S01.E06: A Mercy

[Fellaway]

10 hours ago, SoSueMe said:

Well, again, I didn't read the book but the history is pretty "open and shut" as to the outcome. So I agree it would have to be a new story, maybe by the same creative team?

I see him as a sociopath, that is, not inherently evil, just without a conscious and exclusively self interested. IMO sociopaths can serve useful roles in society, for example, triage doctors in mass casualty tragedies. Emotion wouldn't get in their way. Of course, I wouldn't want to live next to one. I like people who care about their fellow man. :) 

It looks like it would be by the same creative team, if there is a Season 2.  Here is the article I found:

The Terror Season 2

And I totally agree with the sociopath designation for Hickey.  I don't believe he was in shock or upset at accidentally killing the doctor at all.  To me, that was the blank affect of a sociopath.  Nor do I think it was inherent heroism on his part to save the others.  (Anyone who literally pokes his fingers in someone else's brain is no hero.)  He did it because it was no skin off his nose to not do so, plus it served his larger purpose of his own survival.  I don't imagine he's up for trying that on his own at this point.  That said, while I do think he's a completely vile person, he's also one of the more interesting characters on the show.  The actor is knocking it out of the park.

I wondered, did no one inside the tent have a knife or other sharp, cutting instrument...

[Sighed I]

2 minutes ago, Fellaway said:

I wondered, did no one inside the tent have a knife or other sharp, cutting instrument...

Dr. MacDonald had a knife, but Hickey killed him before he could use it. :(

[SoSueMe]

2 minutes ago, Fellaway said:

It looks like it would be by the same creative team, if there is a Season 2.  Here is the article I found:

The Terror Season 2

And I totally agree with the sociopath designation for Hickey.  I don't believe he was in shock or upset at accidentally killing the doctor at all.  To me, that was the blank affect of a sociopath.  Nor do I think it was inherent heroism on his part to save the others.  (Anyone who literally pokes his fingers in someone else's brain is no hero.)  He did it because it was no skin off his nose to not do so, plus it served his larger purpose of his own survival.  I don't imagine he's up for trying that on his own at this point.  That said, while I do think he's a completely vile person, he's also one of the more interesting characters on the show.  The actor is knocking it out of the park.

I wondered, did no one inside the tent have a knife or other sharp, cutting instrument...

Thanks for the link and info. Something to look forward to. I agree about the Hickey actor, top notch. But really all the acting is outstanding. Only my opinion of course.

[seahag50]

I read the book but i am not going to give spoilers....i know the ans to your questions but this episode actually made my hair stand up on my head.  My belief is the real terror is not the monster but the humans.............as you see how they have changed and developed over the time.  I can not imagine the fear they face in the walk out...........just going outside in a bizzard here is enough to scare me...as for the monster I believe it is a combination of a lot of things......those things that terrify us.  Having an understanding of sailing ships help you grasp more....

[jnymph]

18 hours ago, slothgirl said:

I love the beast as a metaphor. I don't think it's just bad animation that gave it an almost mask-like human face this time. I also don't think it was an arbitrary piece of editing that we cut directly from a shot showing the beast's face while getting a new shaman to a close-up facial shot of Crozier bursting out of his room sober (after being left alone wondering where everyone is). The beast represents something or someone (or several someones). They are going to great pains to film this so that it's not just a godzilla horror flick with a monster. 

As to why Lady S goes to the crew, I don't think we are supposed to know the answer to that yet. Since she won't be able to communicate with them anymore, it could be as simple as needing medical care, but nothing in this show has been that straightforward and simple so far.

And yes to the total creep out factor of the bacchanal.... and the shot of Fitz wearing the mask in the mirror. They are doing an outstanding job with these little moments of surrealism, symbolism, and disconnect from reality/descent into madness. I want there to be many Emmy nominations (and possible wins) in this show's future! 

Great post.  I like the perspective.  It actually makes me like this episode more. 

[Osmigo]

9 hours ago, seahag50 said:

... a combination of a lot of things......those things that terrify us. 
....little moments of surrealism, symbolism, and disconnect from reality/descent into madness...

In some ways, this show reminds me of the old Twin Peaks series.  Some of the darkness, the unknown elements, the vagueness combine to create part of a total effect, instead of just being a collection of distinct, individual components.

