S03.E03: All Debts Paid

[WatchrTina]

There's a long (aerial) shot of Jamie & Claire riding together on horseback, loping across a green valley, in the opening credits just before the final dramatic chord and shot of Craigh na Dun.  They've used that shot in the credits from the very beginning and it was never in an episode.  So we may never see a scene where that bit of tartan gets handed over.  It may simply be a visual reminder of all that has been lost.

[Nidratime]

I'm pretty sure the shot of Jamie and Claire riding off across a green valley was in an episode. It was after Claire decided to stay in the 1700's with Jamie and they go galloping off together to Lallybroch.

[FnkyChkn34]

1 hour ago, WatchrTina said:

There's a long (aerial) shot of Jamie & Claire riding together on horseback, loping across a green valley, in the opening credits just before the final dramatic chord and shot of Craigh na Dun.  They've used that shot in the credits from the very beginning and it was never in an episode.  So we may never see a scene where that bit of tartan gets handed over.  It may simply be a visual reminder of all that has been lost.

Sure, I think it's from "Lallybroch," when Claire explains airplanes to him, and then they discuss their ages.  It may not be the exact same angle of them riding, but it's definitely from shooting those scenes.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 hour ago, Nidratime said:

I'm pretty sure the shot of Jamie and Claire riding off across a green valley was in an episode. It was after Claire decided to stay in the 1700's with Jamie and they go galloping off together to Lallybroch.

 

1 minute ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

Sure, I think it's from "Lallybroch," when Claire explains airplanes to him, and then they discuss their ages.  It may not be the exact same angle of them riding, but it's definitely from shooting those scenes.  

Right. That's the point-that this specific aerial shot wasn't in the episode, even though a different angle was shown. 

Was the flogging shown in the opening credits? I know I saw Murtagh fingering the tartan when Jamie told him to hide it. And that was shown in the credits. I'll have to go back and check. 

[FnkyChkn34]

1 minute ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Right. That's the point-that this specific aerial shot wasn't in the episode, even though a different angle was shown. 

It may have been though; I remember an aerial shot from the episode as well.  But at least the scene was included in an episode, so I'm not sure that was the point?  If it was, then I apologize for missing it, but I thought the point was that there are clips from the credits that are never included in an episode (alternative angle or otherwise).

[GHScorpiosRule]

Just now, FnkyChkn34 said:

It may have been though; I remember an aerial shot from the episode as well.  But at least the scene was included in an episode, so I'm not sure that was the point?  If it was, then I apologize for missing it, but I thought the point was that there are clips from the credits that are never included in an episode (alternative angle or otherwise).

Ah, okay. I guess I misunderstood. I'm blaming the meds I'm on!?

I know one that definitely wasn't-Jamie's healed hand! Yes, I'm still bitter over that and not having the scene of a Jamie thanking Claire for saving his hand when he thought he'd never be able to have use of it again, when Claire thought he was upset at the one finger that was stiff and unable to move, and he wouldn't be able to use.??

[qtpye]

On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 7:56 PM, morgan said:

Just viewed for the second time after my initial morning viewing.  I liked it better the second time around, and try to keep in mind how a tv show has to work.  The episode has to have its own arc and it needs to tell as best it can this part of the story.  I do wish there were more episodes and therefore more breathing room, particularly with Jamie's story.  I am glad they are including Claire and Frank, although not a fan of the "we had an agreement" change.  And seriously Sandy came in the house with all of those people there?  Not for one minute do I believe that would have happened. 

My second viewing was with my non book reader husband.  His dislike for Claire grows weekly. He has never been much of a fan of hers, and I wonder if that will ever change as the future seasons enfold.  

I don't know exactly why but my husband hates show Claire.  I understand the character can be annoying and frustrating , but he really can not stand her.

On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 9:47 PM, dbell1 said:

Sam and Cait are just fantastic this season. She's so tightly wound up and he's still wanting to die. Just bring on the print shop already.

Hello again Lord John. I'm with others above who wanted more of their talks. But, it was an impressive bit of shoehorning in several years of Jamie's life.

I love book Murtaugh. I'm leery of show Murtaugh. I don't want him as Duncan. I'll get over it, I guess.

I get that Tobias is an amazing actor, but I cheered at Frank on a slab. If they bring him back as a ghost, I will hunt down the show runners. Whitewashing that character is not making me happy. He'd had several mistresses, not one for years. Ugh.

Is it next Sunday yet?

 

On Monday, September 25, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Wouldofshouldof said:

Or Frangst, if you will :)

 

18 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

So I was sick with the flu and wasn't in any frame of mind to watch this on Saturday (thank everyone who mentioned Amazon Prime!) or even last night. So I just watched it now and CAN SOMEONE PLEASE GIVE SAM HEUGHAN AN EMMY ALREADY????? He has been the MVP of this season so far and has been knocking EVERY SCENE he's been in out of the Fucking Park!!!

And I'm TOTALLY ??at Matt Roberts for making sure that Frank remained this perfect, long-suffering husband who was trapped in a loveless marriage and unable to marry his long suffering mistress (NOT IN THE BUIK), instead of the philandering, cheating, with a string of his students, AND also having sex with Claire, RACIST ARSEHOLE he was. He was leaving Claire and threatening to take Bree with him because he didn't want her to "fuck" a Black man, something she might have gotten from Claire, and NOT for an understandable UNSELFISH reason.??????????

I'm sorry, but Menzies ain't all that, and the writers' need to make Frank the POLAR opposite to BJR is a total cop out and unfair to Claire. It's no wonder that the unsullied and non-buik hubbies think Frank got a raw deal and is so sympathetic. I couldn't care less and don't give any figgety , BLUEDILLY FUCKS about Puir puir Frank.

