions one way or the other. There are people who absolutely feel like Paige betrayed her parents by telling, and people who think her parents betrayed Paige by putting her in this position. And then people all along the spectrum between those two.

But who betrayed who doesn't change the situation they're in at all. Whatever someone's emotional reaction to the characters, Paige doesn't want her life to change completely and Pastor Tim and Alice knowing puts them all in danger of that. Telling all the other kids (either in the group home or in Russia) that this was all her parents fault is kind of cold comfort for Paige. She did tell Elizabeth right to her face that it was Elizabeth's fault she told Pastor Tim because Paige couldn't handle this being dumped on her. She has a good sense of how she's been wronged. But it's not like the US government would decide to let her life continue because it's not fair to Paige. It's not Pastor Tim's job to protect her parents or Paige above all else of course. It's not really a huge betrayal at all for him or Alice to turn them in. That's exactly why it was always dangerous for her to tell him. I think she got a hint of that when she was so angry about him telling his wife this info and his reaction was to be simply annoyed, like "Who are you to tell me my wife can't keep a secret?" The Tims care about each other and their new baby) more than Paige's life being secure. We don't always get to choose when we get adult-like scrutiny. (And of course, Paige is fictional so she's going to be subjected to the same scrutiny as every other character from the start.)

16 hours ago, Umbelina said:

If not for the KGB deadline/threat they could have continued to lie to Paige, tell her they were CIA and it was all very secret, or something else less horrifying that would sooth Paige, but that wasn't an option for them.

I don't think their telling her the truth was just about the KGB, though. I took it as an actual mark of respect and love. They'd come to the crossroads where Paige was either going to be loved like a child or an adult. Maybe she wasn't ready for the adult responsibility at that moment, but emotionally she knew she'd outgrown the child love. Protection now felt just like mockery.

This is also related to the Jared situation. He was emotionally destroyed not just by the secret but by the fact that he didn't hear it from his parents. By telling Paige themselves they proved their entire relationship wasn't a lie. Paige herself recognizes this. She told Elizabeth flat-out that she (Elizabeth) bore the lion's share of responsibility for giving her this secret. But she also seems to understand that they told her for the same reason she wanted to be told, so that they could have an actual relationship.

14 hours ago, hellmouse said:

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. 

It definitely seems like she didn't get it. Not just the nature of their work but what would happen if they were caught. More importantly, she didn't seem to understand Pastor Tim as a full, unknowable human being like her parents. She hadn't considered that telling him he can't tell anyone this would mean he could still tell his wife or ask uncomfortable questions. They'd never been in conflict before.

12 hours ago, Umbelina said:

They aren't like high ranking KGB defectors that have lists of valuable names and networks to share, because they are so isolated.

And they'd probably have to get the people they do know killed or captured.

Also, while Philip and Elizabeth both know that Paige has had a very different upbringing than they did and this makes her a different person with different expectations, they were shaped by their experiences just as she was. It's got to be really hard growing up in post-WWII USSR where you're told at close to the same age Paige is that you should give up everything you have--which amounts to your name, your family, your friends, your past and your body--to protect your homeland and then try to understand someone who thinks their feelings should totally take precedent over most things. And this in a system that didn't put much importance on the individual. It's not a logical idea to them that you put your child's feelings of the moment above the world. On the contrary, they probably think it's part of their job as parents to teach their kids the opposite.

Edited May 14, 2016 by sistermagpie

[Bannon]

11 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Well, they feel the same way, that the USA is an awful country, much worse than their own in ways that matter to them.  They certainly don't feel it's ethically or socially inferior, and they are working to improve the technology and economy.

Since we are talking about parenting, and what parents are obligated to do here, defecting is off the table unless they completely change their minds about their country?  It's not to defect for their children, it's simply to change a lifetime of beliefs, something they've sacrificed for, and to suddenly be "rah rah USA, screw you my country," and the people I've known best?  Gimme a million bucks and everything I've been fighting for is over?

OK then.

People can feel anything they want. Empirical reality isn't felt, it is observed, measured, and tested. When it gets to the point that you are unwilling to acknowledge the reality and meaning of tens of millions of murders of wholly innocent people, in a few short decades, for no other reason than to prevent political competition, then you are just endeavoring to lie to yourself, just as slavery supporters in South Carolina did in 1855. Like I said, people lie to themselves, about the most ridiculous things, with great frequency. Not everybody does, however.

Do I think it likely that someone like E would endeavor to be intellectually honest? No, I don't. But it happens on occasion.

[Dowel Jones]

Quote

We want 10 million dollars, and this offer is on the table for 48 hours."

To which the attorney replies "Of course, you know my fee in cases like this is 33%"

[sistermagpie]

23 minutes ago, Bannon said:

Well, they feel the same way, that the USA is an awful country, much worse than their own in ways that matter to them.  They certainly don't feel it's ethically or socially inferior, and they are working to improve the technology and economy.

Also do you think this ep also brought up that they think they're literally protecting their people from being murdered? I mean, even if you think the US system is better, would you feel right about helping out with deadly attacks against Russians? They grew up in the shadow of an invasion and slaughter. Are Philip and Elizabeth helping to prevent nuclear war or a biological war with their work? I couldn't say that they are...but they're not causing one either. So maybe it does matter.

Edited May 14, 2016 by sistermagpie

[Umbelina]

Got the quotes somehow mixed up there sistermagpie, I said that not Bannon.

ITA with you though! 

Edited May 14, 2016 by Umbelina
fixed name

[sistermagpie]

8 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Got the quotes somehow mixed up there sistermagpie, I said that not Bannon.

This new system is always doing this to me! I did indeed mean to quote you there.

[madam magpie]

10 hours ago, Bannon said:

 

The point is that E & P have information of great value to trade, and the DOJ allows murderers to go free in return for things of great value.

Were committed Soviet communists likely to become alienated and defect? No, but it did happen.

I see no comparison. A run-of-the-mill  murderer/US citizen isn't a KGB spy. The US govt doesn't treat all criminals who kill people the same way or offer them similar deals. There are lots of factors involved, and these situations are vastly different. The only similarity is that they both killed people.