Hickey is like The Swede in Hell on Wheels: a repulsive character who disturbs you at a very deep level, but who is nonetheless superbly acted. 

Edited April 26, 2018 by Osmigo

[proserpina65]

Oh, Fitzjames, must everything you touch turn to disaster?

In theory, the idea of the carnival as a way of boosting morale prior to having to head out on foot wasn't a bad one, but of course the execution of it goes horribly, horribly wrong.  Now they're down to just one ship's surgeon.

Although Mr. Hickey did finally get a chance to redeem his assholiness.

[proserpina65]

23 hours ago, zobot81 said:

Fair.  I guess I'm actively shying away from clinical interpretations of characters -- both real, and fictional.  And I have a selfish wish that the writers have more in mind for old Hickey, beyond "sociopath".  I know that's not what you are saying, necessarily, I'm just throwing it out there.  Indeed, I have something different in mind for him. Does that makes sense? Anyway, you are exactly correct: sociopaths have a very important role to play in society.  So then, what is Hickey's role in this closed world?  To be sober, on the ready?  To be a complex foil for the other men?  (Not rhetorical, btw...I'm curious to hear your thoughts!) 

On the ship, he is a caulker, and his main role, other than to perform whatever tasks are assigned to him by officers, is to maintain the caulking between the planks of the ship so as to prevent too much water from coming in.

[Earlwoode]

9 hours ago, Osmigo said:

Hickey is like The Swede in Hell on Wheels: a repulsive character who disturbs you at a very deep level, but who is nonetheless superbly acted. 

Heaven’s, I don’t find him repulsive or disturbing at all.  What, exactly, has he done to make himself repulsive? He’s sleeping with another guy?  He eavesdrops? He tries to find out what the officers are planning?  He took revenge when his lover tried to excuse himself from an accusation of sodomy by saying he was seduced by Hickey?  He left his post to fetch the Eskimo woman?  Apart from that very odd scene where he appears to poke the brain of the skull-less comrade, I don’t see anything repulsive about him.

[Ohwell]

1 hour ago, Earlwoode said:

Apart from that very odd scene where he appears to poke the brain of the skull-less comrade, I don’t see anything repulsive about him.

That action alone makes him repulsive, IMO.  

[Earlwoode]

5 hours ago, Ohwell said:

That action alone makes him repulsive, IMO

In your opinion, of course. I wouldn’t do it myself but people who aren’t squeamish son’t seem put off by that sort of thing.  I found odder and more repulsive that they poured hot sealing wax on the man’s eyes.  And besides, Hickey’s actions only happened in the last episode so that doesn’t answer my question as to why we are meant to find him repulsive?

[Sighed I]

10 hours ago, Earlwoode said:

Heaven’s, I don’t find him repulsive or disturbing at all.  What, exactly, has he done to make himself repulsive? He’s sleeping with another guy?  He eavesdrops? He tries to find out what the officers are planning?  He took revenge when his lover tried to excuse himself from an accusation of sodomy by saying he was seduced by Hickey?  He left his post to fetch the Eskimo woman?  Apart from that very odd scene where he appears to poke the brain of the skull-less comrade, I don’t see anything repulsive about him.

For me it's a lot of little things which added up over time. In the first episode, when he was in the mess hall, he was very fixated on the wrongness of a dog possibly "outranking" a man. It seemed like a petty thing over which to get his knickers in a twist. When David Young started coughing up blood, Hickey recoiled and backed away while all of the other men tried to help him. Neither of these things are all that odd on its face, but it was enough to get my attention.

The first thing that really made me go "Hmm" was when he shit in Gibson's bed. To me that was a display of dominance, and brought to mind animals marking their territory. Gibson threw him under the bus, though, so at the time I brushed it off as a disgusting but possibly justifiable act, at least from his point of view. But then he went into the captain's quarters, poking around in Crozier's personal stuff, and read the letter he'd written to Sir John. That raised my eyebrow. Later on, we learn he's not permitted to even be in that part of the ship unless he's been assigned a specific task there, so not only was he violating Crozier's privacy, he took advantage of no one being on the ship to snoop in an off-limits area. That suggested to me he's a man who doesn't respect protocol, and does what he wants when nobody's looking.

