Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

S01.E07: Horrible from Supper


  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

(edited)

Just remembering, Hickey isn't the first to broach, sort of, the cannibalism solution. Henry Collins, the man who was fighting depression fairly early on, gave the episode its title. That he couldn't tell "horrible from supper". I took that to mean that the smell of his burning friends was just too close to roasting meat. Unlike Hickey, however, he was being haunted by the realization.

Sorry if I'm restating the obvious. I can't always keep up.   

 

ETA sorry to mention it, but he also said something about his mouth watering. Involuntarily, I'm sure.

Edited by SoSueMe
  • Love 4
Link to comment
(edited)

The spectre of cannibalism was broached by the ice breaker (what's his name?  The guy attacked on the rigging by Tuunbaq and then lost the leg.  Crozier's BFF.)  He and someone (Crozier?) were talking about his earlier adventures on discovery missions -- one with Ross in Antarctica, I believe? -- and they danced around the idea of cannibalism but never actually named it.

There are a lot of existential questions rolling around this show -- but, my issue with that is that there is insanity going on here.  Philosophical discussions of morality and ethics tend to revolve around the sane actor because it's moot when the actor is in-sane (or not rational.)  Of all the characters in Terror, it seems to me that the most reliable ethical decision-maker is Crozier because he spent most of the journey as an alcoholic (they don't eat much and, if they do, they can't keep much down*) and anything in the tins might have been killed by the amount of alcohol he was ingesting.  He has not had the day-to-day ingestion of the tinned food the way others have.  The most unreliable ethical decision-maker in the group is Hickey because we have been told over and over again in every episode that he is unethical before the journey even started.  Now he is quite mad and thoroughly unreliable.

 

*I speak of alcoholism from experience.  10 years sober and grateful for every day.

Edited by Captanne
  • Love 13
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Captanne said:

The spectre of cannibalism was broached by the ice breaker (what's his name?  The guy attacked on the rigging by Tuunbaq and then lost the leg.  Crozier's BFF.)  He and someone (Crozier?) were talking about his earlier adventures on discovery missions -- one with Ross in Antarctica, I believe? -- and they danced around the idea of cannibalism but never actually named it.

There are a lot of existential questions rolling around this show -- but, my issue with that is that there is insanity going on here.  Philosophical discussions of morality and ethics tend to revolve around the sane actor because it's moot when the actor is in-sane (or not rational.)  Of all the characters in Terror, it seems to me that the most reliable ethical decision-maker is Crozier because he spent most of the journey as an alcoholic (they don't eat much and, if they do, they can't keep much down*) and anything in the tins might have been killed by the amount of alcohol he was ingesting.  He has not had the day-to-day ingestion of the tinned food the way others have.  The most unreliable ethical decision-maker in the group is Hickey because we have been told over and over again in every episode that he is unethical before the journey even started.  Now he is quite mad and thoroughly unreliable.

Good point. There are less ethical questions, than questions of madness.  And yes, I failed to mention that nearly all of the men are suffering from the effects of lead poisoning -- even Crozier, but probably to a less extent, given his alcoholism (great point!).  I don't think alcohol renders lead inert?  But I'm no scientist.  Either way, having eaten less than the other men, on average, has worked in Crozier's favor.

Okay, then, if this story is all about madness, why do I feel so compelled to get something more out of it, than pure entertainment?  In other words, while I'm certainly being entertained, I cannot dismiss the idea that there are deeper themes at play.  For instance, the scene where Hickey almost looks animalistic both during and after his ambush -- it evokes scenes from Lord of the Flies.  And I find the analytical part of my brain going, "Hmmmm...."

  • Love 3
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Captanne said:

The spectre of cannibalism was broached by the ice breaker (what's his name?  The guy attacked on the rigging by Tuunbaq and then lost the leg.  Crozier's BFF.)  He and someone (Crozier?) were talking about his earlier adventures on discovery missions -- one with Ross in Antarctica, I believe? -- and they danced around the idea of cannibalism but never actually named it.

There are a lot of existential questions rolling around this show -- but, my issue with that is that there is insanity going on here.  Philosophical discussions of morality and ethics tend to revolve around the sane actor because it's moot when the actor is in-sane (or not rational.)  Of all the characters in Terror, it seems to me that the most reliable ethical decision-maker is Crozier because he spent most of the journey as an alcoholic (they don't eat much and, if they do, they can't keep much down*) and anything in the tins might have been killed by the amount of alcohol he was ingesting.  He has not had the day-to-day ingestion of the tinned food the way others have.  The most unreliable ethical decision-maker in the group is Hickey because we have been told over and over again in every episode that he is unethical before the journey even started.  Now he is quite mad and thoroughly unreliable.

It's lead in the tins and that isn't alive. So his boozing wouldn't help that. Though I do wonder if he and the left-tennats eat other food. I suppose they have been eating the tins since they weren't aware until recently. But maybe now they will eat the little other food available. At least Crozier and Fitzjames....can't have the leadership going mad.

  • Love 3
Link to comment

It's got me wondering about Hickey's back story, although with only 3 eps left I don't suppose that they will be able to develop it much. Must have been a criminal, for sure, but just how much of a criminal I wonder?

At this point, years in, I can't imagine any other food is available except for the tinned stuff. Maybe salted fish or meat? Have hunting parties been mentioned earlier? Would ice fishing be possible?

  • Love 4
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, SoSueMe said:

It's got me wondering about Hickey's back story, although with only 3 eps left I don't suppose that they will be able to develop it much. Must have been a criminal, for sure, but just how much of a criminal I wonder?

At this point, years in, I can't imagine any other food is available except for the tinned stuff. Maybe salted fish or meat? Have hunting parties been mentioned earlier? Would ice fishing be possible?