I LOVED that the line from Jamie to Lord John was kept from the buik- "Take your hand off me or I will kill you."

Sam was BLOODY FANTASTIC in conveying Jamie's silent simmering rage.

 

18 hours ago, satrunrose said:

I liked it. I would have liked more time between John and Jamie, but with 13 (?) episodes, I know there isn't time and I think they did a very impressive job of cramming it all in without feeling crammed. I'm also happy that Murtagh is staying around. One of my problems with the books is that I think a lot of the strongest characters show up in the first three books. Honestly, by the time we get to River Run and the Ridge I start having a very hard time keeping all of the side characters straight. Don't get me wrong, I like the more recent books too, but  I never cared as much about Duncan, or Jacosta, or Lizzie or the Bugs as much as I cared about Murtagh, Mrs Fitz, Master Raymond or Louise. I'm hoping that the Murtagh continuity will keep me into the story when he comes back. 

 

Claire and Frank, oh, Claire and Frank. I really wish there was a version between Frank the racist, kid-stealing, sexist adulterer and St Frank the Patient who is trapped in a loveless marriage and who can blame the poor man? We should be able to acknowledge that Claire has been having an emotional affair for 20+ years and Frank has not responded well to that. 

 

15 hours ago, frame to frame said:

I don't have a problem with the "we had an agreement" change. What makes me bristle is making Frank out to be almost entirely motivated by romantic love (and lack thereof). Instead of being chiefly motivated by the love for his child (or a desire to lead an intellectually/sexually fulfilling life), his relationship with Bree becomes almost incidental to his important life choices as opposed to the veritable center of them. Instead, his choices all seem to center around attaining a fulfilling romantic partner. This is underscored in that line where he asks Claire if she would have ever forgotten Jamie without Bree, and then looks saddened at her response -- this makes it appear as if he was with Claire because he was holding out hope for their finally becoming a full and whole couple eventually. Similarly, the change from many mistresses to one mistress makes it seem as if all Frank ever wanted was a loving partner, instead of sexual/intellectual fulfillment which, of course, simplifies a complex character down to being defined and motivated by a singular desire. It also damages Claire's character by proxy -- if Frank is the poor puppy dog who never got the chance to be loved (as opposed to a character with agency and competing desires and motivations), then Claire is the ultimate cause of that pain and suffering, whereas, again, it was a lot more nuanced in the book, and Claire definitely comes off worse for it.

Oh well it's over now. Let it go, oh...let it go.

Maybe we should just call show Frank St. Frank?  I really like the show but lovelorn Frank who gave up all his happiness to give Claire and Bree securit and love was a little too Gary Stew for me.  It really robbed the marriage of a lot of nuance and made Claire the bad guy.

[Hybiscus]

31 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

It may have been though; I remember an aerial shot from the episode as well.  But at least the scene was included in an episode, so I'm not sure that was the point?  If it was, then I apologize for missing it, but I thought the point was that there are clips from the credits that are never included in an episode (alternative angle or otherwise).

Ahhh, the scene that took my breath away!  Of Jamie & Claire galloping off to  Lallyboch.  That actual scene wasn't in the episode, but there were other scenes (& aerials) of them on their way, but never galloping.  I remember specifically looking for it because it was so beautiful in its meaning that my heart actually ached! 

[FnkyChkn34]

1 hour ago, Hybiscus said:

Ahhh, the scene that took my breath away!  Of Jamie & Claire galloping off to  Lallyboch.  That actual scene wasn't in the episode, but there were other scenes (& aerials) of them on their way, but never galloping.  I remember specifically looking for it because it was so beautiful in its meaning that my heart actually ached! 

I think the aerial scene included in the episode was of them trotting, but right through the same field.  I agree, it was beautiful.

[Tif]

I've loved Season 3 so far.  I think TPTB have had a Sisyphean task of not deviating to far from the book to keep the book purists happy but at the same time keeping within the time constraints.  I missed a lot of the book interaction between Jamie and Lord John.  The book(s) flesh out their relationship in such a way that I don't think the show had the liberty to show.

I'm firmly in the "Yay Murtaugh is alive!" camp.  I hope that he isn't morphed into the Duncan Innes character and I'd be happy with him staying alive just long enough to meet up with Jamie and Claire in the colonies.  

Sam Hueghan deserves an Emmy for this season so far.

[GHScorpiosRule]

16 minutes ago, Tif said:

I've loved Season 3 so far.  I think TPTB have had a Sisyphean task of not deviating to far from the book to keep the book purists happy but at the same time keeping within the time constraints.  

Regarding the bolded, I couldn't disagree more. They have deviated so far from the buik!Frank to the point of him being a different character. None of Frank's flaws were shown in the show. Except for him telling Claire he only wanted children that were biologically his, then accepting and loving Bree as his own.

[MelinaBallerina]

6 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

Yes, we know that.  But the show didn't do a particularly good job of making that distinction.  Particularly not when it opened its season showing everyone who had fought being killed for being traitors, even young boys.

I thought it was pretty clear.  They've made the point that the English weren't killing the Jacobites anymore and they did point out that Jamie was the only officer in the prison.

[Bort]

9 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Regarding the bolded, I couldn't disagree more. They have deviated so far from the buik!Frank to the point of him being a different character. None of Frank's flaws were shown in the show. Except for him telling Claire he only wanted children that were biologically his, then accepting and loving Bree as his own.

And here I disagree. I think there were plenty of flaws shown in Frank: telling Claire she had to leave Jamie in the past and never speak of him, then throwing it in her face every time they had an argument; making his mistress(es) really obvious; telling Claire he didn't want a divorce when she offered him an out because he wanted to bide his time until Brianna was 18...

