S03.E06: A. Malcolm

[Keeta]

This thread is kind of a bummer, so I'm going to take a page out of WatchrTina's book and start with the good. Overall though, I really liked the episode. I do have some quibbles as always, and others here have brought up good points. 

The good:

• On first watch I really enjoyed it, and even cried at the beginning (strangely something I don't do very much when watching Outlander - maybe because I know the source material so well).
• I loved the cold open - smart way to build the tension while also getting us inside Jamie's experience before his world is turned upside down.
• Caitriona and Sam did a phenomenal job throughout. Particularly Caitriona conveying Claire's joy mixed with a healthy dose of fear, nerves, and trepidation, but I think Sam's performance was also incredibly thoughtful.
• Production design and costumes, per usual - this show is so lovely.
• I literally pumped my fist when he told her about Willie right away. As we all know, there are a number of plot points that are verra frustrating, so I was so glad to just nip this one in the bud.
• Sam's reading of "I have burned for you for so long, do ye not know that?" *Fans self*
• Jamie going "downstairs" for "breakfast".
• All the new actors seemed excellent. Older Fergus (and his reunion with Claire) was wonderful, and I loved Young Ian. He did a great job in his scene and I can't wait to see much more of him.
• I think they hit the mark in terms of subtlety with the various hints of something else (Laoghaire) going on. It's interesting because I've read several recaps/reviews, and something that's come up more than once is a concern that the reunion went too smoothly. Hoo boy, just wait...
• I have slightly conflicted feelings on the lack of aging, but ultimately I'm here for it. You will not find me complaining that the actors look too young & pretty. I need my escapism now more than ever you guys!

And the not so good...

• I didn't notice Jamie's lack of falling apart at Brianna's photographs until I read these comments, after which I do think it was a missed opportunity (maybe cut a minute or two of untying neckerchiefs? See below), but not awful. I can read that whole scene as Jamie being kind of overwhelmed. And honestly, it's more important to me to enjoy the episode.
• The undressing at the brothel took a little too long. Maybe it's the repeated undoing of the neckties? I didn't mind it the first time, but I think on rewatch it may get slightly tedious.
• Claire's line about "we are married" when Jamie asks for a moment to change his pants struck me the wrong way. Maybe one of those lines that I don't mind in the book, but on screen they hit you differently.
• Jamie's poetic musings on Claire's body were a little over the top and probably should have been toned down, but we've seen that before (see episode 109).
• Yes, annoying to have Claire in peril at the end of the episode but I am not going to get worked up about her going down to breakfast (not a euphemism this time).

So yeah, definitely some quibbles, but overall I know this will be another episode near the top of my go-to rewatch list. 

Edited October 27, 2017 by Keeta

[WatchrTina]

9 hours ago, MedievalGirl said:

In the sewing scene she has another book on the table which fellow costumers think is The cut of women's clothes 1600-1900 by Norah Waugh which came out in 1968.

I saw that and I actually tweeted Terry Dresbach (the costume designer) to ask if that prop book was borrowed from her personal library but, alas, I did not get a reply.  (I'm sure my tweet got buried amid the hundreds she must get daily from fans.)

[cardigirl]

1 hour ago, Keeta said:

 

 

I didn't repost all of your post, but just wanted to say that your thoughts line up exactly with mine!  Thanks for the post!

[Auj]

As Keeta said, this thread is kind of a bummer. I am seeing lots of criticism about the way this one particular episode was filmed. I am wondering where is this criticism focused? Is it the Director? The writers? I keep reading the comments and I keep seeing Jamie should have done this or that and that bothers me. I personally think Sam Heughan is excellent as Jamie, so I am sad if posters here are unhappy with his performance. 

How many times have I read a great book and the follow up film is very different? Life is like that. Producers, Directors, and cast make their vision not mine. 

[FnkyChkn34]

35 minutes ago, Auj said:

As Keeta said, this thread is kind of a bummer. I am seeing lots of criticism about the way this one particular episode was filmed. I am wondering where is this criticism focused? Is it the Director? The writers? I keep reading the comments and I keep seeing Jamie should have done this or that and that bothers me. I personally think Sam Heughan is excellent as Jamie, so I am sad if posters here are unhappy with his performance. 

How many times have I read a great book and the follow up film is very different? Life is like that. Producers, Directors, and cast make their vision not mine. 

Sure, the film is often very different from the book - but that doesn't mean it can't be a point of discussion.

I'm sorry people think this thread is a "bummer."  Discussion can often lead to critiques after so many days.  Much of the beginning of this thread is accolades, but you can only celebrate and swoon over something for so long.  Then the discussion turns to something deeper.  All just my perspective, of course.