It sounds to me like you're expecting Elizabeth and Philip to view the world through western, capitalist eyes. You keep talking about empirical data and intellectual honesty, but the fact is that what affects behavior is how we all read the data, not that it exists. Your interpretation of the data is that the USSR is worse. But the same way Islamic terrorists today read "empirical data" about the US dramatically differently than Americans do, so did true communists. Bread lines in Russia are bad, sure. Bummer. Murderous, evil America is far worse. For Elizabeth, that is intellectually honest. Whether that's an accurate read or not may be up for debate depending on each person's own value system, but your western truth has zero influence over how dedicated KGB spies would have viewed the United States or what sacrifices they'd be willing to make to fight their war. Just because you (or I) don't get their viewpoint doesn't make it less real or powerful. Sure, if everyone on earth viewed the world, govt, economics, etc. through the lens of western capitalism or American interest, we could all agree. Imperialist nations have been trying to force that kind of agreement for centuries. Problem is, much of the world doesn't see things the way we do, so they fight back. 

Your solution requires that Philip and Elizabeth completely change their value system, sell out their homeland, and turn over people they know and care for to the US govt for money. Maybe a true capitalist would do that (again, I ask, would you sell out the US to the Soviets?), but a true communist would not.

Edited May 14, 2016 by madam magpie

[hellmouse]

I have been rewatching season 1 and there is something I just don't understand: Mischa Jr. I know that there's doubt about whether he exists at all. But if you assume that he does, it still doesn't make a lot of sense. Irina and Mischa are a couple. She gets pregnant. He is chosen for the Illegals program, and she thinks he won't go if he knows about the baby. She ends their relationship. He is paired up with Elizabeth and begins his new life as Philip. 

Meanwhile, Irina has the baby. She too gets into the Illegals program, is paired up with someone and sent to Canada. Her partner dies. The baby grows up to be 20 year old Mischa Jr and he joins the Soviet military, where he is a paratrooper in Afghanistan and returns to Moscow upon completion of his tour of duty. 

So did Mischa get left behind in Russia when Irina went to Canada? It makes no sense that some Canadian teenager would decide to join the Soviet military, so I think he must have actually grown up in the USSR. How old was he when Irina left? Does he know who his real father is? Gabriel says that he has family in Moscow (Irina's father), so we assume he knew Irina was his mother, but maybe he doesn't really know. Who raised him? 

We don't really know Irina very well. But someone who would give up her boyfriend to ensure he put the cause first, and then leave her own child so she could serve the cause, and then help bring down the Polish guy... that just doesn't seem like someone who would then run away from the cause. Didn't she worry about what it would mean for Mischa Jr? 

It's just a weird story all around. I kind of hope we never meet him in the show, because it would just raise so many more questions.

[sistermagpie]

The Irina story is easily the thing that drives me the most crazy. It makes no sense. If this kid exists, I don't think there's any suggestion he grew up with Irina in Canada. He was left behind in Russia while she went to Canada and was called up to service when he came of age like any other Russian boy. So she didn't raise him, probably wouldn't know him, certainly would not be carrying around a picture of him in uniform.

Plus, if Irina's trying to tell Philip she broke up with him and kept the baby secret because she was afraid he'd stay in Russia if he knew about him, why on earth did she have the baby? Abortion was absolutely an option, an obvious one given she's claiming this baby is such a problem for him and isn't going to raise the baby herself since she wants to be an Illegal too. He would make sense almost only if Irina who stayed behind in Russia and wanted to raise the child. Irina's story makes no freakin' sense whatsoever.

To be honest, my headcanon is that that woman we met wasn't even Irina since she was a different woman from the picture we saw in the pilot. I know this is really down to Irina just not being cast yet, but her story's so ridiculous that's no more absurd than anything else--her sudden reappearance in Philip's life complete with family-centered backstory that contradicts her original dumping of him followed by Granny's immediate tattling to Elizabeth is pretty suspicious. To make it a true conspiracy theory I'll even throw out that this explains why Philip kept responding to Irina's familiar "Mischa" by calling her the more formal "Irina."

[Umbelina]

I always thought it was a trap too, and didn't really believe the story about his son either.  I kind of thought she was supposed to test Philip, since Elizabeth was reporting negatively on him.  The "son?"  A possible motivator to keep Philip in line from the KGB.

[Bannon]

13 hours ago, madam magpie said:

I see no comparison. A run-of-the-mill  murderer/US citizen isn't a KGB spy. The US govt doesn't treat all criminals who kill people the same way or offer them similar deals. There are lots of factors involved, and these situations are vastly different. The only similarity is that they both killed people.

It sounds to me like you're expecting Elizabeth and Philip to view the world through western, capitalist eyes. You keep talking about empirical data and intellectual honesty, but the fact is that what affects behavior is how we all read the data, not that it exists. Your interpretation of the data is that the USSR is worse. But the same way Islamic terrorists today read "empirical data" about the US dramatically differently than Americans do, so did true communists. Bread lines in Russia are bad, sure. Bummer. Murderous, evil America is far worse. For Elizabeth, that is intellectually honest. Whether that's an accurate read or not may be up for debate depending on each person's own value system, but your western truth has zero influence over how dedicated KGB spies would have viewed the United States or what sacrifices they'd be willing to make to fight their war. Just because you (or I) don't get their viewpoint doesn't make it less real or powerful. Sure, if everyone on earth viewed the world, govt, economics, etc. through the lens of western capitalism or American interest, we could all agree. Imperialist nations have been trying to force that kind of agreement for centuries. Problem is, much of the world doesn't see things the way we do, so they fight back. 

Your solution requires that Philip and Elizabeth completely change their value system, sell out their homeland, and turn over people they know and care for to the US govt for money. Maybe a true capitalist would do that (again, I ask, would you sell out the US to the Soviets?), but a true communist would not.

If a person can count, it is empirically false to describe the United States, in 1983, as "murderous", relative to the Soviet Union. Numbers are numbers. Facts are facts. Now, most people don't have the intellectual honesty to face numbers, or facts, when the numbers or facts establish things that  people don't want to see acknowedged. Thus, people lie to themselves about the most ridiculous things. They say to themselves that human beings with a lot of melanin, in South Carolina in 1855, aren't really full human beings. They tell themselves that waterboarding isn't torture. They say that regime that has murdered 100 million wholly innocent people in the previous 6 decades, for no other reason than to prevent political competition, is ethically superior to a regime that hasn't done that. It's all bullsh*t, but people generally, but only generally, prefer bullsh*t to facts.