I think Hickey has a front-story. I'm more and more convinced that his origin will bookend with the final episode, where he finds his way back to civilization (the sole survivor) and transforms into a new person -- like a wicked wizard -- melting into the crowded Dublin streets. (this is my ongoing pet theory, please don't hate!! :D )

At least we know now for sure that he has the deviant skills and disposition to "re-invent" himself.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
(edited)

The contaminant in the tins is absolutely lead (hence, the small balls we kept seeing) but isn't there also a question of botulism?  Either way -- the alcoholic doesn't eat much and can't keep much down if he/she does.  Also, he's an officer and not a manual laborer -- he requires fewer calories.  All this to say, Crozier's diet has been atypical of the rest of the crew and probably somewhat less.  (Btw, I even consider my own point a nitpick.  LOL  But, I do want to get it made as far as lending credence to his reliability as the ranking officer.)

Edited by Captanne
  • Love 4
Link to comment
(edited)
20 hours ago, slothgirl said:

I found this interview with the actor who plays Hickey. I don't believe anything he says spoils as long as you have viewed through this latest episode. In fact, it seems designed to be released only after this ep aired. But read at your own risk. It does give fabulous insight into how the actor is approaching the character.

http://www.amc.com/shows/the-terror/talk/2018/04/the-terror-qa-adam-nagaitis-cornelius-hickey

I also found several reviews that confirm for me that Hickey in the 1st flashback was "obviously" a different person, so I don't think we are supposed to be in doubt that Hickey is an impostor.

The interview link that SLOTHGIRL posted yesterday (and is quoted above) answers so many of our questions about Hickey without taking away anything from the character. Just a fascinating insight into his psyche and his motivation. I highly recommend reading the Q&A.

Edited by maystone
  • Love 1
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, maystone said:

The interview link that SLOTHGIRL posted yesterday (and is quoted above) answers so many of our questions about Hickey without taking away anything from the character. Just a fascinating insight into his psyche and his motivation. I highly recommend reading the Q&A.

Yeah, I agree. Also the episode recaps at the same site are really helpful. Watch the episode first, though so you don't get spoiled.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
3 hours ago, zobot81 said:

They can carry on pretending that the captain's plan is sound.

The captain's plan seemed pretty sound when they found the Inuit.  It's not a great plan, admittedly, but it's the only workable one in the situation.  Hickey's way would ensure his own survival at best, which is the point, given that he's obviously a sociopath.

14 hours ago, zobot81 said:

He's the right man for the situation.

How so?  Seems to me he's only interested in his own survival, and his actions in this episode will end up causing the death of other men by eliminating a source of assistance.  He's absolutely the wrong man for this situation.

  • Love 5
Link to comment
(edited)
10 hours ago, Sighed I said:

 

RE: the subtlety (or lack thereof) of Hickey's character and the actor's portrayal, I believe his brazenness at this time is a deliberate choice and agree this is part of the character's evolution. From the beginning, we see something's off about him, but it's ambiguous at first. As their situation grows more and more dire, the masks they wear in normal, everyday life slip away, exposing the core of who they really are. He's holding onto one mask tightly enough to gather his minions, but the easier it gets for him to kill, the harder it will be, I think, to conceal his true nature.

I agree with slothgirl there's a bit of mustache twirling going on time and again, but I find it part of his charm (I mean that in a generic sense, because he damn sure isn't charming now!!). Adam does it so well, he can get away with it, and totally fits who Hickey is.

 

I think maybe there's been some misunderstanding of my criticism of the way Hickey is being played... I didn't mean that the character itself is a 2-dimensional mustache-twirling stereotype based on plot development. I think the character has been intriguing (but could be even more so). What I meant that was the actor is doing what we in theater call: "Playing to the back row". He telegraphs everything in overdone facial expressions. He doesn't need to... it's not a big hall.... we have close-ups.

The character needs more of a poker face to be effective in what he is trying to achieve, and the actor isn't giving him one. How is anybody not catching onto this dude when he's so flipping OBVIOUS? He reminds me of someone who smugly thinks he's being SOOOO sneaky, while around him, no one is fooled. That isn't who the character is. The character would be even MORE intriguing and 3 dimensional if the actor gave us more ambiguity and subtlety in his portrayal.

A poster up-thread recalled the scene where we see the moment Crozier internally goes: "Nope.. nope.. SO much NOPE" to the idea of arming more men. It was barely a fleeting shadow cross his face, but we SAW it. The actor knew that he didn't have to overplay his reaction, because we were already having it ourselves anyway. He knew the camera would catch it because it was focused on him already and people have 55 inch tv's. More importantly, he also knew that the CHARACTER needed to hide it from the other people, but that we needed to see him have the thought. We needed to be aware of it, but not aware of him ACTING it.

That's a masterful performance right there and I'm not getting it from the actor who plays Hickey. I can see him "acting" all over the place. This was a complex role... the character needs to be "acting" in his environment around other characters, but we in the audience should not see the ACTOR performing the part of someone being deceptive. And I do in almost every scene he's in.

The "performance" I keep seeing isn't the character's performance within the context (which should be fooling those around him), but the actor's performance in the role. I can see it from the kitchen with a 27" tv in another room. It takes me out of the scene and can't begin to compare to what we're getting from most of the cast. (although Jared Harris is a tough act to follow!)

6 hours ago, Captanne said:

Liking Hickey because the actor is doing such a great job doesn't follow.  If the actor is doing a great job with a two dimensional villain, the audience should recognize the villainy and "hate" him.  That is the point of making him two dimensional.

I have not been as impressed with the actor playing Hickey as others and still don't see it.

I'm disappointed the role is so boringly Eeee-vil (mustache twirling mandatory), but the actor is not giving me much either way.

You and I seem to be alone in this, but welcome to my clubhouse. ;) We'll have jackets made.