And as for Sam, the vast majority of these comments are praising his work.  I know I did, at least.  I also had no problem with the "controversial" scene that seems to have upset people.  In fact, I liked it.  My only complaint - after so many rewatches - is still the inaccurate voiceover.

I think I gave this episode a 6.5 out of 10 after my first watch, which admittedly was as soon as it was released at 12:02 am.  After having watched it multiple more times and caught different things each time, I'm now up to a solid 8.5 out of 10. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 minute ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

And as for Sam, the vast majority of these comments are praising his work.  I know I did, at least.  I also had no problem with the "controversial" scene that seems to have upset people.  In fact, I liked it.  My only complaint - after so many rewatches - is still the inaccurate voiceover.

This is me. Except I would give it a 9/10. And that's due to the performances of Sam and Cait. Dude had to do 15-20 takes of fainting until they decided on the perfect one!

3 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

Discussion can often lead to critiques after so many days.  Much of the beginning of this thread is accolades, but you can only celebrate and swoon over something for so long.  Then the discussion turns to something deeper.  All just my perspective, of course.

True. But then when it becomes "circular" and that's when I find I have to step away.

[Kata01]

1 hour ago, Auj said:

As Keeta said, this thread is kind of a bummer. I am seeing lots of criticism about the way this one particular episode was filmed. I am wondering where is this criticism focused? Is it the Director? The writers? I keep reading the comments and I keep seeing Jamie should have done this or that and that bothers me. I personally think Sam Heughan is excellent as Jamie, so I am sad if posters here are unhappy with his performance. 

How many times have I read a great book and the follow up film is very different? Life is like that. Producers, Directors, and cast make their vision not mine. 

We saw some creative friction with this episode play out amongst production over social media as well this week (enough so that Vanity Fair even wrote about it). The creative team cares. We care too. Ultimately, it’s a compliment to them that we take the time to discuss their work as thoroughly as we do - enough to fill up 6 pages of critical discussion ;) 

[WatchrTina]

4 hours ago, Kata01 said:

Ultimately, it’s a compliment to them that we take the time to discuss their work as thoroughly as we do - enough to fill up 6 pages of critical discussion ;) 

Well, since I have the day off and am also a nerd of epic proportions, I did a little table to tally up the comments on this board to see which episodes of the show have been commented upon the most.  (I added the responses in the book-talk and no-book-talk threads once that situation came into being with episode 109.)  Comments in other threads (e.g., the speculation and podcast threads) were ignored.

I don't think it will surprise anyone to learn that this episode is already in 4th place for the title of "Most commented upon."  In fact, it is poised to pass episode 107, "The Wedding" any moment now -- my post will put it within 1 comment of that episode's tally -- so I think it's safe to say that this episode will easily move into third place today.

Want to guess what came in in first and second place?  It will come as no surprise to anyone that the title of most-discussed episode currently goes to the season 1 finale, ep 116 "To Ransom a Man's Soul" with the season 2 finale, 213 "Dragonfly in Amber" coming in second.  And guess what -- they are not that far ahead.  I'll keep an eye on it and let you know if one or the other is surpassed by this episode.

So yeah, we have opinions about this one.  :)

ETA:    As of a few minutes ago this episode is now the 3rd most commented upon, surpassing "The Wedding".

Edited October 27, 2017 by WatchrTina

[thesparkinside]

See, I didn't have a major problem with the photos scene, or with Jamie telling Claire about Willie. In fact I was glad he told her about Willie--that whittles it down to one thing he hasn't told her. I have some issues with the timing and the emphasis, but not a MAJOR problem. I might have done it differently; I think it could have maybe been better. But I don't think the writers, director, and actors made *bad* choices. It just could have been better (or not--maybe my version of it would be terrible). That's my take.

There were two things that I thought *were* bad choices: the threat of rape (again) at the very end and the non sequitar with Claire saying (in voice-over mode) that they discussed the last 20 years over dinner, then Jamie going on to explain something major from the last 20 years ("Uh, I thought she just said that they did a recap of their lives for one another.").

And yes, lots of discussion isn't a bad thing!

[DittyDotDot]

I'll only say that I was disappointed in the reunion scene because there was a bit of playfulness and magic to it in the book with Jamie kinda going along with Claire appearing thinking she was just another apparition of Claire like he's seen many times over the years...until she touches him.