You keep writing  as if it was impossible for a commited communist to decide to longer be committed, and to defect for cash. This assertion is not accurate.

Edited May 15, 2016 by Bannon

[hellmouse]

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

The Irina story is easily the thing that drives me the most crazy. It makes no sense. If this kid exists, I don't think there's any suggestion he grew up with Irina in Canada. He was left behind in Russia while she went to Canada and was called up to service when he came of age like any other Russian boy. So she didn't raise him, probably wouldn't know him, certainly would not be carrying around a picture of him in uniform.

Plus, if Irina's trying to tell Philip she broke up with him and kept the baby secret because she was afraid he'd stay in Russia if he knew about him, why on earth did she have the baby? Abortion was absolutely an option, an obvious one given she's claiming this baby is such a problem for him and isn't going to raise the baby herself since she wants to be an Illegal too. He would make sense almost only if Irina who stayed behind in Russia and wanted to raise the child. Irina's story makes no freakin' sense whatsoever.

To be honest, my headcanon is that that woman we met wasn't even Irina since she was a different woman from the picture we saw in the pilot. I know this is really down to Irina just not being cast yet, but her story's so ridiculous that's no more absurd than anything else--her sudden reappearance in Philip's life complete with family-centered backstory that contradicts her original dumping of him followed by Granny's immediate tattling to Elizabeth is pretty suspicious. To make it a true conspiracy theory I'll even throw out that this explains why Philip kept responding to Irina's familiar "Mischa" by calling her the more formal "Irina."

I like the conspiracy theory idea.The only problem is that Philip doesn't seem to suspect she's not the real Irina, and he's normally very observant. I guess it's possible he had blocked out what Irina looked like. Or maybe she had some surgery so she looked slightly different. 

Even if we are meant to believe she is the real Irina, I can still believe that she is being used in a trap against him. Some of the things she said to him, like "I prayed we could be together some day even though I didn't believe in God", etc were such nonsense, but they fit into the idea of a plan specifically created to test Philip's loyalty. I mean, she even reports back to the Centre (or Grannie directly?) that they slept together, before she runs off forever. Why would she report that if she was really planning to leave the KGB? Why not leave that part out? IDK but it seems sketchy. I would like to see Elizabeth beat up Irina for trying to trap Philip!

[Dev F]

33 minutes ago, hellmouse said:

I like the conspiracy theory idea.The only problem is that Philip doesn't seem to suspect she's not the real Irina, and he's normally very observant.

Well, the biggest problem is that we see flashbacks to Philip and Irina's history, and young Irina is played by the same actress as present-day Irina. It's clearly supposed to be the same woman. (And just to nip any subsequent speculation in the bud, the first flashback comes before Philip even meets Irina in the present, so it's not even possible that Philip saw fake Irina and superimposed her onto his memories of past Irina, or anything like that.)

Also, I never bought the idea that Mischa Jr. was supposed to be some sort of loyalty test for Philip, since he just passed an elaborate loyalty test in the immediately previous episode. Why would the Centre go to all that trouble to set up the original test, then tell Philip and Elizabeth that they'd just been cleared of suspicion, only to decide "Never, mind, let's test Philip one last time!" in the next episode? Especially since the original test was so traumatic that it ended with Elizabeth bashing Claudia's face in as a message to the Centre not to try something like that again.

Now, if the argument is instead that the Centre was uncomfortable with Philip and Elizabeth's growing intimacy, so they deliberately assigned Philip to work with an old flame in the hopes that it would cool the Jenningses' passion for each other, I could buy that. But I don't think the "Leave the KGB and run away with me!" pitch could've come from anyone but Irina herself -- which means she's also probably behind any initial fakery regarding their alleged son.

Finally, was there any particular reason to think that Irina was a deep-cover illegal like the Jenningses? I think I assumed that she was someone the Soviets would bring in to play a particular role in some operation or other, then ship back home to Russia, where she lived and raised her son.

[madam magpie]

15 hours ago, Bannon said:

If a person can count, it is empirically false to describe the United States, in 1983, as "murderous", relative to the Soviet Union. Numbers are numbers. Facts are facts. Now, most people don't have the intellectual honesty to face numbers, or facts, when the numbers or facts establish things that  people don't want to see acknowedged. Thus, people lie to themselves about the most ridiculous things. They say to themselves that human beings with a lot of melanin, in South Carolina in 1855, aren't really full human beings. They tell themselves that waterboarding isn't torture. They say that regime that has murdered 100 million wholly innocent people in the previous 6 decades, for no other reason than to prevent political competition, is ethically superior to a regime that hasn't done that. It's all bullsh*t, but people generally, but only generally, prefer bullsh*t to facts.

You keep writing  as if it was impossible for a commited communist to decide to longer be committed, and to defect for cash. This assertion is not accurate.

Of course it's not impossible for a communist to change his or mind, but it's not even remotely probable that Philip and Elizabeth, given who they are and what they believe at the moment, are going to turn themselves over to the Justice Dept. They may do that later if their belief system changes, but in the show right now, these are people who believe in their cause. They're not intellectually dishonest or unable to grasp empirical data. I'm sure they can count. The western world doesn't have a corner on the market of intelligence, honesty, or truth. People don't just need to be educated to our way of thinking to come around. They aren't lying to themselves. They're communists. In Elizabeth's case, a diehard communist. Their belief system may have needed to be defeated for us to thrive (I personally think it did), but come on. They don't think like you. That's it. There is no universal truth. It's all interpretation based on each person's or society's belief system.

Plus, you lay out your "empirical" truths (which are fairly narrow, actually: American slavery and American use of torture don't inform everything in the world; they do greatly inform the modern American worldview, however), but don't mention any of the things the US had done in recent memory: My Lai, No Gun Ri, the Bay of Pigs, and plots to assassinate Castro were recent to people in the 1980s. Nicaragua was still going on. In 1983 we invaded Grenada. And people whose parents fought in WW2 when the US dropped two atom bombs were the age the Jennings are in this show. All of that would have informed how they read the data available. I get that you think the Soviets were worse than we were. I think that too. But that belief system doesn't simply come from my being more honest and able to accept empirical data. It comes from my read of information, which was shaped by American education, American thinking, American culture, etc. I'm a capitalist and an American, so I see the world through that lens. My belief system is shaped by the values and culture of my homeland. Everyone's is: here, Russia, North Africa, Canada, Japan, Iraq, wherever.