[Nidratime]

I kind of feel that if they put every negative thing about Frank, that was spread out in the books, in these three episodes, which aren't even fully devoted to Claire and Frank, then Frank would come off as a cartoon villain and we'd all wonder why Claire spent 20 years with him.

Edited September 26, 2017 by Nidratime

[FnkyChkn34]

9 minutes ago, kariyaki said:

And here I disagree. I think there were plenty of flaws shown in Frank: telling Claire she had to leave Jamie in the past and never speak of him, then throwing it in her face every time they had an argument; making his mistress(es) really obvious; telling Claire he didn't want a divorce when she offered him an out because he wanted to bide his time until Brianna was 18...

 

8 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

I kind of feel that if they put every negative thing about Frank, that was spread out in the books, in these three episodes, which aren't even fully devoted to Claire and Frank, then Frank would come off as a cartoon villain and we'd all wonder why Claire spent 20 years with him.

IMO, all they needed to do was leave out those 2 or 3 lines about having an "agreement."  There was no agreement!  And then yes, Frank would have been all those bad things plus a backstabbing cheater, which would have been that much more true to the book.  He didn't need to make his mistresses obvious.  Adding that wretched "agreement" is what ruined it for me.  BookClaire made no such arrangement and was *trying* to have a normal marriage.  ShowClaire just looks like a moron.  

[theschnauzers]

5 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

There's a long (aerial) shot of Jamie & Claire riding together on horseback, loping across a green valley, in the opening credits just before the final dramatic chord and shot of Craigh na Dun.  They've used that shot in the credits from the very beginning and it was never in an episode.  So we may never see a scene where that bit of tartan gets handed over.  It may simply be a visual reminder of all that has been lost.

It's never appeared in an episode or as a deleted scene. I had watched carefully for it during season 1 as it is one of my favorite images in the opening credits and I wanted to know where that was. It is gorgeous to see.

[Summer]

38 minutes ago, Grashka said:

that "white witch hunt" which probably didn't make much sense to non-readers.

Agreed!! I read the book and I still didn't put two and two together about what he was doing.....

[toolazy]

4 hours ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

Sure, I think it's from "Lallybroch," when Claire explains airplanes to him, and then they discuss their ages.  It may not be the exact same angle of them riding, but it's definitely from shooting those scenes.  

 

Yep.

[Eureka]

1 hour ago, Grashka said:

I think the writers maybe have made a mistake focusing almost solely on the bitterness of C&F marriage, instead of establishing more of Claire's and Frank's bond with Brianna, or Claire as a doctor. 

Exactly. We didn't get any sense of how or why Brianna as a 20 year old feels a distance with her mom or anything about Claire's journey to becoming a doctor. I feel like with the tiny amount they've shown Joe, they might as well have not introduced him yet and kept it for later when Claire is a surgeon, isn't that how they met in the lounge and bonded over the racy romance paperbacks? I hate how they gave Frank and Claire "an agreement."

[WatchrTina]

10 hours ago, Grashka said:

They have crazy amount of chemistry.

Oh yeah.  I'm a straight lady and Jamie is my favorite fictional boyfriend but when Jamie grabs John from behind and holds him, even straight me thought "Whoo boy, that's kinda hot."  Of course I could be projecting.  I LOVE Lord John in the books and my heart bleeds for him in his unrequited love for Jamie.  So I can't help but imagine the rush of fear mixed with . . . something else . . . that he must have felt when Jamie grabbed him.  On the other hand, Jamie chooses that moment to reveal that he recollects when he and John first met, calling to mind one of the most mortifying episodes of John's life.  So I could be completely wrong.  Perhaps John felt nothing but fear and rage in equal parts during that clench.  But I'm betting some fans got a little bit of a thrill on John's behalf.  I know I did.

 

10 hours ago, Grashka said:

I loved that little humorous moment with them all listening in awe while Jamie was waxing poetically about the meals he shared with LJG

I hope that moment worked for the non-book readers.  I LOVE that moment in the book -- the discussion of how Jamie at first avoids discussing the special treatment he is given but then realizes that his men WANT to hear all the minute details about the food and drink he's been given.  I think that is such a poignant moment in the book so I'm glad they kept it in and I'm glad it was another prisoner, not Murtagh, who encourages Jamie to slow down and let them really savor his description.

Edited September 27, 2017 by WatchrTina

[WatchrTina]

Double-posting to say that the podcast for this episode is now available at STARZ.com.  It's not Ron Moore this time, it's Toni Graphia & Matt Roberts (who wrote this episode.)  In my humble opinion they don't do as good a job as Ron.  There were so many times when I wanted to hear about the location or the costumes or just anything and they remained silent.  Still I enjoyed it and I'll tune in next week when they will both be back.

The most peculiar thing they said (from my perspective) is that Toni said her favorite line in the whole episode is the one Claire says before Frank leaves for the last time.  He asks if she might ever have forgotten Jamie, in time.  Claire replies that "That amount of time doesn't exist."  I HATED that line.  I think it stuck out like a sore thumb as a wholly unnatural line. It sounded nothing like Claire.  To me it was so clearly supposed to be a BIG DRAMATIC MOMENT that it failed.  I just hated it.  Funny that.

They also shared that the last scene between John & Jamie was the very first scene that David Berry (Lord John) filmed.  I think that's interesting because I thought his hair looked much lighter in that scene than it did in earlier scenes and I had wondered about that. It may simply have been the effect of the sun on his wig but it may also be the case that they decided his first wig was too light and swapped it out for a darker one in the scenes he subsequently filmed.