But, I'm not sure how they wold be able to convey to the audience that Jamie thinks Claire isn't real unless they had developed Claire appearing to Jamie many times over the previous episodes.  So, I don't think the show did it poorly or anything. It's just different and I find that interesting, myself.

17 minutes ago, thesparkinside said:

There were two things that I thought *were* bad choices: the threat of rape (again) at the very end and the non sequitar with Claire saying (in voice-over mode) that they discussed the last 20 years over dinner, then Jamie going on to explain something major from the last 20 years ("Uh, I thought she just said that they did a recap of their lives for one another.").

I look at it this way, have you ever tried to catch up with an old friend you haven't seen in years? Can you really tell them EVERYTHING that happened to you in just a few hours? So, they spent the night catching up as much as they could and will spend the rest of their lives filling in the details. ::shrugs::

[FnkyChkn34]

24 minutes ago, thesparkinside said:

See, I didn't have a major problem with the photos scene, or with Jamie telling Claire about Willie. In fact I was glad he told her about Willie--that whittles it down to one thing he hasn't told her. I have some issues with the timing and the emphasis, but not a MAJOR problem. I might have done it differently; I think it could have maybe been better. But I don't think the writers, director, and actors made *bad* choices. It just could have been better (or not--maybe my version of it would be terrible). That's my take.

There were two things that I thought *were* bad choices: the threat of rape (again) at the very end and the non sequitar with Claire saying (in voice-over mode) that they discussed the last 20 years over dinner, then Jamie going on to explain something major from the last 20 years ("Uh, I thought she just said that they did a recap of their lives for one another.").

And yes, lots of discussion isn't a bad thing!

Yes to all of this.  :-)  

[GingerMarie]

I must say Geordie ROCKED.  Super happy they did not cut him from the episode.  Yes, it was about the 'print shop' and everyone wanted more of Claire and Jamie but life has been moving along for 20 years and the people in Jamie's life had no vested interest in Claire (besides Fergus). 

[Petunia846]

Do we ever see Geordie again? I was thinking about that this week but couldn't remember.

[DittyDotDot]

11 minutes ago, Petunia846 said:

Do we ever see Geordie again? I was thinking about that this week but couldn't remember.

Not in the book that I recall. I do remember Jamie saying he'll go around and sort it out and explain things, but I don't even remember if he did that with everything else going on those first couple days they came back together.

Maybe the show will do more with Geordie though?

Edited October 27, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[toolazy]

3 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

Not in the book that I recall. I do remember Jamie saying he'll go around and sort it out and explain things, but I don't even remember if he did that with everything else going on those first couple days they came back together.

Maybe the show will do more with Geordie though?

Well, we didn't see him in the books again probably because the very next time we see the print shop, it's in flames.   

[FnkyChkn34]

52 minutes ago, toolazy said:

Well, we didn't see him in the books again probably because the very next time we see the print shop, it's in flames.   

That's what I was thinking.  Jamie didn't need him back, so why worry about explaining?

[Thalia]

I was rewatching tonight and remembered something I meant to mention earlier --- the scar on Jamie's leg.  I can't remember how the scar was described in the book, but I remember reading about how bad the injury was, and the efforts Jenny made to save the leg.  The scar on the show looked, in my mind, like it came from a less traumatic injury.  At least an injury treated with 18th century medicine. 

[WatchrTina]

Yeah that scar on TVJamie's leg is nothing like the gnarly scar that is described in the book.  And of course they skipped over the whole bit about how that wound nearly killed BookJamie and that Jenny only saved him by subjecting him to a horrific-sounding procedure involving boiling water to "kill" the infection that was threatening to take his life and the cutting away of dead tissue.  That TV scar of Jamie's does not hint at a life-threatening infection (nor Jenny's ruthless treatment) so I presume that part of Jamie's story will be ignored and we'll be left to assume that Jamie's woozy condition on the field, in the stone house, and in the wagon was due primarily to severe blood-loss and pain.

Edited October 29, 2017 by WatchrTina

[Thalia]

Maybe Sam begged them not to put him through even more time in the makeup trailer to create a more elaborate scar.  Although I can think of worse things in life than to spend time crouched down between Sam's legs applying scar make-up.  ::blush:: 

And thanks WatchrTina -- Gnarly works!  I was tired last night and unable to think an appropriate adjective for the book!scar! 

[LadyBrochTuarach]

Commenting because A: I feel good telling myself I've commented on one of the most popular threads. Judge away, I'm cool with this. 

And B: I have stuff to say. 