Edited May 15, 2016 by madam magpie

[hellmouse]

7 hours ago, Dev F said:

Well, the biggest problem is that we see flashbacks to Philip and Irina's history, and young Irina is played by the same actress as present-day Irina. It's clearly supposed to be the same woman. (And just to nip any subsequent speculation in the bud, the first flashback comes before Philip even meets Irina in the present, so it's not even possible that Philip saw fake Irina and superimposed her onto his memories of past Irina, or anything like that.)

...

Finally, was there any particular reason to think that Irina was a deep-cover illegal like the Jenningses? I think I assumed that she was someone the Soviets would bring in to play a particular role in some operation or other, then ship back home to Russia, where she lived and raised her son.

The woman who looks different is the one in the photo we see Philip tear up before he meets Elizabeth in the pilot flashback scene. That's not the same person as the subsequent Irina we meet. Probably simply due to casting not being done yet, BUT it's entertaining to think it's a giant conspiracy.

On the question of the illegals, I assumed she was simply because she sounded and acted American/Canadian rather than Russian. She fit the mold of the other illegals we've seen on the show. 

Edited May 15, 2016 by hellmouse

[sistermagpie]

12 hours ago, hellmouse said:

I like the conspiracy theory idea.The only problem is that Philip doesn't seem to suspect she's not the real Irina, and he's normally very observant. I guess it's possible he had blocked out what Irina looked like. Or maybe she had some surgery so she looked slightly different. 

In my mind I thought he'd just decided to go with it whether or not he truly believed it was her. But that's just me playing around with it--I do assume the real reason she looks different is that it's a different actress. The Trudy Campbell effect. (Because in the pilot of Mad Men there's a picture of Matt Weiner's mother on Pete's desk that's supposed to be Trudy.) Like all conspiracy theories I can probably even make Philip's flashbacks make sense, but I don't really want to argue that this is canon.

11 hours ago, Dev F said:

Finally, was there any particular reason to think that Irina was a deep-cover illegal like the Jenningses? I think I assumed that she was someone the Soviets would bring in to play a particular role in some operation or other, then ship back home to Russia, where she lived and raised her son.

I think she explicitly was that. She was as perfectly westernized as he was and talked about living in Canada with a husband etc. I think it's stretching even the truth of this show to expect us to believe somebody who's not an Illegal is that able to pass at a moment's notice when they're not just coming out of training or already under cover. They have Illegals placed in the West for exactly this reason.

If she was willing way back when to lie to Philip about having another man (as she claims she did) for the Centre there's no reason to think she wouldn't also be willing to make up a fake son and sleep with him. That son's come in awfully handy, after all, for somebody who didn't seem to have anybody else back home to threaten. When Gabriel told him about Mischa Jr. he even acted like he'd just found out she had a son she now explained was Philip's, didn't he? (Which would make sense if she was an Illegal and not raising him herself.)

Given just how much leverage they've gotten out of the thing with his son, and how amazingly convenient he's been at all times, especially for Philip whose reactions to the idea are not universal, she makes much more sense to me as just being a liar. She even says, when Philip asks her if the story about the kid was true, that the only truth is "duty and honor." Is that the "real" (meaning that she's speaking truthfully here about how she feels) Irina trying to give Philip the heads-up that she's lying? The "real" Irina spitefully keeping him hanging in revenge for his not wanting to run away with her? Or is the "real" Irina a woman who sacrificed Philip every time she was asked to do so, both as a boy and as a man? It does at least seem interesting to me that for all Philip's tendency to feel guilty and responsible about people--like he does about his son--he really doesn't seem bothered by whatever might or might not have happened to Irina. And his last scene with her, asking if any of her story was real, seems to indicate that he thinks she's simply an untrustworthy narrator. I can see him feeling like he *has* to believe Mischa is real just in case he is, or maybe even wants to believe he's real so that he has that tie to back home, without feeling much about Irina herself.

Edited May 15, 2016 by sistermagpie

[Dev F]

31 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

I think she explicitly was that. She was as perfectly westernized as he was and talked about living in Canada with a husband etc.

I don't think she does, though. She talks about being from Canada as part of her cover, and she tells Philip that she had a husband who died, but unless I'm overlooking something in the transcript, I don't believe she ever mentions the two things together.

Now, of course she's an illegal in the sense that she's operating under a Canadian passport instead of official diplomatic cover, and she's been trained to mimic a Western accent instead of just presenting as a Russian national. I just didn't see any indication that she was a deep-cover operative like the Jenningses or the Connorses, with a long-term cover identity and a whole Western life. The show has given the KGB broad, vague powers aside from the sleeper program, so it doesn't strike me as particularly odd that they might send out Russian-based operatives on one-off missions like this one -- especially if, as I speculated previously, the Centre has an ulterior motive for reuniting Philip and his first love.

Quote

If she was willing way back when to lie to Philip about having another man (as she claims she did) for the Centre there's no reason to think she wouldn't also be willing to make up a fake son and sleep with him. That son's come in awfully handy, after all, for somebody who didn't seem to have anybody else back home to threaten.

Oh, I absolutely think it's possible that she made him up. It just seems odd that she would've made him up at the behest of the Centre, only to immediately turn around and suggest something that was clearly not in the Centre's interests -- running away with her.

But I suppose it's also possible that the Centre put her up to the Mischa Jr. lie, and when she saw how well it was working -- and realized that she still had deep feelings for Philip -- she decided to use it to convince him to run away with her.

Edited May 15, 2016 by Dev F

[sistermagpie]

34 minutes ago, Dev F said:

But I suppose it's also possible that the Centre put her up to the Mischa Jr. lie, and when she saw how well it was working -- and realized that she still had deep feelings for Philip -- she decided to use it to convince him to run away with her.

But then, if she's making up the kid at the Centre's behest it makes just as much sense to me that she'd throw in "let's run away together." They just had a broad test of all the agents to see who the mole was, and we know they mistrusted Philip more than they might have other agents given Elizabeth's reports. So if they've got her there doing this to him it wouldn't cost much for them to also see if he's ready to run. They know he's not defecting, but would he run off? She can kill several birds with one stone.