Edited September 27, 2017 by WatchrTina

[Auj]

First, I am old and I think the memory is definitely going and please forgive me that I seem to have forgotten, but why is Clare with Frank when she returns? I mean she returns because Jamie is going to die at Culloden. She is pregnant with their child, of course, so they want the child to live and be brought up safe. Okay, but why return to Frank? She no longer loves him. She is heartbroken because of Jamie. Why not go back into nursing? She loves healing and patient care. Find a sitter for the baby. Rent a room somewhere, whatever. Why live a phony lie with Frank? It just looks to me like Clare signed on for regrets and recriminations getting back with Frank. She hurts him and he hurts her right back.

How miserable is that? What a sad way to live for 20 years. 

[emmiesix]

On 9/25/2017 at 8:00 AM, Nidratime said:

Kind of off topic here, but obviously the British can't tell the future -- unlike Claire -- so it always struck me as funny that the British were transporting Scots REBELS to America (and Australia as well) just in time for the American Revolution. LOL! (Thanks for the help, guys!)

Well, technically that's not really true.  The Scots almost all sided with the British in the revolutionary war.  After the disaster of the '45 and all that followed, the "lesson was learned".  They were not interested in more "uprisings" because they had terrible scars from the last one.

[virginia blue]

The more I think about it the more frustrated I am by the way the writers chose to portray Frank in this episode. I understand they wanted to show him as a more complex, sympathetic character than he was in the books, and I agree with that to an extent -- I think Diana Gabaldon went too far in making Frank almost a cartoon villain, to the point where you wonder what Claire ever saw in him. However, the show runners have taken Frank too far in the opposite direction, at the expense of Claire's character. I'm not sure, for example, why they felt it necessary to add the "understanding" between Claire and Frank, unless it was to excuse Frank's infidelity. 

An important part of Claire's story during the 20 years of separation from Jamie is the way she struggled to keep her end of the bargain with Frank, even as he broke it. She moved to Boston, never mentioned Jamie, and tried to rebuild her relationship with Frank. Ultimately it is he who can't get past her relationship with Jamie and embarks on a series of affairs (also glossed over in the show), largely to get back at her for her betrayal. His pain under the circumstances is understandable, and anger is a reasonable reaction to a difficult situation. I think both characters would have been better served by leaving in some of that anger and not making Frank a saint.

[satrunrose]

I think there's a couple of answers to that Auj. The 1950s setting makes a difference and living as a single mom or divorcée was a lot more scandalous (plus, even today it's a lot easier for single moms with a support network of family and friends. Claire doesn't seem to have any of that in the 40s-50s). The other big reason is that Frank doesn't want to divorce her. He wants to raise Brianna as his child. I think the book was clearer on Frank insisting on this and that he's sterile, so Bree is the only chance he has for a child. Last, I think we continue to see with Claire that she really can't function without Jamie. She's pretty committed to going through the motions (more in Book 3 than book 7), but she just can't pull herself out of grieving Jamie, as much as she knows she should. 

[Auj]

Satrunrose, you have made some interesting points, but I know in my family in the 1950s, my Aunt and Uncle were divorced. It worked out very well for both. I also do not see Clare as a woman who would be unnerved by being a divorcee. I have always felt she was quite fearless in many ways, right from the being ; when she was right up in BJR’s face, standing up to the MacKenzie clan, cursing in her usual forthright manner. I can see her working in a hospital, raising Bree alone and doing it all very well.

I can not for the life of me understand Frank not letting her go. Clearly she does not love him and loves another, dead or not. I am sorry he is sterile, but after all, he apparently had taken other women, so remarrying was very likely. He and the next wife could adopt or she may have already have had a child.  That whole Frank and Clare thing was a hot mess. It seemed as soon as she married passionate Jamie, old Frank was forgotten, except when Jamie wanted to kill BJR in the second season. 

[WatchrTina]

4 hours ago, Auj said:

why is Clare with Frank when she returns?

In season 2 Jamie asks a pregnant Claire to promise that, in the event that their efforts to stop the war fail and all seems to be lost, she will return to Frank.  That is the real reason Jamie abstains from killing Black Jack -- to ensure that Frank is alive to care of Claire and the baby in the event that Jamie cannot.  Claire even admits to Frank (in the the first episode of season 2) that the main reason she accepts Frank's proposal that they raise Jamie's child together is that by doing so she is fulfilling her promise to Jamie.

[DittyDotDot]

Regarding Brianna's age when Frank makes his threat to take her away: someone in the No Book Talk thread reminded me, the age of consent in the 1960s was 21, not 18. It wasn't until the kiddos protested that if they were old enough to be drafted to fight in a a war, they should also be old enough vote and be considered adults. I'd still guess Brianna would have some say in who she wanted to live with--which, IMO, I think she'd have chosen Frank, probably--but it does put a different spin on the idea that Frank waited until Claire could no longer withhold Brianna from him.

Regarding the whole "they had an agreement" issue: I've been thinking about it and I'm not so sure it's that much of a deviation from the books. In the book, at some point Claire and Frank seemed to come to a place of peace that they were never going to be able to regain what they were before and seemed to accept that. So, even though they didn't have a spoken agreement to live separate lives in the book, I think they had an unspoken--maybe agreement isn't the right word--understanding. I'm thinking they didn't necessarily do it to make Frank more sympathetic, but since they had so little time to establish this, they used it as a sort of shorthand for the show audience.

11 hours ago, Auj said:

First, I am old and I think the memory is definitely going and please forgive me that I seem to have forgotten, but why is Clare with Frank when she returns? I mean she returns because Jamie is going to die at Culloden. She is pregnant with their child, of course, so they want the child to live and be brought up safe. Okay, but why return to Frank? She no longer loves him. She is heartbroken because of Jamie. Why not go back into nursing? She loves healing and patient care. Find a sitter for the baby. Rent a room somewhere, whatever. Why live a phony lie with Frank? It just looks to me like Clare signed on for regrets and recriminations getting back with Frank. She hurts him and he hurts her right back.