The pictures. Topic basically covered. I wanted to add that I thought Jamie's reaction was solid for me, considering that this isn't the buik, but TV!Jamie. So I could live with it. Could there have been just a bit longer of a hesitation before introducing Willie? Yes, yes, there could have. But imagine not seeing someone for 20 years, they're from a totally different time period, you see these photographs (what are these things) come out of plastic (WTF IS THAT) and then go from black and white to colour, and the daughter you never knew is in a two piece swimsuit, on the beach, with a boy in swim trunks, and in pants in another photo. None of which would even resonate with someone in the 18th Century.  Pretty sure I would also be shock, and the first thing I would think of is the child I DO know. And that I spent 6 years with. And hey, I should mention him. It was a very heavy buik scene, and even if Sam had cried, or lost it in his face expressions, or "gone to pieces," I think we would still find something that didn't work for us. It's too much, it's not enough. Etc. So yeah, I'll take it, and it's a pretty realistic depiction. I think anyways.

SO glad he didn't hold out on telling Claire about Willie. I was ticked she found out from LJG and not Jamie, the person who made a promise with her they would always trust one another and never keep secrets. That was a flaw in Book!Jamie for me. 

 

The sex. Hmmph.

Where was I? Oh, yes. The romping. The down and dirty. It was a bit too much for me. I understand the echoing of The Wedding. Was it just me or did each scene sort of parallel to it? I felt like it was an homage to it, but hey, we are older now, so we know what we're doing, but we need to figure it out with each other again. Cool, let's replay our wedding night, but better, and longer scenes. Cool. 

 But I felt like it just took up Too. Much. Time. So many other things could have been taken care of in the plot. They know that not much time will be dedicated to it on the way to America, so why not take the opportunity now? I also felt the scenes were too dragged out. I had to look away for a bit, and then come back at end of scene. Maybe I'm the odd one out, but I prefer The Wedding episode to this. Sad, because I was so looking forward to this episode. 

 

Dont get me started about the voiceover. Someone else mentioned this too. Here they are chatting for two hours, but no significant details? 

Hey Jamie, what about Murtagh? Couldn't slide that in there during Claire's voiceover, could ya? Jenny and Ian, Helwater, LJG, Ardsmuir, the treasure, living in a cave for 7 years, what kind of story will we tell people, where do we go from here? 

Maybe others would get it on right away, but me, I need to know stuff before going to bed and THEN thinking hmmm, I should probably ask what's up with everything before I commit to this.

Not much else happened, except I love young Ian, and Fergus is perfect. I also adored Jamie fainting, I think that was solid. Anyone else turned on by him using the printing press? No? Just me? Oh well ;) 

On 2017-10-27 at 6:17 AM, Keeta said:

This thread is kind of a bummer,

Gah. Sorry you feel that way, I've actually been debating my comments for the past 5 days because I felt everyone pretty much covered, well, everything. And that it was a well rounded thread, so I held off on posting. But, seeing as its revived, I've decided to join in. Maybe because everyone had the same qualms with particular things that kept getting repeated, resulted in you feeling as if the thread was a bummer. Dunno, but anyways. 

 

On 2017-10-28 at 9:05 PM, WatchrTina said:

Yeah that scar on TVJamie's leg is nothing like the gnarly scar that is described in the book.  And of course they skipped over the whole bit about how that wound nearly killed BookJamie and that Jenny only saved him by subjecting him to a horrific-sounding procedure involving boiling water to "kill" the infection that was threatening to take his life and the cutting away of dead tissue.  That TV scar of Jamie's does not hint at a life-threatening infection (nor Jenny's ruthless treatment) so I presume that part of Jamie's story will be ignored and we'll be left to assume that Jamie's woozy condition on the field, in the stone house, and in the wagon was due primarily to severe blood-loss and pain.

Gnarly indeed. The scar described in the book made me shudder, and I was imagining this HUGE, grotesque scar on his leg. I would have liked to see Claire's reaction to how Jenny healed him up. Oh well. 

 

On 2017-10-29 at 9:37 AM, Thalia said:

Maybe Sam begged them not to put him through even more time in the makeup trailer to create a more elaborate scar.  Although I can think of worse things in life than to spend time crouched down between Sam's legs applying scar make-up.  ::blush:: 

And thanks WatchrTina -- Gnarly works!  I was tired last night and unable to think an appropriate adjective for the book!scar! 

Ha! Who would complain! I don't know if the actors can do that, can they? 

[Nightshade]

I love this episode, Jamie and Claire are together again! I'm happy they eliminated the farce of Jamie, Claire and Willoughby running through the streets and young Ian

believing Claire was a prostitute his father had on the side. The photograph scene, this is one of those times I wish I hadn't started to read the books last year. The scene was startling to me as it was to many fans but while I didn't believe Jamie needed to react as he did in the book, it did feel strange, overall loved it.