Edited by slothgirl
  • Love 4
Link to comment
27 minutes ago, proserpina65 said:

The captain's plan seemed pretty sound when they found the Inuit.  It's not a great plan, admittedly, but it's the only workable one in the situation.  Hickey's way would ensure his own survival at best, which is the point, given that he's obviously a sociopath.

How so?  Seems to me he's only interested in his own survival, and his actions in this episode will end up causing the death of other men by eliminating a source of assistance.  He's absolutely the wrong man for this situation.

Hickey is the right man, to ensure his own goals.  Whatever that means, is exactly what I'm trying to get to the bottom of.  I'm not trying to convince anyone that he's a good person. I mean, if the only point is to pass uncomplicated moral judgments on these characters, without offering a shred of meaning or relevance to the the bigger picture (ie. human-kind, contextual morality, ethics, philosophy, symbolism) -- well, I guess it's not the show that I thought it was.

Without belaboring the point too much: are Crozier or Goodsir (or just about any of them) better men than Hickey? Of course they are.  But in a fictitious world where it looks like everyone is doomed anyway...yes, Hickey seems like the right man for the situation.  And he offers an overall more interesting character to study, as a result.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, zobot81 said:

I guess I do feel a bit strange for seeing Hickey as something other than a clear-cut monster.   And I'm not asking anyone to rejigger their moral compass.  I am really enjoying this show and this conversation a lot...I hope no one thinks I'm as sketchy as Hickey, just because I find him compelling. Yikes!

I agree with you.  He's a great character - and great characters don't always have to be the hero.  Don't actors always that it's much more interesting to NOT play the hero/good guy?  I think he's not only much more intelligent than all the other guys he also has a very big survival instinct.  He may very well be the last man standing at the end of it all. 

I wonder if they will bring in cannibalism.  According to the theories about the real expedition 

Spoiler

they found bones consistent with having been cut or something and they feel they were cannibalised.

Is it immoral to eat the dead bodies of your comrades so you get to survive?  If they are already dead, why not?  I know, we all feel it's disgusting and we all feel we would never do something like that but consider the absolutely dire circumstances they find themselves in.  I remember a famous plane crash back in the 70's were a plane from a South American country (Chile?) crashed in the Andes and there were a lot of survivors including a rugby team. They were eventually found after weeks (or months, can't remember now) and they had survived by doing exactly that:  eating the dead bodies of the people killed in the crash.  I remember there was huge uproar in the press at the time.  But it was a heck of an interesting moral question. 

  • Love 3
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, slothgirl said:

A poster up-thread recalled the scene where we see the moment Crozier internally goes: "Nope.. nope.. SO much NOPE" to the idea of arming more men. It was barely a fleeting shadow cross his face, but we SAW it. The actor knew that he didn't have to overplay his reaction, because we were already having it ourselves anyway. He knew the camera would catch it because it was focused on him already and people have 55 inch tv's. More importantly, he also knew that the CHARACTER needed to hide it from the other people, but that we needed to see him have the thought. We needed to be aware of it, but not aware of him ACTING it.

That's a masterful performance right there

THIS was a subtle, profound thing of beauty.  Harris' performance made me smile with acknowledgement.  

  • Love 4
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, zobot81 said:

Hickey is the right man, to ensure his own goals.  Whatever that means, is exactly what I'm trying to get to the bottom of.  I'm not trying to convince anyone that he's a good person. I mean, if the only point is to pass uncomplicated moral judgments on these characters, without offering a shred of meaning or relevance to the the bigger picture (ie. human-kind, contextual morality, ethics, philosophy, symbolism) -- well, I guess it's not the show that I thought it was.

Without belaboring the point too much: are Crozier or Goodsir (or just about any of them) better men than Hickey? Of course they are.  But in a fictitious world where it looks like everyone is doomed anyway...yes, Hickey seems like the right man for the situation.  And he offers an overall more interesting character to study, as a result.

I'm sorry, but given that Hickey is in this situation with other people, his complete focus on his own interests makes him the worst person to be in that situation.  If he were alone, I might agree with you, but he's not, and his actions are going to cause the death of other, much better men.

9 minutes ago, zobot81 said:

Hickey is the right man, to ensure his own goals.  Whatever that means, is exactly what I'm trying to get to the bottom of. 

His goal is obvious, to survive even if that means everyone else has to die.  He's pretty one-dimensional in that regard.

10 minutes ago, zobot81 said:

And he offers an overall more interesting character to study, as a result.

I find him to be rather boring in his mustache-twirling awfulness.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Captanne said:

THIS was a subtle, profound thing of beauty.  Harris' performance made me smile with acknowledgement.  

The first thing I remember seeing Jared Harris in was Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows, and I really didn't care for his performance there.  I've seen him in other things since, and better appreciated his talent.  Here he has pretty much been teaching a master class in subtlety.  As you say, a thing of beauty.

  • Love 2
Link to comment

Since cannibalism comes up a lot in Terror and specifically in this episode, I think it is a perfectly valid topic.  (I worry about straying OT sometimes.)  While the actual act of eating human flesh has all sorts of psychological, psychosocial, and health implications among others, I think we have to remember we are dealing with a crew on Terror and Erebus from the mid 19th Century.  The philosophers of the time were moving away from religious dogma and embracing the pursuit of Reason brought about by the Enlightenment.  Both the Enlightenment and the Romantic periods (though), were still steeped in the Christian religion.  For practicing, faithful, superstitious, and "fearing" lay people, the Bible was a serious source of rules, regulations, and (more importantly) punishments.  The idea of desecrating human remains would surely condemn them to a fate worse than death.  I don't doubt there were members of the crew (mad on lead poisoning or not) who would be horrified by the prospect.    