How miserable is that? What a sad way to live for 20 years. 

It is miserable and incredibly sad, but I think there are many reasons why Claire went back to Frank. Some of it had to do with honoring her promise to Jamie, but mainly, I'm not sure she cared when she first came back. In the books, she was in poor health, pregnant, grieving and kinda broken when she first came back. I don't want to say she just went along with what Frank wanted, as though he bullied her or anything, but I think she just wasn't paying attention or considering her decisions--she was severely depressed and I think somewhat suicidal. 

It wasn't until after Brianna was born that Claire started to put herself back together. That's when she kinda woke up and realized she'd gotten herself into a situation. Not only with Frank and her, but Frank was so devoted to Brianna by that time and it was clear Brianna adored Frank too. At that point, I think she decided she had to try and make it work if she could, if not for herself, for Frank and Brianna. So, for me, it was more of Claire trying to make the best out of the crappy situation she'd gotten herself into.

I'm sure the times played into her decisions as well, but in the book Claire admits she had resources--she'd inherited some money from her uncle and she had skills and education to have supported herself and Brianna--but she just wasn't thinking clearly until she was so far down the rabbit hole she didn't know how to get herself back out.

However, I think what's probably getting lost with the show--because there's so much too cover and not enough time to delve in--not everything in their lives was miserable. I mean, even though they weren't in love with each other anymore, they mostly had a functioning marriage and worked as a team to raise Brianna. TBH, I'm not sure Claire would've been any less sad and lonely if she had forged on alone, but at least she wouldn't have to feel guilty for dragging Frank with her. 

[Bort]

4 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Regarding Brianna's age when Frank makes his threat to take her away: someone in the No Book Talk thread reminded me, the age of consent in the 1960s was 21, not 18. It wasn't until the kiddos protested that if they were old enough to be drafted to fight in a a war, they should also be old enough vote and be considered adults. I'd still guess Brianna would have some say in who she wanted to live with--which, IMO, I think she'd have chosen Frank, probably--but it does put a different spin on the idea that Frank waited until Claire could no longer withhold Brianna from him.

I think the age 18 thing is just an error on the show's part, as this wasn't the case in the books, where Frank had planned to get custody of Brianna while she was still a minor. Something that wouldn't have worked, as the show pointed out, having Frank mention the now-divorced neighbors, the father pretty much gets cut out of the picture. I think the producers rewrote it this way to correctly reflect the parental custody of the era, but screwed up on the age of consent.

[DittyDotDot]

7 minutes ago, kariyaki said:

I think the age 18 thing is just an error on the show's part, as this wasn't the case in the books, where Frank had planned to get custody of Brianna while she was still a minor. Something that wouldn't have worked, as the show pointed out, having Frank mention the now-divorced neighbors, the father pretty much gets cut out of the picture. I think the producers rewrote it this way to correctly reflect the parental custody of the era, but screwed up on the age of consent.

Or, it was purposeful to show that Frank had finally decided he'd had enough and he'd throw caution to the wind on the whole custody thing. I'm sure that was probably a concern for Frank when Brianna was small, but by this time, Frank had to know Claire wouldn't deny him access to Brianna nor would Brianna stand for it. It kinda seems like the whole custody thing was really a moot point in the argument and instead was more about hurting Claire. 

[Nidratime]

Although the "Moore" podcast for 3.03 doesn't address Brianna being 18 and having more agency, they do talk about Frank's concern about losing access to Bree and Claire's promise that she would never deny him that. So, it might be worth a listen if you want to hear Matt Roberts' and Toni Graphia's thoughts on what they think the characters are thinking or would do.

[MsProudSooner]

13 hours ago, Auj said:

First, I am old and I think the memory is definitely going and please forgive me that I seem to have forgotten, but why is Clare with Frank when she returns? I mean she returns because Jamie is going to die at Culloden. She is pregnant with their child, of course, so they want the child to live and be brought up safe. Okay, but why return to Frank? She no longer loves him. She is heartbroken because of Jamie. Why not go back into nursing? She loves healing and patient care. Find a sitter for the baby. Rent a room somewhere, whatever. Why live a phony lie with Frank? It just looks to me like Clare signed on for regrets and recriminations getting back with Frank. She hurts him and he hurts her right back.

How miserable is that? What a sad way to live for 20 years. 

It was 1948.  She had no family to help her and no job.  She was a nurse, but many employers wouldn't have hired a divorced woman.  And she promised Jamie that she would go back to Frank so that Bree would have a Mother and a Father. 

Here's my take on her relationship with Frank:  We saw that she was willing to resume a physical relationship with Frank but he rejected her.  He wasn't willing to take the chance that they might have worked their way back to what they had prior to her going through the stones.  She asked that he be discreet but going to public places, like the movies, with other women isn't being discreet.  To me, telling her that he'd seen those movies was a passive/aggressive way of telling her about his affair(s).   It would have been easy for him to say, "Sure, let's go see The Searchers", but he chose to humiliate her instead.  Also, his telling her he wanted a divorce and wanted to take Bree to England for college was an attempt to take Bree away from her.  As a Mother, it would have felt like he was trying to steal her child.  

I LOVED Jamie's scenes with LJG.  Berry is perfect for the role.  I really look forward to his scenes with Claire in Jamaica and his scenes with Bree in America.   I hope that the timing of Season 3 allows the show to be considered for the Emmys.  It should receive several.  