After that, he kidnapped Lady Silence. His reasoning for acting had a certain logic to it, but the fact of the matter is, Terror is Naval vessel and what he did was a major violation of protocol. He's not an officer, and it wasn't his place to make such a call. At the very least he should have spoken to one of the officers first. Crozier had already decided to question Lady Silence the next day. Hickey wasn't privy to that, and by handling it in the way he did, he made the situation more antagonistic than it needed to be. Crozier needed information from her. He understood the need to treat the woman with respect. Hickey had already tried and judged her guilty. Now she was scared and even less inclined to talk than she already had been. Maybe it wouldn't have taken her a month to talk if she hadn't been manhandled and threatened with violence. He argued with Crozier and would not back down, becoming increasingly insolent, disrespecting the Captain and questioning his judgement and authority. He thought he would be rewarded for his initiative, but misread his relationship and standing with Crozier.

When he was lashed, his face turned into pure rage. As someone in the episode thread put so well, we saw a villain being born in that scene. Sure, you could say of course he'd be pissed off, but to me it went beyond that. It was the actor's performance which convinced me the character had turned a corner.

When he bribed Gibson to spy for him (and we find out that he pilfered David's ring), he said he wanted to know "which officers were unhappy, and why". If all he wanted was inside information to stay in the loop--what are they doing with/about the supplies, what decisions command might be considering, etc.,--why the emphasis on the unhappiness of the officers? If he'd said he wanted to know about their morale, I might be able to rationalize it as him wanting to get a read on how serious their situation was; by asking specifically who was unhappy, it suggested he wanted to use that knowledge to create or exacerbate a wedge between the officers. They are in a life or death situation; why would he want to destabilize the command structure?

Then we have what happened in this episode. Maybe I could rationalize him touching the Private's brain once out of curiosity, but based on the squelching sounds, he was poking at it repeatedly, maybe even squishing it (excuse me while I barf ;). He was insubordinate to Lt. Des Voeux, even staring him down. There's been some debate in this thread about whether he intentionally killed a man, but I remain convinced there is no way he couldn't have known that was a man he was cutting into, and believe that's what the actor was trying to convey.

If these were isolated incidents, I might chalk it up to him being a bit of a conman or a rogue, and if they'd never gotten gotten stuck in the ice that's probably who he'd be, breaking a few rules here and there but clever enough to slip by undetected. All together, though, they add up to a man I wouldn't turn my back on.

He told Gibson Crozier saw something in him, that it could "lead anywhere". I think it goes beyond schmoozing his way up the ranks.  If the conflict between Crozier and him hadn't happened, he probably would have been satisfied with being the Captain's right hand man. But now that he hates him, I believe Hickey believes he's capable of and should be running the show. Only he knows nothing about command or running a ship, and even if he has prior arctic experience, it pales in comparison to Crozier's. Blanky is probably the only one who even comes close, and he doesn't have command experience. Hickey's smart and often two steps ahead of the other men, but he doesn't know as much as he thinks he does and makes a lot of assumptions based on partial information. He can't see the big picture; he can't see past his own ambitions and ego.

That the character arouses such strong reactions, both positive and negative, is a testament to the actor's portrayal. No doubt about it, Hickey can be very charming. Sociopaths and narcissists often are.

Edited April 27, 2018 by Sighed I

[SoSueMe]

5 hours ago, Sighed I said:

For me it's a lot of little things which added up over time. In the first episode, when he was in the mess hall, he was very fixated on the wrongness of a dog possibly "outranking" a man. It seemed like a petty thing over which to get his knickers in a twist. When David Young started coughing up blood, Hickey recoiled and backed away while all of the other men tried to help him. Neither of these things are all that odd on its face, but it was enough to get my attention.

The first thing that really made me go "Hmm" was when he shit in Gibson's bed. To me that was a display of dominance, and brought to mind animals marking their territory. Gibson threw him under the bus, though, so at the time I brushed it off as a disgusting but possibly justifiable act, at least from his point of view. But then he went into the captain's quarters, poking around in Crozier's personal stuff, and read the letter he'd written to Sir John. That raised my eyebrow. Later on, we learn he's not permitted to even be in that part of the ship unless he's been assigned a specific task there, so not only was he violating Crozier's privacy, he took advantage of no one being on the ship to snoop in an off-limits area. That suggested to me he's a man who doesn't respect protocol, and does what he wants when nobody's looking.