  • Love 3
Link to comment

I am So obsessed with this show and thanks everyone for your contributions to this forum...it adds so much more to the viewing experience!  I need To rewatch to see all of Hickeys indications that he was an impostor from  the start. It took me along time to be able to tell people apart but I bet It’s all laid out for me now that I know Who’s who.

  • Love 9
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Earlwoode said:

Is it immoral to eat the dead bodies of your comrades so you get to survive?  If they are already dead, why not?  I know, we all feel it's disgusting and we all feel we would never do something like that but consider the absolutely dire circumstances they find themselves in.  I remember a famous plane crash back in the 70's were a plane from a South American country (Chile?) crashed in the Andes and there were a lot of survivors including a rugby team. They were eventually found after weeks (or months, can't remember now) and they had survived by doing exactly that:  eating the dead bodies of the people killed in the crash.  I remember there was huge uproar in the press at the time.  But it was a heck of an interesting moral question. 

If they're already dead, no, it's not immoral, and happens in survival situations more often than we'd like to admit.  But killing someone in order to eat them is less of a grey area (except in something like the Essex situation where they drew straws), and Hickey basically eliminating the best chance at survival for the bulk of the expedition's men is utterly indefensible.  Because you know he's going to blame the Inuit for killing the men with him, even if he doesn't try to kill them himself.

2 minutes ago, Captanne said:

Since cannibalism comes up a lot in Terror and specifically in this episode, I think it is a perfectly valid topic.  (I worry about straying OT sometimes.)  While the actual act of eating human flesh has all sorts of psychological, psychosocial, and health implications among others, I think we have to remember we are dealing with a crew on Terror and Erebus from the mid 19th Century.  The philosophers of the time were moving away from religious dogma and embracing the pursuit of Reason brought about by the Enlightenment.  Both the Enlightenment and the Romantic periods (though), were still steeped in the Christian religion.  For practicing, faithful, superstitious, and "fearing" lay people, the Bible was a serious source of rules, regulations, and (more importantly) punishments.  The idea of desecrating human remains would surely condemn them to a fate worse than death.  I don't doubt there were members of the crew (mad on lead poisoning or not) who would be horrified by the prospect.    

Cannibalism happened in survival situations even then, and was not always treated like a horrible secret.  But yes, there'd bound to be some serious soul-searching.

  • Love 5
Link to comment
(edited)
30 minutes ago, Ohwell said:

Perhaps the mods could start a Hickey thread?  Because as of now, I'm suffering, not from lead poisoning, but from Hickeyitis.

or too big of a hicky?

hahaha

For all that we may feel Crozier is the "leading" character (most suited to "best actor" nominations) while Hickey is a "best supporting actor" category, Hickey is in fact, the PIVOTAL character of the story. It would be hard to leave him out of discussions of the episodes. Most of the major plot points derive from his actions. Early on it was Franklin; now it's Hickey. Everyone else is reacting to circumstances largely brought about by one of them. (even Tuunbaq)

Edited by slothgirl
  • Love 8
Link to comment
(edited)

I still think that discussions on whether Hickey (in general and not related to specific episodes) is a sociopath, or mentally ill, or whatever, should have its own thread.  

Edited by Ohwell
  • Love 4
Link to comment
31 minutes ago, Ohwell said:

Perhaps the mods could start a Hickey thread?  Because as of now, I'm suffering, not from lead poisoning, but from Hickeyitis.

I was ready to tap out after I read this comment.  I mean, I've focused a lot on Hickey, during the ongoing show discussion. And  I apologize if you are annoyed.  It doesn't help that there seems to be some evolving tension, surrounding the topic.  But we're just talking, man!

So, let's change the subject, shall we?  What do you wanna talk about?  : -)

  • Love 2
Link to comment

Hey, I brought up cannibalism as a perfectly good topic.  Too soon?

I, for one, was surprised that we didn't actually witness the untimely passing of Neptune.  But.....that path takes us right back to the sociopath.  This really was his episode.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
17 hours ago, maystone said:
18 hours ago, Crone said:

So I was rewatching the scene where Crozier and Hickey have a drink together and talk about the hassle of being Irish in the English Navy. Crozier knows Hickey is Irish from the ship’s manifest and wonders why he doesn’t have an Irish accent. Hickey says it’s because he grew up in England. Yeah, right- we know now it’s because he’s not Hickey at all! 

Oh, good catch, Crone. I completely forgot about that scene. Now I wonder what other tells there are in past episodes.

Hickey also used a racial slur when when he was having that drink with Crozier... Now it seems less like a self-deprecating remark between two men with a common background... and more like a slight toward someone he considers inferior.  

  • Love 6
Link to comment
(edited)
30 minutes ago, 40Love said:

Hickey also used a racial slur when when he was having that drink with Crozier... Now it seems less like a self-deprecating remark between two men with a common background... and more like a slight toward someone he considers inferior.  

I also noticed that on a recent re-watch and I also noticed Crozier's reaction to it. It was brief but startled. I'm doing a total rewatch now, and it's making them so much more enjoyable to have a better idea of who characters are when they appear on screen.

One of the problems with this show is that so much important stuff got lost in the early episode struggle of "Who is that?" / "Am I supposed to recognize that character?" / "Is that the same guy from the other scene where X happened?" / "Why is the nice guy being all weird now... oh wait, is it someone else?" / "How many doctors are on this ship?" / "Which ship is that character on?" / "How many "leftinetts" are there and which one is that?"

and of course

"What the hell are they SAYING???"

In the list of Who, What, When, Where, How, and Why, we shouldn't have been primarily asking WHO?

Edited by slothgirl
  • Love 11
Link to comment
(edited)

This is a dang great show. You two with acting experience, who aren't super impressed with the Hickey actor, did you watch Bates Motel? If so, what were your impressions of the acting there? Or Westworld? I love the acting on both of those shows. I think this show, too, has some great acting. But I agree that the Hickey actor just isn't slaying it like some of the others but I feel he has the hardest role.