I'm glad they had Frank's death in this episode so that more time can be spent on the search for Jamie in historical records.  I'm enough of a nerd that I found that part of the books fascinating.  I look forward to whatever information is imparted in flashbacks.  I hope they include more of Claire & Joe's relationship and Jamie at Seal Island.  

I'm curious about how much time they will devote to Claire's journey to Edinborough from the stones.  I can't wait for Sunday!

[Nidratime]

Quote

It was 1948.  She had no family to help her and no job.  She was a nurse, but many employers wouldn't have hired a divorced woman.  And she promised Jamie that she would go back to Frank so that Bree would have a Mother and a Father. 

Leaving being divorced aside, how hard would it have been to get a job as a pregnant woman!?

[katville]

A pregnant woman with a high-risk pregnancy at that. 

I am with Toni on her favorite line from ep 3. I loved that line and I think it was a rare moment of true, 100% honesty from Claire. She tried for two decades to hide her love for Jamie, hide her devastation and how lost she was, she tried to hide how the experience of going through the stones changed her. But she wasn't going to lie to Frank and diminish Jamie, even though many, many years had passed. I loved that.

[Haleth]

2 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

Regarding Brianna's age when Frank makes his threat to take her away: someone in the No Book Talk thread reminded me, the age of consent in the 1960s was 21, not 18. It wasn't until the kiddos protested that if they were old enough to be drafted to fight in a a war, they should also be old enough vote and be considered adults. I'd still guess Brianna would have some say in who she wanted to live with--which, IMO, I think she'd have chosen Frank, probably--but it does put a different spin on the idea that Frank waited until Claire could no longer withhold Brianna from him.

Are you sure?  It seems to me once a child graduated from HS he or she was considered an adult.  Sure, they could not vote but most were expected to leave home, get a job, and begin an adult life.  And in most states they could drink. :)

[nodorothyparker]

21 was the magic number for voting and I think a few legal matters.  The poster is correct that the Vietnam draft spurred the amendment that lowered the voting age to 18.

My mom was born the same year as Brianna.  By the time she was 18, she was working a full time job and paying down a car loan, albeit one my grandpa had to cosign because women typically had trouble getting credit or loans in their own names without a husband or father on the account before sometime in the '70s.  She continued to live at home throughout this until she married my father because that's what nice respectable girls generally did unless they were in some kind of quasi-chaperoned student housing or roommate situation.  I know Claire was not a typical mom and she was dealing with some pretty extraordinary circumstances, but that's why I'm always at least a little surprised on rereads of this book how blithely she skipped back through the stones leaving Bree with only the Abernathys and Roger, a guy they really hadn't known that long, to keep an eye out for her.  Jamie even asks her about it later at one point.

On subject?  Bree's old enough by the time this exchange takes place that neither Frank nor Claire could take her away from the other parent without her going along with it.  I may not quite buy the cold distant mother-daughter relationship the show seemed to be suggesting here, but Frank had been the more present hands-on parent throughout much of her life to the point that he probably felt that he could successfully gamble that she would choose to go with him.

[Tif]

22 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Regarding the bolded, I couldn't disagree more. They have deviated so far from the buik!Frank to the point of him being a different character. None of Frank's flaws were shown in the show. Except for him telling Claire he only wanted children that were biologically his, then accepting and loving Bree as his own.

I don't disagree with you in regards to Frank, but like Nidratime said, it would be difficult to really sum up Frank in the books in the short time frame without making him seem cartoonish.    

[mjforty]

6 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

Regarding the whole "they had an agreement" issue: I've been thinking about it and I'm not so sure it's that much of a deviation from the books. In the book, at some point Claire and Frank seemed to come to a place of peace that they were never going to be able to regain what they were before and seemed to accept that. So, even though they didn't have a spoken agreement to live separate lives in the book, I think they had an unspoken--maybe agreement isn't the right word--understanding. I'm thinking they didn't necessarily do it to make Frank more sympathetic, but since they had so little time to establish this, they used it as a sort of shorthand for the show audience.

No, they didn't.  In the book, when Claire and Frank have their big fight, Frank is surprised that Claire was aware of his infidelities.

Quote

Are you sure?  It seems to me once a child graduated from HS he or she was considered an adult.  Sure, they could not vote but most were expected to leave home, get a job, and begin an adult life.  And in most states they could drink. :)

It's called age of majority and it's the age the law recognizes that you are an adult.  In the 1960s, the age of majority in Massachusetts was 21 years old.  I don't know that a court order could have done much to stop Claire from making sure Briana stayed with her since the age of majority differed state to state and Briana could have moved to a state where the age of majority for women was 18.  It was 21 in Great Britain at the time of the show.  If someone had a grandmother who was living on her own, it's possible that they lived in a state where the age of majority was 18 or 21 for men and 18 for women.

Edited September 27, 2017 by mjforty

[virginia blue]

There really are only two possible reasons the show chose to include the "agreement." One is to excuse Frank's infidelity and make him seem more sympathetic. I also wonder if they wanted to make it obvious that Claire and Frank didn't have a sexual relationship (I realize this is a departure from the books) in order to appease viewers who don't want to see her with anyone but Jamie.

The choice to have Frank wait until Bree graduates from high school and then invite her to join him in the U.K., rather than threatening to go to court and sue for custody, only makes sense as a blatant decision to make Frank more sympathetic.

[Inquiry]

12 minutes ago, virginia blue said:

The choice to have Frank wait until Bree graduates from high school and then invite her to join him in the U.K., rather than threatening to go to court and sue for custody, only makes sense as a blatant decision to make Frank more sympathetic.