After that, he kidnapped Lady Silence. His reasoning for acting had a certain logic to it, but the fact of the matter is, Terror is Naval vessel and what he did was a major violation of protocol. He's not an officer, and it wasn't his place to make such a call. At the very least he should have spoken to one of the officers first. Crozier had already decided to question Lady Silence the next day. Hickey wasn't privy to that, and by handling it in the way he did, he made the situation more antagonistic than it needed to be. Crozier needed information from her. He understood the need to treat the woman with respect. Hickey had already tried and judged her guilty. Now she was scared and even less inclined to talk than she already had been. Maybe it wouldn't have taken her a month to talk if she hadn't been manhandled and threatened with violence. He argued with Crozier and would not back down, becoming increasingly insolent, disrespecting the Captain and questioning his judgement and authority. He thought he would be rewarded for his initiative, but misread his relationship and standing with Crozier.

When he was lashed, his face turned into pure rage. As someone in the episode thread put so well, we saw a villain being born in that scene. Sure, you could say of course he'd be pissed off, but to me it went beyond that. It was the actor's performance which convinced me the character had turned a corner.

When he bribed Gibson to spy for him (and we find out that he pilfered David's ring), he said he wanted to know "which officers were unhappy, and why". If all he wanted was inside information to stay in the loop--what are they doing with/about the supplies, what decisions command might be considering, etc.,--why the emphasis on the unhappiness of the officers? If he'd said he wanted to know about their morale, I might be able to rationalize it as him wanting to get a read on how serious their situation was; by asking specifically who was unhappy, it suggested he wanted to use that knowledge to create or exacerbate a wedge between the officers. They are in a life or death situation; why would he want to destabilize the command structure?

Then we have what happened in this episode. Maybe I could rationalize him touching the Private's brain once out of curiosity, but based on the squelching sounds, he was poking at it repeatedly, maybe even squishing it (excuse me while I barf ;). He was insubordinate to Lt. Des Voeux, even staring him down. There's been some debate in this thread about whether he intentionally killed a man, but I remain convinced there is no way he couldn't have known that was a man he was cutting into, and believe that's what the actor was trying to convey.

If these were isolated incidents, I might chalk it up to him being a bit of a conman or a rogue, and if they'd never gotten gotten stuck in the ice that's probably who he'd be, breaking a few rules here and there but clever enough to slip by undetected. All together, though, they add up to a man I wouldn't turn my back on.

He told Gibson Crozier saw something in him, that it could "lead anywhere". I think it goes beyond schmoozing his way up the ranks.  If the conflict between Crozier and him hadn't happened, he probably would have been satisfied with being the Captain's right hand man. But now that he hates him, I believe Hickey believes he's capable of and should be running the show. Only he knows nothing about command or running a ship, and even if he has prior arctic experience, it pales in comparison to Crozier's. Blanky is probably the only one who even comes close, and he doesn't have command experience. Hickey's smart and often two steps ahead of the other men, but he doesn't know as much as he thinks he does and makes a lot of assumptions based on partial information. He can't see the big picture; he can't see past his own ambitions and ego.

That the character arouses such strong reactions, both positive and negative, is a testament to the actor's portrayal. No doubt about it, Hickey can be very charming. Sociopaths and narcissists often are.

Great post. You really did your homework and reminded me of a lot things I had forgotten/missed. I guess "repulsive" is a rather subjective word but while I can appreciate that he is basically hard wired this way, I am "repelled" by many of his  actions. So...

[CoachWristletJen]

On 4/23/2018 at 10:42 PM, tennisgurl said:

I think that "guy in jester makeup calmly setting himself on fire, and walking towards everyone with his arms out, while ablaze" is now the winner of the Creepiest Scene of the Show award! I am positive that it will offer us many more creepy scenes, but that was was way more unsettling to me than all of gore. Even the whipping scene.