Edited by Lamima
  • Love 1
Link to comment

I can't really criticize the Hickey character or actor. I think it's really well done and as @slothgirl pointed out, at this stage of the story Hickey is pivotal. I am trying to think of other things that I have a problem with.  I wish that the "bear" hadn't been shown in the close up shot, and the ships didn't seem to convey how claustrophobic it must have been, but what do I know? IMO the acting has been excellent throughout. I see Emmys in the future for this series.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
(edited)
1 hour ago, Lamima said:

This is a dang great show. You two with acting experience, who aren't super impressed with the Hickey actor, did you watch Bates Motel? If so, what were your impressions of the acting there? Or Westworld? I love the acting on both of those shows. I think this show, too, has some great acting. But I agree that the Hickey actor just isn't slaying it like some of the others but I feel he has the hardest role.

 

Adam Nagaitis' performance probably wouldn't bother me in 90% of what's on tv (or even many movies). This show and many of the other performances are in the top 2%. It's like taking a tv actor from an average show and having them play a scene just after you watched Helen Mirren in The Queen. 

This episode was one of his worst for me. That's why I'm talking about it so much in this thread.

Edited by slothgirl
  • Love 2
Link to comment
3 hours ago, slothgirl said:

For all that we may feel Crozier is the "leading" character (most suited to "best actor" nominations) while Hickey is a "best supporting actor" category, Hickey is in fact, the PIVOTAL character of the story. It would be hard to leave him out of discussions of the episodes. Most of the major plot points derive from his actions. Early on it was Franklin; now it's Hickey. Everyone else is reacting to circumstances largely brought about by one of them. (even Tuunbaq)

I totally agree.  He feels like the central character now and everything happens around him stemming from his actions and machinations.  Frankly, I’m totally surprised at this because what drew me to watch this series in the first place were Ciaran Hinds (he was absolutely superb in Rome as Caesar and later as Mance Raider in GoT) and Tobias Menzies because he was also outstanding in Outlander.  So I was totally surprised to see that one had been killed off after only three episodes and the other seems to have a very, very secondary role where he doesn’t really intervene much.  Hickey seems to be very much the main character and I’m quite sure he will be one of the ones  to survive til the very end (though probably the last will be Crozier).

  • Love 1
Link to comment
12 hours ago, Captanne said:

There are a lot of existential questions rolling around this show -- but, my issue with that is that there is insanity going on here.  Philosophical discussions of morality and ethics tend to revolve around the sane actor because it's moot when the actor is in-sane (or not rational.) 

I think, in this kind of situation, you kind of have to find the balance between madness, and ethics. Its clear that people are losing their minds (even aside from sociopath Hickey) to varying degrees, or that they will reach a breaking point soon, but they are still rational enough to try to handle the situation without totally descending into chaos. One of the big questions seems to be whether or not morality, ethics, and the laws of society can function in this kind of extreme situation, or do those rules have to change? How much can they change? When does it go from survival to just plain evil? Or madness? Theres a lot to chew on here. Just because someone is losing it, doesn't mean that they cant still act morally, but it might be a warped ethics, like the guy from last week who set himself on fire. It seemed like, in his broken brain, he wanted to end the suffering of himself and the crew, even if it was by attempted murder/suicide. Or, it could lead into whether or not normal philosophy and ethics can even apply if almost everyone involved is losing their minds? 

I think that could be where the monster comes into the bigger themes they could be heading towards. He is a wild creature, but, he seems to have some ability to think, and, most importantly, it has a rather human looking face. Not only does the face look creepy and uncanny, it connects the monster to humanity, and how much the crew themselves could turn into monsters out here. 

  • Love 6
Link to comment
(edited)

Every time something hopeful happens, something terrible swallows it up.

Yeah, that almost seemed to be the informal theme of this episode. (Alternative episode title: "In which a bunch of nice guys begin to go crazy, starve, or be morally corrupted by the resident sociopath.") At this point, all these men seem doomed. And the saddest part is that, with the exception of Hickey, they all seem to be genuinely nice people. (Or, in the case of one or two of them, misguided, weak. or selfish but not truly evil people.) 

Poor Henry Collins, who was so ready to sacrifice himself for a random crew mate at the beginning of the show, is not fantasizing about eating his friends and hating himself for it. Poor Goodsir, so full of hope and cheer in the first episodes, is now abandoning all hope and having panic attacks while curled up in the fetal position in his tent. Poor Irving, who was so sweet with the Inuit, is now lying dead on the ground of the Artic. Poor FItzjames, who was so full of life and braggadocio at the beginning of the series, is now so subdued and exhausted looking I fear he may be suffering a mortal illness. And poor real Cornelius Hickey (we barely knew ye!), who was apparently, like, 20, and who got murdered by a psychopath before the show even began.  

Certainly, many seamen have been swallowed up on this expedition; will any be spat out? (Sorry, couldn't resist.) 

On 5/1/2018 at 4:00 AM, Sighed I said:

The schemers weren't wrong, in the sense that with the kind of numbers they have, even if they find game it won't be enough to sustain them all. 

Yes, and it seems that some of the posters on these forums don't fully understand that. 

The Inuits lived in small groups of 3- 7 or so people for a reason-- people even for people who knew how to dress properly, build adequate shelters, and hunt in that environment, the Arctic was a brutal, unforgiving environment where even Inuit sometimes perished of starvation. Inuits lived in small groups because game was scarce, and the environment was not adequate to sustain 100 (or even 20) people all living together in one area. 

The Inuits lived in small groups because they knew that living in large ones during Arctic winters would be a death sentence. For similar reasons, they traveled around/ hunted on light, fast moving sleds. Even if the Inuits were to (for whatever reason) give the expedition a crash course in seal hunting and Arctic survival (and the whites were able to, inexplicably, pick up all of these skills in a short time), the food just wouldn't be enough to go around. 