Interesting. I have sympathy with Frank, but what he was doing with Bree was bullshit. I thought it was clear Frank didn't want to sue for custody because he knew he'd lose. Honestly, him gaining even partial custody would have been a huge win, especially given his adultery. I saw Frank as trying to circumvent the courts and Claire. It was him basically spitting in her face as soon as he could and, again, I say that as someone who largely sympathizes with Frank. I can understand that the anger and resentment had been building up for 20 years, but trying to take Bree from Claire (and forcing his daughter to make that choice KNOWING that she doesn't know pivotal information) was downright vengeful. Honestly, I felt like it made Frank more of a tragic character. He didn't start this way. But after 20 years of unacknowledged tension and bitterness (that was largely wrought by his own hand, making it even sadder) changed him. I guess I'm saying I don't think that change made Frank more sympathetic. It just made him less sympathetic differently.  

[morgan]

My biggest problem with the show's "agreement" is that it therefore makes Claire celibate for nearly 20 years, or if not celibate makes her an adulterer.  Neither option seems in character for ber.  (I don't consider Jamie adultery because of the circumstances).  She is with a man (Frank) she is married to and at one point loved.  Someone she still cares for, and is building a life with even if it isn't the man or life she really wants.  Not for one minute do I think there wasn't a physical relationship going on.  

I understand Frank's infidelity because he is not getting his needs met through Claire...emotionally, and even physically they are less than what his heart wants.  But I really don't see Claire going outside of her marriage.  What she wants no one else can fill.

[morgan]

Re: age of majority in Boston.  I just spoke to my mother in law, who is from Cambridge, Ma and is a year or 2 younger than Bree I think.  I asked her about the age of majority and she said that only had to do with drinking and voting.  Other than that you were a legal adult at 18.  Your parents had no say any more.  

[DittyDotDot]

6 hours ago, mjforty said:

It's called age of majority and it's the age the law recognizes that you are an adult.

Yes, you're right, age of majority. Sorry. Obviously didn't proofread there.

6 hours ago, virginia blue said:

There really are only two possible reasons the show chose to include the "agreement." One is to excuse Frank's infidelity and make him seem more sympathetic. I also wonder if they wanted to make it obvious that Claire and Frank didn't have a sexual relationship (I realize this is a departure from the books) in order to appease viewers who don't want to see her with anyone but Jamie.

Personally, I don't think an agreement makes Frank anymore sympathetic than if they'd not had one. The affairs themselves aren't aren't the issue, IMO, it was the flaunting it and then threatening to take Brianna away from Claire that Claire objected to. So, if their only goal was to make Frank sympathetic, then I think they would've omitted the actual unsympathetic acts, I think the affairs are reasonable given the circumstances. 

6 hours ago, mjforty said:

No, they didn't.  In the book, when Claire and Frank have their big fight, Frank is surprised that Claire was aware of his infidelities.

Right they clearly didn't have spoken agreement, but as I said, I think it was more of an understanding between them--not that they could sleep around necessarily, but that they live separate lives except when it came to Brianna. Frank accepted Claire was never going to move past Jamie and Claire accepted Frank was going to get what he needed elsewhere. So, I'm not so sure it's really much of a deviation, but clearly miles vary here.

[DittyDotDot]

12 hours ago, Haleth said:

It seems to me once a child graduated from HS he or she was considered an adult.  Sure, they could not vote but most were expected to leave home, get a job, and begin an adult life.  And in most states they could drink. :)

I think the expected to leave home part was dependent on the family and/or gender, but whether they were expected to act like adults or not, in the eyes of the law, they were still minors. 

So, if Frank had actually gained custody of Brianna--which I'm not sure how likely that would've been--he could've legally taken her to England without her or Claire's consent. But, as someone else pointed out, Brianna also could've just taken off to a state where the age of majority was lower and set up residence there.

Anyway, like I said, I kinda think the whole custody part was somewhat moot, but was Frank trying to twist the knife in Claire a little deeper more than anything.

What I always wanted to know about Frank's whole plan to move back to England and take Brianna with him was, had he talked to Brianna about this? I mean, this wasn't just a divorce and moving into a house across town. I know Brianna and Frank were closer than Claire and Brianna were, but that didn't mean Brianna was automatically going to get on board for a total shake up of her life. What was he going to do if she said she didn't want to go?

Edited September 28, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[ElsieH]

Well, I have watched it a couple of times. I guess I didn't hate it as much as I hated episode 2, but I've still got a vague feeling of dislike for the whole season thus far. I can't figure out exactly what it is though. Maybe it's just that I still can't get past the terrible wig and beard, or maybe it's because I hate what they did with show Frank. I am just not sure. Also, the reveal of Murtagh. I do like the actor and the character, but I was bothered by the lack of explanation as to where he had been and what happened to him after the battle. I guess we are supposed to think he'd been there the whole time. At this point, I'm more okay with it than I thought I would be, but I'm still waiting to see what they will do with him. If they send him to the colonies, he'd be really old by the time Jamie and Claire end up there won't he?

 

Anyway, I did like some of it. I really like the actor they got for Lord John. I guess he was my favorite part of this one, although that bit at the end with Jamie being dragged by the horse was really stupid. Sometimes I just can't figure out what is going through these TV people's heads.

 

I do have a question though. Why is it that some redcoats have white pants and shirts and others are all red? I noticed it with Lord Melton too. Is it some sign of family status or something?

[WatchrTina]

12 hours ago, ElsieH said:

I've still got a vague feeling of dislike for the whole season thus far. I can't figure out exactly what it is though

Is it possible that it's because Jamie and Claire are separated?  Their relationship actually forms the central core of the show, but right now they are trapped 200 years apart and are living half-lives so we, the viewers, are suffering from their separation right along side them.  Both characters are less than they were before because their "heart" is missing.  