I don't know...like I said, the whole thing just makes so little sense to me it gives me a headache. It seems especially odd to think that Irina is somebody with Illegal-level passing as a Westerner training who's sitting in Russia until it come time to send her for a mission. (Every other Russian we've met with that ability has been an Illegal.) It's like having a JV squad or something because there's just no way she'd be on the level of somebody who's had the experience Philip has had. Plus apparently she's decided to use this trip to screw over her son by running off...because she doesn't like her job, which she talks to Philip about as being the same as his. Yet apparently she's had a whole life as herself back in Russia most of the time  where she's raised a son that she's not so fond of she's not willing to abandon him to KGB questions after she's gone.

It just smacks  of trying to have it both ways in ways that don't make sense to me. If you want Philip to have an alternate life that he might have lived with Irina back in Russia with their son then make her a Russian woman. Don't make her a damn spy who's also honeytrapping people. (I realize Russian Irina would have no reason to be in the US, but that's the whole point of the alternate life!) Why did this woman who was on the same track as him to become a spy, a woman who thought a baby would derail his life as an Illegal, have a baby at all? I understand non-spy Russian Irina wanting to have a baby. Spy-Irina who's training to be an Illegal herself, even if there really is some sort of part-time Illegal job (why couldn't Philip do that too if it was an option for her?) makes much less sense to me.

[Umbelina]

We may revisit that story again sometime.

I agree, she wouldn't be sitting on her butt back in Russia, that training would be put to use, unless she was burned somehow.  As far as why have the baby at all?  She was really young right?  Maybe when she was pregnant she honestly didn't know until it was too late to safely abort.  It happens.  Maybe she felt that she was in love with Philip and couldn't bring herself to abort his child?  I can fan-wank that one several ways.  As far as the kid after that?  Giving him to her father to raise seems likely, while she is off working. 

BUT

I just never believed her. 

Of course, in general, I rarely believe things spies say, because they are trained liars, trained to con, trained to do as told.  It's just more logical to me that this was one last test for Philip, AND that they now had a fictional child (or not) back in Russia to hold over his head to keep him in line.  I know from personal experience with Russian refugees that this was more common than not with those friends and family members left back in Russia, and those people weren't even spies!  So I keep expecting the show to go there, it's part of the reason I still suspect that woman in Germany wasn't really Elizabeth's mom.

Spies say things?  My go to is, they are possibly lying, now what would this particular lie accomplish?  So, in the whole Germany trip, ideas about "what it would it accomplish?"  Get them the hell back to the USA!  Also, the mother may have been dead a long time, or suspected and in a Gulag somewhere.  With the baby of Irina's and the whole "run away with me!" thing?  1.  Have a child to hold over the possibly wavering loyalty of Philip, and 2. Final test, would he run?

[Dev F]

4 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

But then, if she's making up the kid at the Centre's behest it makes just as much sense to me that she'd throw in "let's run away together." They just had a broad test of all the agents to see who the mole was, and we know they mistrusted Philip more than they might have other agents given Elizabeth's reports. So if they've got her there doing this to him it wouldn't cost much for them to also see if he's ready to run.

But the previous test wasn't broad at all; it was specifically tailored to determine whether Philip was loyal. That's how Phil discovers that Elizabeth has been informing on him -- he realizes that while he was going through brutal questioning, she mostly just had to sit in a room and look at creepy pictures of their kids. He immediately intuits what that means: that the Centre was only really targeting him, because Elizabeth told them that his loyalty was suspect.

So if they were designing a brutal test specifically to test Philip's loyalty, wouldn't they design it to get all the information they needed in one fell swoop? They wouldn't design it to elicit 90 percent of the information they wanted, then tell Philip he had been under suspicion, then do another test like a week later just to confirm the remaining 10 percent.

Quote

It seems especially odd to think that Irina is somebody with Illegal-level passing as a Westerner training who's sitting in Russia until it come time to send her for a mission. (Every other Russian we've met with that ability has been an Illegal.)

Have they? I don't think the show has ever been totally clear on that point. For instance, are the Jenningses' handlers supposed to be deep-cover operatives like them, or do they just come over on doctored passports and keep a low profile? When the Jenningses reject Claudia as their handler, she's told that she'll be recalled to Moscow and reassigned -- to the Connorses, as it turns out -- so it seems like she's not operating under the same strict separation policies as her charges.

And if you've got handlers like Claudia and Gabriel going back and forth to Russia, it doesn't seem odd to me that the Centre would send out other operatives on short-term assignment. I just always assumed that's what Irina was.

Quote

It just smacks  of trying to have it both ways in ways that don't make sense to me. If you want Philip to have an alternate life that he might have lived with Irina back in Russia with their son then make her a Russian woman. Don't make her a damn spy who's also honeytrapping people. (I realize Russian Irina would have no reason to be in the US, but that's the whole point of the alternate life!) Why did this woman who was on the same track as him to become a spy, a woman who thought a baby would derail his life as an Illegal, have a baby at all? I understand non-spy Russian Irina wanting to have a baby. Spy-Irina who's training to be an Illegal herself, even if there really is some sort of part-time Illegal job (why couldn't Philip do that too if it was an option for her?) makes much less sense to me.

Oh, I agree that the whole Irina storyline is a pretty big mess. I just come down in a different place when trying as best I can to make sense of it.

[hellmouse]

7 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

...

If she was willing way back when to lie to Philip about having another man (as she claims she did) for the Centre there's no reason to think she wouldn't also be willing to make up a fake son and sleep with him. That son's come in awfully handy, after all, for somebody who didn't seem to have anybody else back home to threaten. When Gabriel told him about Mischa Jr. he even acted like he'd just found out she had a son she now explained was Philip's, didn't he? (Which would make sense if she was an Illegal and not raising him herself.)

...

Great point about Gabriel saying he had just learned about the son. That would mean the Centre didn't know she had a child. So maybe (if he's real), she left wherever they were training and went home and had the baby. Then she went back to training and left the baby with her own family or someone else. They kept her informed about him, but she never told the Centre, until she was caught in Brazil, at which point she told them. (Why did she do that, if she'd kept the secret all these years?)