Still, given their lack of hunting skills and the heavy life boats packed with stuff that they must lug around, its unlikely that any of the Englishman would survive, even if they broke up. And that's even before the winter came, for which they didn't have proper clothing or shelter.  

Edited by Hazel55
  • Love 3
Link to comment

Hickey would be a more interesting character if he hadn’t been portrayed as so mustache-twirly melodramatic eeevil from the first episode. There’s nothing to him other than sneering, skulking around, and now murder. The actor is just way overdoing the eeeeeeevil-ness. Subtlety is not in his wheelhouse. Really, he’s like a silent movie villain. 

  • Love 2
Link to comment
On 5/1/2018 at 11:21 AM, SimoneS said:

This isn't about "people who believe they are in the right." This is how the military works/has always worked and how Francis and his officers were trained by the British navy. They decide what the men should know on a need to know basis. Under these dire and desperate circumstances, Francis has naturally fallen back on that training which actually would have saved them if Hickey wasn't a murderous sociopath. They survived long enough to find the Inuit because of Francis. As Irving joyously exclaimed when he saw the Inuit, "the Captain was right!" If the men abandon their officers and discipline under this horrific situation in favor of Hickey's lies and schemes, then they get what they deserve.

Eh?  

I agree that Crozier’s decision not to tell the men about the lead poisoning makes sense. Even putting aside Naval/ military norms, common sense dictates that he should keep quiet fo r now. Telling the already frightened, sick, and hungry men that the food they’ve been consuming since the beginning of the voyage has been slowly poisoning them. would cause a mass panic, making an already dire situation even worse.  

That said, I think your assertion that anybody willing to rebel against Crozier will “get what they deserve” (a slow death from starvation? A violent death at Hickey’s hands?) to be a bit harsh.

Putting aside the fact that these men are all half-starved, infected with lead, and in fear for their lives, put yourself in their shoes for a moment. If you found out that you were being slowly poisoned with lead from your food supply and that your captain, who you’d trusted to take care of you, had known and not told you about it, how would you feel?

From Crozier’s perspective, it was necessary not to tell them to prevent mass panic. But from the crew’s perspective, they have been violated, in a way-- Crozier knew that something is slowly poisoning them but keep that a secret. From their perspective, they should have at least been told that the food is tainted, so they could have made an informed choice about whether to eat it.

Of course, Crozier’s technically right. But the men feeling betrayed and upset and terrified under the circumstances also makes sense.

As for the men trusting a murderer like Hickey—they don’t know everything we do. From their perspective, they are already terrified, following their captain out on a mission they know will probably lead to death from exposure, exhaustion, or starvation. Now they have just learned that their food source is poisoning them, and that their captain has electively chosen not to inform them of this. (This has the double effect of making them feel betrayed by Crozier and whittling away their faith in him.)

Now here comes Hickey, with proof of this and with a pitch on how they can break away and better survive. Now clearly, none of the men really trust Hickey. From everything we’ve seen, they are all pretty smart (saving the "slow" one, Magnus), and can see through him—they seem to find him creepy and shifty, and don’t really like him. However, they are simply not privy to his worst deeds, as we are; all they know is that he’s a vaguely creepy, selfish guy who (probably) killed a dog out of desperate starvation. And now Hickey’s coming to them with proof of Crozier’s “betrayal,” and a “solution” for them to make it out alive, by leaving the rest and setting out on their own.

Sure, anybody who follows Hickey is technically wrong. But under the circumstances, I’d say their actions are understandable.

At this point I’d say the only one I’d like to see “get what he deserves” is Hickey. Hickey is clearly evil, violent, and deranged. The rest of the men ( including, at this point, those who look like they may break away and follow him), appear thus far to be merely desperate and misguided.

  • Love 7
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Earlwoode said:

Do you have a problem with people liking Hickey? ?

Why?

I value Hickey, as a critical part of the narrative, the way he is being portrayed (I like the job the actor is doing) and for whatever actual person that might have been his real life counterpart, I value him as a human being.  That said, he is one scary, repulsive dude.

 

I just want to mention how much more enjoyable this series has been for me by having this forum to come to. You guys are so smart and insightful, you all make me think and I appreciate it.

  • Love 5
Link to comment
9 hours ago, Hazel55 said:

Yes, and it seems that some of the posters on these forums don't fully understand that.

I think most of us do understand that, but Hickey's machinations are not the answer to the problem.

2 hours ago, Earlwoode said:

Do you have a problem with people liking Hickey? ?

Why?

The Hickey thread was started so that the more general discussion of his character and the actor's portrayal doesn't overwhelm the threads for specific episodes.

  • Love 5
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, proserpina65 said:

The Hickey thread was started so that the more general discussion of his character and the actor's portrayal doesn't overwhelm the threads for specific episodes.

And because several people in this thread had asked if the mods could start a specific thread.  Anyone can start a thread.  I was just trying to fulfill wishes.  I have no problem with people liking Hickey, @Earlwoode. I don't like him, but I find him fascinating.

  • Love 4
Link to comment
(edited)
20 hours ago, slothgirl said:

I think maybe there's been some misunderstanding of my criticism of the way Hickey is being played... I didn't mean that the character itself is a 2-dimensional mustache-twirling stereotype based on plot development. I think the character has been intriguing (but could be even more so). What I meant that was the actor is doing what we in theater call: "Playing to the back row". He telegraphs everything in overdone facial expressions. He doesn't need to... it's not a big hall.... we have close-ups.

The character needs more of a poker face to be effective in what he is trying to achieve, and the actor isn't giving him one. How is anybody not catching onto this dude when he's so flipping OBVIOUS? He reminds me of someone who smugly thinks he's being SOOOO sneaky, while around him, no one is fooled. That isn't who the character is. The character would be even MORE intriguing and 3 dimensional if the actor gave us more ambiguity and subtlety in his portrayal.