 

12 hours ago, ElsieH said:

Also, the reveal of Murtagh. I do like the actor and the character, but I was bothered by the lack of explanation as to where he had been and what happened to him after the battle. I guess we are supposed to think he'd been there the whole time. At this point, I'm more okay with it than I thought I would be, but I'm still waiting to see what they will do with him. If they send him to the colonies, he'd be really old by the time Jamie and Claire end up there won't he?

Yeah I woke up thinking about the use of Murtagh in this episode.  I had hoped that he would fulfill the Duncan Innes role in the books but others have pointed out that Duncan was not transported (due to his missing arm) and that he turns up later in this book, serving as one of Jamie's smuggling crew. Others have questioned Murtagh's age -- is it realistic that he'd be healthy and vigorous enough to fulfill Duncan Innes' role in America -- that of Jamie's agent running around looking for all the Ardsmuir men and bringing them to the Ridge to serve as tenants.  It may be a stretch but we know that Jocasta and Ellen were sisters so they are of the same generation and and if Duncan Innes can end up with Jocasta in the book then he and Murtagh (who once loved and wooed Ellen) must also be of the same generation.  So I'm still holding out hope for Murtagh fulfilling that role in season 4.

But now I have a theory as to what his purpose was in THIS episode.  There just wasn't TIME in this episode for us to appreciate the depth of the bond Jamie formed with his men at Ardsmuir.  Book!Jamie was devastated at the notion that his incarceration would continue but that he'd be separated from them. His desire to find them and bring them to the Ridge in later books speaks to the depth of his relationship with the Ardsmuir men.  In this episode we don't get that but we do get the tortured looks between Jamie and Murtagh as they are dragged apart (literally) with no explanation, no goodbye, and no expectation of ever seeing one another again.  I had snarked before about how unrealistic it was that none of the prisoners knew what was happening in that scene but from the point of view of the show-runners wanting to provoke an emotional reaction in the viewers -- that was really smart.  The anguish we see at Murtagh and Jamie's separation added the emotional element to that scene that would otherwise have been missing.

12 hours ago, ElsieH said:

that bit at the end with Jamie being dragged by the horse was really stupid.

I snarked about that too but again I think that's the show-runners having to signal visually and in a very few moments all the inner turmoil that we are treated to in the book.  Book!Jamie gives his parole -- his promise not to try to escape -- before they leave the prison and as a result he rides on a horse and sleeps unfettered on the floor in the same room where John sleeps on the journey.  Book readers know the inner agony that Jamie feels all during that trip -- he'd LOVE any excuse to kill John with his bare hands.  He's practically trembling with fury for much of the journey because his honor stops him from attacking John and escaping.  That's all depicted visually in this episode by having Jamie forced to walk, fettered and tied, behind the horse.  I'm still not a fan of that change but I have to admit that it visually communicates the "truth" of Jamie's agonizing situation better and more quickly than could have been done with a shot of an unhappy but compliant Jamie riding a horse alongside John.

Edited September 29, 2017 by WatchrTina

[Nidratime]

Quote

that bit at the end with Jamie being dragged by the horse was really stupid.

Didn't that actually happen in the book?

[ElsieH]

33 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

Is it possible that it's because Jamie and Claire are separated?  Their relationship actually forms the central core of the show, but right now they are trapped 200 years apart3 and living half-lives so we the viewers are suffering from their separations right along side them.  Both characters is less then they were before because their "heart" is missing.  

No, that's not it. I actually liked that part in the book a lot. I guess it's just hard to translate that to TV since a lot of it was internal dialogue. Maybe that's it, and I just don't care for how it is coming out.

 

25 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

Didn't that actually happen in the book?

No, in the book he had his own horse. And I believe it did take several days to get there, with both of them on horseback. But done this way, they get there in 3 days at walking speed. Seems a little ridiculous to me, and I think someone else mentioned before that Sam could pull off Jamie's internal struggle or whatever without having the visual of the chains clobbering us over the head.

[WatchrTina]

9 hours ago, Nidratime said:

Didn't that actually happen in the book?

Oooh, goody -- you've given me a reason to open the book.

John & Jamie's trip to Helwater takes place in Chapter 14, "Geneva" (the first chapter in part four, "The Lake District") and what happens is that after four days of utter silence from Jamie, Lord John suggests to Jamie that he should consider using a different name at Helwater.  in response, "Fraser's stony expression didn't alter in the slightest particular.  He nudged his horse with a heel and guided it ahead of Grey's bay, seeking the remains of the track, washed out by a recent flood."  So no, Jamie was given a horse.  Later in that chapter it goes on to say, "Only the fact that he [Jamie] had given his parole kept him from pulling Major John William Grey off his horse and throttling him in some peaceful lane."  So that suggests to me that Jamie is not in shackles.  He certainly wasn't when he arrived at Helwater or surely Isobel, who announces that "There's a huge man in the hall!," would have mentioned the them.

[mledawn]

I didn't get the feeling that Frank threatened to take Brianne - he stated he was going and he was asking her, and he knew she would say yes. That wasn't a threat to me - he wasn't doing an if-then, he was telling her his plan. I thought it was pretty tame, actually. What the show did not portray well at all is the bond Claire has with Joe (two scenes do not make bff's) nor the extent to which Claire's job and studies kept her from Frank. Brie has a close relationship with her dad that to me isn't reflected in the scenes shown. I suppose it depends how the story plays out on the tv version.

I was confused about Lord Grey dropping Jamie off at the castle - wasn't Jamie still indentured at that time in the books? LJG made it seem like Jamie was "free" when Jamie had the shackles removed. Perhaps I didn't pay enough attention...