And if he's not real, she made him up to try to get leverage in both cases - to get Philip to want to be with her, and maybe to get the Centre to go easy on her for running away, since she is now the mother of the son of one of their top agents. 

As for Elizabeth's mother, it wouldn't shock me to find out the mother they brought in was a fake. At the time of that episode, I thought maybe she was a fake and that Elizabeth played along for Paige's benefit. But it seems like the show wants us to think she was the real mother... at least for now! 

[sistermagpie]

Just now, Dev F said:

But the previous test wasn't broad at all; it was specifically tailored to determine whether Philip was loyal. That's how Phil discovers that Elizabeth has been informing on him -- he realizes that while he was going through brutal questioning, she mostly just had to sit in a room and look at creepy pictures of their kids. He immediately intuits what that means: that the Centre was only really targeting him, because Elizabeth told them that his loyalty was suspect.

I agree about the whole thing not being a test. I just meant that if one thinks Irina is working with the Centre for other reasons (like she's just a loyal agent doing this mission with the Polish dissident but the the son is a fake) then her suggesting they run away together doesn't contradict that. Especially if you assume Grannie's later telling Elizabeth they slept together proved she had some agenda with Irina.

 

4 minutes ago, Dev F said:

For instance, are the Jenningses' handlers supposed to be deep-cover operatives like them, or do they just come over on doctored passports and keep a low profile? When the Jenningses reject Claudia as their handler, she's told that she'll be recalled to Moscow and reassigned -- to the Connorses, as it turns out -- so it seems like she's not operating under the same strict separation policies as her charges.

I think the amount of time we've seen Claudia, Kate and Gabriel shows they're living in the US pretty continuously, not living in Russia and flying over every time they need to meet with somebody. Seems more like they're flying back to meet with the Centre when necessary. So we've got evidence for handlers without Russian accents living in the US (two of them also have residences we see), and operatives without accents living in the US. Other KGB spies at the Rezidentura who have Russian accents. Seems odd to then have one person who presents as a resident Illegal in all the usual ways but is actually mostly in Russia.

The program's so intense as we see it it seems to undermine that with a part-time working mom version. Of course you could totally send people in and out quickly on fake passports and expect them to pass as Americans for a short time, but the only person we've potentially ever seen doing that is Irina, and that seems to be for the sole narrative purpose of letting her be both a spy and Philip's Russian baby mama. Yet she never references the very different life she has compared to him that I remember. Even when she's trying to use the son and their old relationship to manipulate him she doesn't talk about him in any personal way or talk about Russia in the 80s. She just seems to talk as if they're living very similar lives. Why not talk about this kid like you actually know him if you're supposed to be his mother and are trying to tug at Philip's heartstrings about it? Maybe mention how he's going to cope with you disappearing instead of acting like you're on your own?

7 minutes ago, hellmouse said:

Then she went back to training and left the baby with her own family or someone else. They kept her informed about him, but she never told the Centre, until she was caught in Brazil, at which point she told them. (Why did she do that, if she'd kept the secret all these years?)

Although I guess for her to know the Centre would also have to know, because she'd only be in contact via tapes like Elizabeth's that come through the Centre. In which case I guess it's possible Gabriel himself knew little about her. Oh! If she's not raising the kid it's possible she was told things about him by her family pretending he was somebody else, I guess. So that part maybe works if she was full-time or part-time.

One thing that would make more sense if she's part-time is that she herself brought that photo rather than the Centre sending her such a red flag thing to keep in her house. But still, if she's supposed to be living in Russia just give her a dang accent and make that part of her cover--she's supposed to be the daughter of somebody Eastern European anyway. She doesn't have to have a perfect Canadian or American accent. Giving her one (or giving her an American accent with a Canadian background...) according to everything we've seen so far says she's an embedded Illegal.

In short, I really hate just about everything about Irina and the way she's presented.

[Bannon]

21 hours ago, madam magpie said:

Of course it's not impossible for a communist to change his or mind, but it's not even remotely probable that Philip and Elizabeth, given who they are and what they believe at the moment, are going to turn themselves over to the Justice Dept. They may do that later if their belief system changes, but in the show right now, these are people who believe in their cause. They're not intellectually dishonest or unable to grasp empirical data. I'm sure they can count. The western world doesn't have a corner on the market of intelligence, honesty, or truth. People don't just need to be educated to our way of thinking to come around. They aren't lying to themselves. They're communists. In Elizabeth's case, a diehard communist. Their belief system may have needed to be defeated for us to thrive (I personally think it did), but come on. They don't think like you. That's it. There is no universal truth. It's all interpretation based on each person's or society's belief system.

Plus, you lay out your "empirical" truths (which are fairly narrow, actually: American slavery and American use of torture don't inform everything in the world; they do greatly inform the modern American worldview, however), but don't mention any of the things the US had done in recent memory: My Lai, No Gun Ri, the Bay of Pigs, and plots to assassinate Castro were recent to people in the 1980s. Nicaragua was still going on. In 1983 we invaded Grenada. And people whose parents fought in WW2 when the US dropped two atom bombs were the age the Jennings are in this show. All of that would have informed how they read the data available. I get that you think the Soviets were worse than we were. I think that too. But that belief system doesn't simply come from my being more honest and able to accept empirical data. It comes from my read of information, which was shaped by American education, American thinking, American culture, etc. I'm a capitalist and an American, so I see the world through that lens. My belief system is shaped by the values and culture of my homeland. Everyone's is: here, Russia, North Africa, Canada, Japan, Iraq, wherever.

Er, I never stated or implied that American slavery and use of torture inform everything in the world. I merely used them as examples of people engaging in ridiculous self-deception.If you are willing to read data, then the data says, without possibility of dispute, that the Soviet State's number of murders of wholly innocent people, purely to eliminate political competition, dwarfs that of the United States. It isn't even close. Everything is not relative, nor are all opinions determined by context. If you are capable of counting, the Soviet State was more heinous than the United States. This is an indisputable fact, unless a person is innumerate, or a person is unwilling to acknowledge the nature of murder.

Of course E & P are lying to themselves. There probably has never been a person who has been in that line of work who hasn't engaged in gigantic self-deception, for the first step in becoming adept in lying to other people is to become adept at lying to yourself. Are they ready now to become more honest with themselves? No, but people can change rapidly when immersed in crisis.