 

I don't want to get into this too much more in the episode thread, but I do understand what you're saying. It really is subjective in the end, isn't it? Some like the character and the actor, some hate the character and like the actor, some hate both and some like the character but not the actor. No matter where you fall on the spectrum, though, you probably feel it pretty strongly, if the discussions in this forum are any indication. ;)

Quote

A poster up-thread recalled the scene where we see the moment Crozier internally goes: "Nope.. nope.. SO much NOPE" to the idea of arming more men. It was barely a fleeting shadow cross his face, but we SAW it. The actor knew that he didn't have to overplay his reaction, because we were already having it ourselves anyway. He knew the camera would catch it because it was focused on him already and people have 55 inch tv's. More importantly, he also knew that the CHARACTER needed to hide it from the other people, but that we needed to see him have the thought. We needed to be aware of it, but not aware of him ACTING it.

Not to toot my own horn, but that was me. ;) But yeah, that moment was a thing of beauty. Jared has impressed me from the very beginning, and he just keeps getting better. His portrayal of Crozier deserves every possible award for which he qualifies. I will be so disappointed if he, or this show, are overlooked come awards season.

11 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

I think, in this kind of situation, you kind of have to find the balance between madness, and ethics. Its clear that people are losing their minds (even aside from sociopath Hickey) to varying degrees, or that they will reach a breaking point soon, but they are still rational enough to try to handle the situation without totally descending into chaos. One of the big questions seems to be whether or not morality, ethics, and the laws of society can function in this kind of extreme situation, or do those rules have to change? How much can they change? When does it go from survival to just plain evil? Or madness? Theres a lot to chew on here. Just because someone is losing it, doesn't mean that they cant still act morally, but it might be a warped ethics, like the guy from last week who set himself on fire. It seemed like, in his broken brain, he wanted to end the suffering of himself and the crew, even if it was by attempted murder/suicide. Or, it could lead into whether or not normal philosophy and ethics can even apply if almost everyone involved is losing their minds? 

I think that could be where the monster comes into the bigger themes they could be heading towards. He is a wild creature, but, he seems to have some ability to think, and, most importantly, it has a rather human looking face. Not only does the face look creepy and uncanny, it connects the monster to humanity, and how much the crew themselves could turn into monsters out here. 

I love this whole post. You're right about it being a lot to chew on. It makes me think, how would I be in a situation like that? What does it mean to be human? At what point do you lose your humanity?

There's no denying the violence inherent in our species. We're also social creatures and depend on each other for survival. I once read that humans almost went extinct, down to as few as 2,000 individuals. If they didn't learn to cooperate, none of us would be here having these spirited discussions. ;) We have the capacity both to create and destroy. When survival is on the line, what determines which camp we fall into? What does the answer say about us, as individuals and a species?

10 hours ago, Hazel55 said:

Yeah, that almost seemed to be the informal theme of this episode. (Alternative episode title: "In which a bunch of nice guys begin to go crazy, starve, or be morally corrupted by the resident sociopath.") At this point, all these men seem doomed. And the saddest part is that, with the exception of Hickey, they all seem to be genuinely nice people. (Or, in the case of one or two of them, misguided, weak. or selfish but not truly evil people.)

 

Yeah, that's what's hard. It was a smart writing choice to invest so much in character development in the front end. I know some found it too slow, but I loved it. I really know these men now, making this back half that much more devastating. I don't like what the mutineers are doing and think they're making a terrible mistake, but I understand why they're doing it. Hickey's the only one I actually hate.

Quote

I am So obsessed with this show and thanks everyone for your contributions to this forum...it adds so much more to the viewing experience!  I need To rewatch to see all of Hickeys indications that he was an impostor from  the start. It took me along time to be able to tell people apart but I bet It’s all laid out for me now that I know Who’s who.

Quote

I just want to mention how much more enjoyable this series has been for me by having this forum to come to. You guys are so smart and insightful, you all make me think and I appreciate it.

I'm obsessed with this show too, and also love reading everyone's posts. Others see things I missed, and I love the myriad insights and interpretations of characters and events. Even when I don't agree on specific points, everyone's contributions have made me think. I can't remember the last time I've watched a show where each and every episode sticks with me for days. It's a beautiful, haunting work of art, and it really moves me.

Edited by Sighed I
  • Love 5
Link to comment
(edited)
6 hours ago, Hazel55 said:

If you found out that you were being slowly poisoned with lead from your food supply and that your captain, who you’d trusted to take care of you, had known and not told you about it, how would you feel?

Yes. While I agree that Crozier probably should keep some information from the men, he is taking a very big risk in trying to control information that : a) he cannot really control  b) is causing damage to the men who are eating the tainted food. 
It reminds me of The Flint Michigan water crisis. If you found out your leaders knew the water was bad but allowed you to keep drinking it because they feared you would panic, your trust in them would never really recover.

The men are already paranoid and suspect something is happening. Lack of information is not helping. It might help to know that your crazy thoughts might be the result of poisoning and give you some incentive to resist listening to the voices in your head.  
Yes, it is a suck-y situation. But the people in charge are still just people, not appointed by a god. And it always seems as if leaders think of the people they govern as easily panicked sheep.
..And sometimes panic is justified.

Edited by shrewd.buddha
  • Love 3
Link to comment

If Crozier is unable to offer any alternative food sources, I'm not sure how helpful it would be for him to disclose the information on the tainted food. Well, maybe as motivation for hunting parties, but they must be pretty motivated already. So.... even if the crew knew, what are their choices? Eat and be poisoned or starve?