Definitely The Most Depressing Carnival Ever! Topped off with the doctor, our man of cynicism, rational to a fault, suddenly a maddened, homicidal, burning harbinger of doom! 

It was as if, in his lead stained madness, he had taken it upon himself to euthanize all of the men, saving them the prolonged agony of a long and slow death march through the frozen tundra. 

The horrible thing is that he's right. He's completely wrong, but he's also right. In his zeal to do no harm, his demented act was intended to spare them all further pain.

Also he just couldn't hack it anymore. He probably wasn't up for the idea of an 800-mile hike himself.

(With the perspective of fiction and retrospect, we can almost say they might have been better off had he succeeded. Yet, in real life, in the moment, not knowing the future, to cut off all hope is indeed madness. And, to make such a decision for others is to think like a psychopath.)

Given the mythological nature of their universe, I can't help but wonder if his madness is influenced in some way by the beast?

BTW, in the beginning, I did not like Fitzjames at all from his pompous stories to the way his opinions would flipflop to please his Captain. (I was surprised he didn't turn out to be a backstabber.) He's a man that trusts The System wholeheartedly. That being said, watching his spirit get so brutally pulverized, I cannot help but feel sorry for him now. Being ground to bits, I see a good things there. This is the worst type of situation for a man who loves the rules.

Harris and Adam Nagaitis continue to bring it! I hope to see Nagaitis in a lot more stuff... he lights up the screen with an eerie luminosity.

Edited April 27, 2018 by CoachWristletJen

[slothgirl]

1 hour ago, CoachWristletJen said:

his demented act was intended to spare them all further pain.

 

By burning them alive... he didn't really think this through. ;)

I think if he was just trying to euthanize them, he could have come up with another less violent way, and certainly didn't need to set himself on fire like that, then walk around like a burning cross. There was more to his action than just trying to give them a "quicker" death that they would experience later. Self-immolation is not just about suicide.. it's about making a statement. Being burned alive (at the stake) is about a specific sort of punishment, usually for heresy or some other religious crime. In both cases, fire represents some sort of purification or sacrifice. 

The guy was nuts. If he'd wanted to humanely euthanize everyone, and had been in his right mind, I think he could have come up with something on the ship to poison them with. Or create circumstances where they would freeze. (still not pleasant, but hypothermia is a lot less painful than being burned alive). There was more to this than just bringing a quicker death.

edited to add:

Found this interesting article:

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/a-terrible-act-of-reason-when-did-self-immolation-become-the-paramount-form-of-protest

"The sociologist Emile Durkheim separated suicides into four types: the egoistic, the altruistic, the anomic (moral confusion), and the fatalistic. Perhaps self-immolation captivates so thoroughly because it wins on all counts. It is the ultimate act of both despair and defiance, a symbol at once of resignation and heroic self-sacrifice."

Edited April 27, 2018 by slothgirl

[CoachWristletJen]

2 hours ago, slothgirl said:

By burning them alive... he didn't really think this through. ;)

I think if he was just trying to euthanize them, he could have come up with another less violent way, and certainly didn't need to set himself on fire like that, then walk around like a burning cross. There was more to his action than just trying to give them a "quicker" death that they would experience later. Self-immolation is not just about suicide.. it's about making a statement. Being burned alive (at the stake) is about a specific sort of punishment, usually for heresy or some other religious crime. In both cases, fire represents some sort of purification or sacrifice. 

The guy was nuts. If he'd wanted to humanely euthanize everyone, and had been in his right mind, I think he could have come up with something on the ship to poison them with. Or create circumstances where they would freeze. (still not pleasant, but hypothermia is a lot less painful than being burned alive). There was more to this than just bringing a quicker death.

edited to add:

Found this interesting article:

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/a-terrible-act-of-reason-when-did-self-immolation-become-the-paramount-form-of-protest

"The sociologist Emile Durkheim separated suicides into four types: the egoistic, the altruistic, the anomic (moral confusion), and the fatalistic. Perhaps self-immolation captivates so thoroughly because it wins on all counts. It is the ultimate act of both despair and defiance, a symbol at once of resignation and heroic self-sacrifice."