[madam magpie]

9 hours ago, Bannon said:

Er, I never stated or implied that American slavery and use of torture inform everything in the world. I merely used them as examples of people engaging in ridiculous self-deception.If you are willing to read data, then the data says, without possibility of dispute, that the Soviet State's number of murders of wholly innocent people, purely to eliminate political competition, dwarfs that of the United States. It isn't even close. Everything is not relative, nor are all opinions determined by context. If you are capable of counting, the Soviet State was more heinous than the United States. This is an indisputable fact, unless a person is innumerate, or a person is unwilling to acknowledge the nature of murder.

Of course E & P are lying to themselves. There probably has never been a person who has been in that line of work who hasn't engaged in gigantic self-deception, for the first step in becoming adept in lying to other people is to become adept at lying to yourself. Are they ready now to become more honest with themselves? No, but people can change rapidly when immersed in crisis.

So are American spies lying to themselves as well? How about American soldiers? All political leaders? Is it just the very enlightened public who sees things clearly from their high horse of non action? It's a super common approach these days to say that people who don't agree with us are lying to themselves or uninformed. I don't buy it, but to each his own. Or maybe you're just lying to yourself.

[Bannon]

23 minutes ago, madam magpie said:

So are American spies lying to themselves as well? How about American soldiers? All political leaders? Is it just the very enlightened public who sees things clearly from their high horse of non action? It's a super common approach these days to say that people who don't agree with us are lying to themselves or uninformed. I don't buy it, but to each his own. Or maybe you're just lying to yourself.

Of course American spies and American soldiers are lying to themselves. That's what the vast majority of human beings do. They decide what course of action they want to take, and then rationalize the behavior which conflicts with their professed ethics. Truly consistently ethical people are few and far between.

[teddysmom]

Quote

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. 

I've been rewatching the first 2 seasons and noticed this about the exterior of the house, like it's some type of condo unit where they would share a common wall and there are garages across from the Jennings. But since it's never been addressed I assume they just were able to get these for the exterior shots. I will say those homes do not look like what was built in the 1980s. At least IMO. They look much more updated. 

It's been fun rewatching S1 & 2.  I forgot a lot of the story lines. What I am struck by is the plot where the Russian sub sinks and they blame the fake plans the US DoD "planted" because they knew the KGB was trying to steal plans for propellers.  

The Russians are saying Americans are monsters and "our poor boys were killed and they don't care".  I was like "you guys STOLE plans from the US, you didn't test the propeller properly and even used it on the wrong class of submarine, but it's OUR fault? How about not stealing plans?" 

It's amazing how they justify everything they do and don't realize exactly how the USSR abused it's citizens. Talk about brainwashing. 

[madam magpie]

I rewatched the pilot tonight (it's so good!), and I noticed some things:

When Philip comes up behind Elizabeth in the kitchen, after she's considered killing Timochev but reconsidered, he kisses her neck. She tells him to stop twice, looks very uncomfortable, panic rising, and he ignores her...not knowing, of course, that the guy who raped her is on the other side of the wall. And THEN she turns around with the knife.

Elizabeth doesn't slap Philip in the laundry room because he suggests defecting; she does it because he suggests telling Paige and Henry the truth. She slaps him, looks horrified, and says, voice cracking, "You swore. We swore we'd never tell them. We said we'd let them grow up and live their own lives. They're not to be a part of this." ELIZABETH says that. Then they have a little fight about how she's not done with the kids yet, and they can be socialists. (Ha!) And then she goes on about how the KGB would find them and kill them if they defected. Her argument becomes primarily fear, not dogma.

And then, after she beats the crap out of Timochev (in her pajamas...best part!), she gives up and lets Philip have him, saying, "Do what you want. Take him to the Americans if that's what you want." She has no way of knowing Philip is going to kill the guy. When he does, she's completely stunned. Then in the car, as they drive to dump the body, she still looks stunned, and you realize that Philip's probably the only person ever who's defended her. She's always had to do it herself. 

And finally, at the end when she goes to meet with Zhukov, she takes full responsibility for the mission not going as planned and tries to convince him that Philip is a loyal member of the KGB. I'd completely forgotten about that.

Edited June 1, 2016 by madam magpie

[sistermagpie]

24 minutes ago, madam magpie said:

When Philip comes up behind Elizabeth in the kitchen, after she's considered killing Timochev but reconsidered, he kisses her neck. She tells him to stop twice, looks very uncomfortable, panic rising, and he ignores her...not knowing, of course, that the guy who raped her is on the other side of the wall. And THEN she turns around with the knife.

This moment always fascinates me in retrospect because I don't get what their relationship is at that point. Philip loves her, but she doesn't love him, and I'm not sure if that means they have sex anyway. It doesn't sound like Elizabeth to want to do that that often if at all, but it's even harder to believe that Philip would ever start doing that out of the blue, much less ignore her when she said stop. It seems so central to their relationship before this moment that he never felt entitled to that sort of thing because he was her "husband." So it seems like one of those "it's the pilot and we hadn't worked things out yet" moments.

But I did totally remember that fight in the garage when they started fighting over Paige. i totally remembered that they had completely switched sides about telling the kids, which back then she saw as just about the worst things. though Philip does also reference that in Stingers. But she specifically says she wants them to live their own lives--that's the part that's shocking given her later position. I guess it makes sense though if you figure she'd started to actually see the reality of Paige living her own life and she wasn't able to have vague ideas about making her a socialist so she wouldn't lose her.

[madam magpie]

I don't think that's why Elizabeth changed her mind about Paige. I think she changed her mind because she learned that if they didn't do it, the KGB would come for her kid and she wouldn't be able to protect Paige or have any say in the way it played out. So she went on the offensive instead, figuring that if she eased Paige into the truth and held her hand through it, they'd all be ok on the other side.