  • Love 4
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, SoSueMe said:

If Crozier is unable to offer any alternative food sources, I'm not sure how helpful it would be for him to disclose the information on the tainted food. Well, maybe as motivation for hunting parties, but they must be pretty motivated already. So.... even if the crew knew, what are their choices? Eat and be poisoned or starve?

Well, there IS that guy lying in sick bay with his brain exposed.  Fresh meat?  And what happens when he's gone?

Link to comment

Wouldn’t Francis Crozier have been a bit old to trying to court the niece of the Captain? She was not a young woman, but despite being away at sea for long periods, wasn’t the norm to marry much younger? Even some of the enlisted men were married. Wouldn’t Francis have married a lass from County Limerick in his younger days? 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
8 hours ago, SoSueMe said:

That said, he is one scary, repulsive dude.

Lol, I think he’s great fun to watch.  ? 

What I think is totally unnecessary is the Magic Bear.  What with extreme cold, the crews being lost in an uninhabitable wilderness, scarce and poisonous food, I think we could of done without the silly CGI bear which adds nothing the plot IMO. As if their life wasn’t hard enough already....

I've been meaning to comment:does anyone else think it’s totally ludicrous that they are hauling such ridiculous stuff such as silver teapots and porcelain tea cups?  Wtf?

  • Useful 1
  • Love 4
Link to comment
(edited)
11 hours ago, shrewd.buddha said:

Yes. While I agree that Crozier probably should keep some information from the men, he is taking a very big risk in trying to control information that : a) he cannot really control  b) is causing damage to the men who are eating the tainted food. 
It reminds me of The Flint Michigan water crisis. If you found out your leaders knew the water was bad but allowed you to keep drinking it because they feared you would panic, your trust in them would never really recover.

 

 

11 hours ago, SoSueMe said:

If Crozier is unable to offer any alternative food sources, I'm not sure how helpful it would be for him to disclose the information on the tainted food. Well, maybe as motivation for hunting parties, but they must be pretty motivated already. So.... even if the crew knew, what are their choices? Eat and be poisoned or starve?

I agree with SOSUEME; there is no alternative food source. The difference between Crozier's secrecy and the Flint administrators' secrecy is motivation:  Flint hid the information because they didn't want to be held responsible for their horrible and tragic malfeasance; Crozier wants to keep despair at bay - they have a hell of a long walk in front of them and almost insurmountable odds against them even if everyone is optimistic. If they give up all hope, what's left?

Also, Crozier and the rest of the officers are eating from the same tins, sharing the same risk. Those in charge in Flint were not drinking from the tap.

8 hours ago, Captanne said:

Wasn't the fellow with the exposed brain killed in the Carnival fire?

Yup. He was dropped and I assume crushed in the panic to get out of the tent. Or that's what his friend was yelling according to the closed captioning.

3 hours ago, Earlwoode said:

I've been meaning to comment:does anyone else think it’s totally ludicrous that they are hauling such ridiculous stuff such as silver teapots and porcelain tea cups?  Wtf?

Well, it's not smart, for sure, but Crozier stated that he wasn't going to order the men to leave behind the things they treasured when ordering them to undertake such a dangerous walk. He also said that the men would discard most of them the longer and harder their journey became. I've read a number of stories about the American pioneers taking wildly impractical things like huge grandfather clocks and cases of heirloom china and silver when they first started out across the country, only to abandon them when they realized that the choice came down to their goods or their lives. I say this with a lot of sympathy because I was the teenager who kept a stack of my favorite albums by my bed every night so I could grab them on my way out of the house in case of fire. (Yes, albums. I'm old.)

I also have a lot of sympathy for Crozier and the other officers simply because of their dire circumstances. I am very much a Chaotic Good, spirit-rather-than-letter of the law person, but in that place, in those conditions, there is so little holding everyone together, and the one agreed upon point of focus is the command structure. As much as I hated that command structure when Franklin made the obviously deadly decision to not steer towards shore while they still had a chance, I support it now for the reasons already stated. But I admit it only works if everyone buys into that focus point, and as we all know (but the main characters do not), Hickey does not. So here come chaos.

Edited by maystone
  • Love 7
Link to comment

I just watched this and I think the tipping point for Hickey was, when they saw the Inuit people, the one guy says "The Captain was right".  Well, if the Captain's right, then Hickey is wrong and his machinations will come to nothing.   So he had to take out the witnesses to the Captain being right.  He enjoyed it, so I think he's a full on psycho, which makes him less interesting to me.   Yes, I'm one of those people in that I'm glad we didn't see him kill Neptune; I was kind of surprised Neptune lasted as long as he did actually.  The murders of his fellow crew members were bad enough.

11 hours ago, maystone said:

I also have a lot of sympathy for Crozier and the other officers simply because of their dire circumstances. I am very much a Chaotic Good, spirit-rather-than-letter of the law person, but in that place, in those conditions, there is so little holding everyone together, and the one agreed upon point of focus is the command structure.

I agree with this and they are all in a no-win situation.  If they tell the men the food is tainted and have nothing else to offer, the circumstances will be even more dire.  They know they are basically poisoning the men and hoping for the best.  I do wonder if the officers are eating the same tinned meat (and if not, what are they eating?)  Why would Goodsir pull Lady Silence from the food line, unless it was because he didn't want the men to see her being fed?  Or because he didn't want her eating poisoned meat?

Quote

TA sorry to mention it, but he also said something about his mouth watering. Involuntarily, I'm sure.

Yes, he said his mouth went from "dry to wet".  That whole scene was heartbreaking, he was obviously disgusted with himself, but what can you do?  They're starving and being poisoned.  I loved Goodsir's obvious compassion in that scene.

Hey, if you have to survive and the man dies, then you dine on long pig.

When Crozier orders the man buried (the one who was losing it and was shot), just look at some of their faces.   Some are thinking "why throw away perfectly good meat". 

  • Love 7
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...