Thank you for sharing this. I really like what it says at the end: "Why? What motivated them? I put the question to any number of historians of self-immolation, but the best answer came from a scholar based in Washington, D.C., Timothy Dickinson. “Fire is the most dreaded of all forms of death,” he said, so “the sight of someone setting themselves on fire is simultaneously an assertion of intolerability and, frankly, of moral superiority. You say ‘I would never have the guts to do that. It’s not that he’s trying to tell me something, but that he’s commanding me.’ This isn’t insanity. It’s a terrible act of reason.”" 

Before his decline, the doctor was indeed a man of reason, which was one of his more likable qualities. (He was also arrogant, condescending, and a racist who refused to help Lady Silence's father, but I don't want to get too sidetracked on the ignorance of some of the men of the ship, how much they were victims of their time versus morally flawed, etc.) He was also lonely and kind of Asperger-ish. I haven't read Dan Simmon's book. Certainly he has given us some complex and realistic characters, and perhaps the show's writers have taken what he started with and done a beautiful job of fleshing them out even further. I've noticed that a well harmonized team of writers can do brilliant things, but I digress.

It is certainly makes sense that this character would take this course being as cerebral as he was. And, of course, it's not an act of reason unless you're a madman.

Waxing mystical again, I'm kind of messing with the idea that the lead and the dark evil spirit of the bear have cauterized the reasoning part of his brain, and he feels that by assaulting the bear and the shaman they have all committed some egregious wrong for which they are being punished? Just a thought.

[slothgirl]

44 minutes ago, CoachWristletJen said:

It is certainly makes sense that this character would take this course being as cerebral as he was. And, of course, it's not an act of reason unless you're a madman.

Waxing mystical again, I'm kind of messing with the idea that the lead and the dark evil spirit of the bear have cauterized the reasoning part of his brain, and he feels that by assaulting the bear and the shaman they have all committed some egregious wrong for which they are being punished? Just a thought.

I found an additional article:

WARNING: THIS ARTICLE INCLUDES GRAPHIC PHOTO IMAGES

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/rearvision/the-history-of-self-immolation/7463408

that also refers to our western reaction to self-immolation vs the eastern reaction. Cremation of the dead is common in Hindu and Buddhist cultures and often represents sacrifice or purification of the soul, but in Christianity fire often represents hell and punishment.

 "there is the Buddhist belief in renouncing the body and transcending its limitations when a stage of perfection is reached. There had been historical cases of monks setting themselves alight, but as a religious act, rather than a political one.

In Hinduism there is also the notion of fire as a purifying means of disposing of a body, whereas Christians tend to regard death by fire as horrific and repugnant. In the Christian tradition fire is associated with hell. "

Obviously Dr Stanley and the crew would be influenced by the Christian views of fire and burning, as well as historical instances of trapping people in a building and burning them all to death. (or maybe I'm just remembering that scene in The Patriot)

Edited April 27, 2018 by slothgirl

[Lamima]

15 hours ago, Sighed I said:

For me it's a lot of little things which added up over time. In the first episode, when he was in the mess hall, he was very fixated on the wrongness of a dog possibly "outranking" a man. It seemed like a petty thing over which to get his knickers in a twist. When David Young started coughing up blood, Hickey recoiled and backed away while all of the other men tried to help him. Neither of these things are all that odd on its face, but it was enough to get my attention.

The first thing that really made me go "Hmm" was when he shit in Gibson's bed. To me that was a display of dominance, and brought to mind animals marking their territory. Gibson threw him under the bus, though, so at the time I brushed it off as a disgusting but possibly justifiable act, at least from his point of view. But then he went into the captain's quarters, poking around in Crozier's personal stuff, and read the letter he'd written to Sir John. That raised my eyebrow. Later on, we learn he's not permitted to even be in that part of the ship unless he's been assigned a specific task there, so not only was he violating Crozier's privacy, he took advantage of no one being on the ship to snoop in an off-limits area. That suggested to me he's a man who doesn't respect protocol, and does what he wants when nobody's looking.