I think Elizabeth and Philip may have had a semi loving relationship for awhile, actually. He definitely was totally in love with her, and she wasn't there yet, but I don't think it was a cold arrangement. We don't see Elizabeth be herself in her marriage/family without her rapist in the mix until the very end. From the moment we meet her, she's on the mission to get him, and then he's right there next to her in the backseat of the car, and then he invades the safety of her home. She's really tightly wound the whole episode. Philip notices, but doesn't know why. As soon as Timochev is gone, though, her whole demeanor changes. The next morning at the table with Philip and Henry, she's light, open, and loving. She gazes at Henry like he's precious to her. And in that ice cream scene, Philip tries to be playful with her, the kids try to be playful with her. They aren't afraid of her like she's typically a cold, detached parent. But she rejects that because she's completely focused on Timochev in their garage. I think that's why he's kissing her neck; they weren't exactly a "real" couple, but they were always something.

We also see how she and Philip feel about using sex in their job: She comes out of the encounter with the Justice guy, gets in the car, wipes her mouth, looks disgusted in the mirror, and then she rips off her wig and shakes out her real hair. Later, Philip listens to the tape of the sexual encounter and is somewhere between angry, horrified, and sad.

Another thing I didn't remember is that at the very end, Philip asks her why she didn't tell him about Timochev. She brushes it off, he pushes, she brushes it off, he drops it. They interact like people who've had intimate conversations before. He's not at all shy with her.

This show was set up exceptionally well.

ETA: Also, in that ice cream scene, there are two great moments: when Paige gets the ice cream in the face, Elizabeth chuckles. When Henry smears ice cream on his face like war paint and shows his war face, Elizabeth looks so proud. Ha!

Edited June 1, 2016 by madam magpie

[hellmouse]

17 minutes ago, madam magpie said:

ETA: Also, in that ice cream scene, there are two great moments: when Paige gets the ice cream in the face, Elizabeth chuckles. When Henry smears ice cream on his face like war paint and shows his war face, Elizabeth looks so proud. Ha!

That is a charming scene, and such a great illustration of their family dynamic. 

I am always struck by how small Keidrich Sellati was in the pilot! He was adorable.

[scartact]

3 hours ago, madam magpie said:

Another thing I didn't remember is that at the very end, Philip asks her why she didn't tell him about Timochev. She brushes it off, he pushes, she brushes it off, he drops it. They interact like people who've had intimate conversations before. He's not at all shy with her.

I really love the continual shift between coldness/professionalism and tentative intimacy/familiarity their introduced dynamic had.

I do wonder also if that kitchen scene before she pulls the knife on Philip is something the creators would now regard as Pilot-itis development, or if they find it still consistent between both characters to do at that moment in time. It personally doesn't make as much canonical sense to me anymore, but it is true we don't really know how well they got along and how intimate they were or were not with one another up to a few months to a year before the pilot (and if it was even significantly different from what we did see in the flashbacks).

As for their pilot stance regarding whether or not their children should know their spy lives, would it be possible for Elizabeth's change of heart to come also not just from KGB threat of turning Paige with or without their consent, but as another side effect of making their marriage real? I don't know if I'm making sense and maybe rewatching season 2 might help me better contextualize these thoughts, but I'm just wondering about the contrast of her pilot stance with her season 3 stance and whether or not the arc tracks from between 1 to 3 that Elizabeth would eventually want to indoctrinate Paige. It could very well also just be a combination of different factors, like in the previous episode with Elizabeth telling Paige that Henry finding out about them will really depend on when he is "ready".

Also, I just remembered that while sampling podcasts, one host pointed out in the pilot that one interesting part that occurs during the ice cream scene, Paige questions Philip about him having to meet with clients so late, and this foreshadows her growing curiosity and suspicions of her parents. That was a pretty nifty observation.

[sistermagpie]

10 hours ago, madam magpie said:

 

I don't think that's why Elizabeth changed her mind about Paige. I think she changed her mind because she learned that if they didn't do it, the KGB would come for her kid and she wouldn't be able to protect Paige or have any say in the way it played out. So she went on the offensive instead, figuring that if she eased Paige into the truth and held her hand through it, they'd all be ok on the other side.

 

I honestly don't ever remember her saying anything about being afraid of that. I mean, she does say "It's happening" like it's a done deal since it's what the Centre wants and I do think that's how she sees it, but I got the sense Elizabeth absolutely wanted Paige to be in on this with her, saw this as being good for her. Even her early stuff about how she was just telling the Centre stuff to keep them off their backs was I thought revealed to be a lie when Philip confronted her saying that since he wouldn't do it she was doing it. She wanted Paige to know who she (both her and Elizabeth) really were. I really took their arguments in season 3 to be them having different ideas about parenting, that Philip thought it was their responsibility to keep the kids out of it and she thought they should be brought up to have the right values and live meaningful lives. The very first moment of their disagreement is when Elizabeth is asking whether or not it would be so bad for Paige to be like them. I think if it was really a case of Elizabeth being afraid of the Centre they'd have been more on the same page and just disagreeing on the best way to protect her.

 

10 hours ago, madam magpie said:

I think that's why he's kissing her neck; they weren't exactly a "real" couple, but they were always something.

That's what I assumed at the time, but now I'm not sure exactly how that worked. Because I do agree that I don't think Elizabeth just suddenly went from cold to warm with Philip. It's more like what he does with Timoshev pushes her that last bit over the line and makes her see she can really take a chance with him. I'm just not sure what that warmth before that looked like with Philip in a physical way. It's really just that one moment that seems so off, because while I totally get that Elizabeth is abnormally defensive around Philip in that scene because of Timoshev, it seems OOC for him to be that pushy to begin with because she never seems to go for that. So it almost feels like he's trying something himself, as if he gets the idea to be a little pushy at the exact moment she's got this guy in the car.

And hey, maybe that's the idea, because if Timoshev is making him think of defecting maybe he is trying to push the "you're my wife" thing in a totally different way in that moment.

6 hours ago, scartact said:

As for their pilot stance regarding whether or not their children should know their spy lives, would it be possible for Elizabeth's change of heart to come also not just from KGB threat of turning Paige with or without their consent, but as another side effect of making their marriage real?

Yes, that makes sense to me. Elizabeth seemed to be trying to put her whole family in a separate box from her spying life, and I can totally believe that her changing attitude made her want to have both in her life forever. Elizabeth does seem to like to have everything together like that. Almost all her relationships except with the kids are with people who share her cause, but when the kids were younger I think she may have thought they would just always be separate from her real self that way, just as her marriage was.