[Kim0820]

On 10/22/2017 at 8:48 PM, Atlanta said:

IMO, it seemed more important to catch up on the last 20 years rather than jumping into bed. I know they were awkward and he was hiding Leg Hair. Jenny must have been on the 1700s version of crack to set that match up.

LOL, Leg Haire.  He did declare he never fell in love again, which Claire should believe.  But of all women to have married, from Claire's view, it would have been better to have been someone she didn't already know and despise.   But in this kind of book/show, you have to amp up the drama, so it's a perfect choice from that view.

On 10/22/2017 at 9:45 PM, Glaze Crazy said:

Just the idea of "photographs", exact likenesses of people and things should have been more overwhelming from Jamie's POV. These magical things placed in his hands, that he has no idea what to think of the actual idea of them, never mind seeing his child for the first time in 20 years, captured in several different phases of her life, should have been more...more.

The photos would be overwhelming - they are a thing of the future.  They also raised the issue of the change in women's fashions, which would be pretty drastic for him.  He says "Christ" when he sees the bikini.  Maybe not the best idea, Claire.  But they could have made a bigger deal of his seeing her red hair.  

On 10/22/2017 at 10:09 PM, dbell1 said:

Loved how Jamie was reluctant to leave Claire, and hesitant around her. The awkwardness was spot on.

You could tell he was afraid she would disappear again.  He wanted her to go change his trousers, go to the tavern - he didn't trust her not to continue existing until the next morning.  Even then he wanted her to stay put.

On 10/23/2017 at 8:02 AM, Kata01 said:

In rewatch last night, I found the transition from Bree’s photos to the Willie reveal extremely clumsy as well. They talk about Bree- “She was a good sleeper.” “She has red hair.” “She’s wearing a bikini.” 

Then when Claire asks Jamie what Willie is like, he lights up and his tone changes- He’s “braw! spoiled! strong!” etc etc etc

That, for me, is what made the scene with Bree’s photos fall flat. No - she’s “stubborn! fiery! passionate!” etc for her. The conversation regarding Bree was all the banalities, a marked contrast to the one about Willie. Very unbalanced. Breaks my heart for Bree. 

Claire often said how like Jamie Brianna is - she didn't mention that, but she has time to.

On 10/23/2017 at 9:23 AM, Biggie B said:

She shouldn't have been out of the room in the first place. Jamie told her not to go anywhere (which, sure, Claire could've interpreted as not to go outside the brothel itself). 

Claire is consistent in not listening to Jamie's advice not to go places - she went to Geillis, went out the time he ended up spanking her for - that's consistent.

 

On 10/23/2017 at 2:35 PM, iMonrey said:

I'd also like to point out that if anyone finds those photos, or discovers the zipper on Claire's dress, there's a good chance she'll wind up back in prison accused of being a witch.

Had that thought too - she has to be careful - she knows this time, too.  Having a zipper the first time was understandable but this time deliberately risky.  Though she could explain that they do this in America now.  

I thought Jamie would ask her what a bicycle was, but he did a minute later.  Like when he broke down in Paris and she said "It's OK," but it was too serious a moment perhaps for him to wonder what that means, and in context and her tone it probably was clear what it meant.  But that expression wouldn't have been around yet.

On 10/23/2017 at 7:13 PM, iMonrey said:

To be fair, nobody in the 1700s had access to the kind of fitness regimes and healthy diets modern day movie stars do (not to mention plastic surgery). Then there's the sheer torture that has been Jamie's life for the past 30 years. I have a hard time believing he'd still be so pretty in his 40s after the years in prison, the beatings, the starvation, etc.

It's a romantic fantasy - an escape from reality as it were.  Suspending disbelief about their being a lot older.  Claire is about 50 and ready to go through menopause.  But the story is not about that.  You just have to figure of course she's genetically lucky and so is Jamie.  Of course they are.  And Jamie didn't get another woman and many children - of course he didn't.  This is not the real world.  

On 10/23/2017 at 7:31 PM, morgan said:

 And yeah, Jamie had a hellish life and could be quite wearing but men tend to look younger longer than women do, their hormone changes don’t play the same havoc with skin, and theirs is thicker and all that.  

They don't have to have babies either.  I often notice old men's legs don't look bad at all - they seem to retain a lot of youth in their lower legs for quite a while.  No varicose veins, not a lot more flabbiness.