After that, he kidnapped Lady Silence. His reasoning for acting had a certain logic to it, but the fact of the matter is, Terror is Naval vessel and what he did was a major violation of protocol. He's not an officer, and it wasn't his place to make such a call. At the very least he should have spoken to one of the officers first. Crozier had already decided to question Lady Silence the next day. Hickey wasn't privy to that, and by handling it in the way he did, he made the situation more antagonistic than it needed to be. Crozier needed information from her. He understood the need to treat the woman with respect. Hickey had already tried and judged her guilty. Now she was scared and even less inclined to talk than she already had been. Maybe it wouldn't have taken her a month to talk if she hadn't been manhandled and threatened with violence. He argued with Crozier and would not back down, becoming increasingly insolent, disrespecting the Captain and questioning his judgement and authority. He thought he would be rewarded for his initiative, but misread his relationship and standing with Crozier.

When he was lashed, his face turned into pure rage. As someone in the episode thread put so well, we saw a villain being born in that scene. Sure, you could say of course he'd be pissed off, but to me it went beyond that. It was the actor's performance which convinced me the character had turned a corner.

When he bribed Gibson to spy for him (and we find out that he pilfered David's ring), he said he wanted to know "which officers were unhappy, and why". If all he wanted was inside information to stay in the loop--what are they doing with/about the supplies, what decisions command might be considering, etc.,--why the emphasis on the unhappiness of the officers? If he'd said he wanted to know about their morale, I might be able to rationalize it as him wanting to get a read on how serious their situation was; by asking specifically who was unhappy, it suggested he wanted to use that knowledge to create or exacerbate a wedge between the officers. They are in a life or death situation; why would he want to destabilize the command structure?

Then we have what happened in this episode. Maybe I could rationalize him touching the Private's brain once out of curiosity, but based on the squelching sounds, he was poking at it repeatedly, maybe even squishing it (excuse me while I barf ;). He was insubordinate to Lt. Des Voeux, even staring him down. There's been some debate in this thread about whether he intentionally killed a man, but I remain convinced there is no way he couldn't have known that was a man he was cutting into, and believe that's what the actor was trying to convey.

If these were isolated incidents, I might chalk it up to him being a bit of a conman or a rogue, and if they'd never gotten gotten stuck in the ice that's probably who he'd be, breaking a few rules here and there but clever enough to slip by undetected. All together, though, they add up to a man I wouldn't turn my back on.

He told Gibson Crozier saw something in him, that it could "lead anywhere". I think it goes beyond schmoozing his way up the ranks.  If the conflict between Crozier and him hadn't happened, he probably would have been satisfied with being the Captain's right hand man. But now that he hates him, I believe Hickey believes he's capable of and should be running the show. Only he knows nothing about command or running a ship, and even if he has prior arctic experience, it pales in comparison to Crozier's. Blanky is probably the only one who even comes close, and he doesn't have command experience. Hickey's smart and often two steps ahead of the other men, but he doesn't know as much as he thinks he does and makes a lot of assumptions based on partial information. He can't see the big picture; he can't see past his own ambitions and ego.

That the character arouses such strong reactions, both positive and negative, is a testament to the actor's portrayal. No doubt about it, Hickey can be very charming. Sociopaths and narcissists often are.

Very well written and hits the nail on the head. I want to add that he climbed down in the grave to cover that first dead guy's coffin. Nobody else wanted to. He likely did it out of sick morbid curiosity much like the brain poking session. That is when he stole the poor dead bloke's ring. 

Was he also one who helped carry the dead guy to the cellar storage room when the one dud was freaking out? Again, kind of morbid curiosity in him.

I see a bit of Opposition Defiant Disorder. Therefore his grudge against feeling wronged by Crozier will not be forgotten. Injustice collector. 

[Earlwoode]

17 hours ago, Sighed I said:

For me it's a lot of little things which added up over time. In the first episode, when he was in the mess hall, he was very fixated on the wrongness of a dog possibly "outranking" a man. It seemed like a petty thing over which to get his knickers in a twist. When David Young started coughing up blood, Hickey recoiled and backed away while all of the other men tried to help him. Neither of these things are all that odd on its face, but it was enough to get my attention.

The first thing that really made me go "Hmm" was when he shit in Gibson's bed. To me that was a display of dominance, and brought to mind animals marking their territory. Gibson threw him under the bus, though, so at the time I brushed it off as a disgusting but possibly justifiable act, at least from his point of view. But then he went into the captain's quarters, poking around in Crozier's personal stuff, and read the letter he'd written to Sir John. That raised my eyebrow. Later on, we learn he's not permitted to even be in that part of the ship unless he's been assigned a specific task there, so not only was he violating Crozier's privacy, he took advantage of no one being on the ship to snoop in an off-limits area. That suggested to me he's a man who doesn't respect protocol, and does what he wants when nobody's looking.

After that, he kidnapped Lady Silence. His reasoning for acting had a certain logic to it, but the fact of the matter is, Terror is Naval vessel and what he did was a major violation of protocol. He's not an officer, and it wasn't his place to make such a call. At the very least he should have spoken to one of the officers first. Crozier had already decided to question Lady Silence the next day. Hickey wasn't privy to that, and by handling it in the way he did, he made the situation more antagonistic than it needed to be. Crozier needed information from her. He understood the need to treat the woman with respect. Hickey had already tried and judged her guilty. Now she was scared and even less inclined to talk than she already had been. Maybe it wouldn't have taken her a month to talk if she hadn't been manhandled and threatened with violence. He argued with Crozier and would not back down, becoming increasingly insolent, disrespecting the Captain and questioning his judgement and authority. He thought he would be rewarded for his initiative, but misread his relationship and standing with Crozier.

When he was lashed, his face turned into pure rage. As someone in the episode thread put so well, we saw a villain being born in that scene. Sure, you could say of course he'd be pissed off, but to me it went beyond that. It was the actor's performance which convinced me the character had turned a corner.

When he bribed Gibson to spy for him (and we find out that he pilfered David's ring), he said he wanted to know "which officers were unhappy, and why". If all he wanted was inside information to stay in the loop--what are they doing with/about the supplies, what decisions command might be considering, etc.,--why the emphasis on the unhappiness of the officers? If he'd said he wanted to know about their morale, I might be able to rationalize it as him wanting to get a read on how serious their situation was; by asking specifically who was unhappy, it suggested he wanted to use that knowledge to create or exacerbate a wedge between the officers. They are in a life or death situation; why would he want to destabilize the command structure?

Then we have what happened in this episode. Maybe I could rationalize him touching the Private's brain once out of curiosity, but based on the squelching sounds, he was poking at it repeatedly, maybe even squishing it (excuse me while I barf ;). He was insubordinate to Lt. Des Voeux, even staring him down. There's been some debate in this thread about whether he intentionally killed a man, but I remain convinced there is no way he couldn't have known that was a man he was cutting into, and believe that's what the actor was trying to convey.

If these were isolated incidents, I might chalk it up to him being a bit of a conman or a rogue, and if they'd never gotten gotten stuck in the ice that's probably who he'd be, breaking a few rules here and there but clever enough to slip by undetected. All together, though, they add up to a man I wouldn't turn my back on.

He told Gibson Crozier saw something in him, that it could "lead anywhere". I think it goes beyond schmoozing his way up the ranks.  If the conflict between Crozier and him hadn't happened, he probably would have been satisfied with being the Captain's right hand man. But now that he hates him, I believe Hickey believes he's capable of and should be running the show. Only he knows nothing about command or running a ship, and even if he has prior arctic experience, it pales in comparison to Crozier's. Blanky is probably the only one who even comes close, and he doesn't have command experience. Hickey's smart and often two steps ahead of the other men, but he doesn't know as much as he thinks he does and makes a lot of assumptions based on partial information. He can't see the big picture; he can't see past his own ambitions and ego.

That the character arouses such strong reactions, both positive and negative, is a testament to the actor's portrayal. No doubt about it, Hickey can be very charming. Sociopaths and narcissists often are.

Wow lol, that’s a really long list.  All very interesting but it still does not make him a repulsive character in my book.  Just sneaky and underhanded but I can accept that in their situation.  And Jeez, you blame the man for being enraged at his barbaric, humiliating punishment.  Would you have felt loving kindness towards whomever had ordered  that for you and who kept saying “again” over and over?  It’s perfectly understandable he would have been enraged.  I do agree about the poking the brain scene, yeah the sounds were barf worthy, lol.  I know I differ from almost everyone else here but i don’t see Crozier as a hero - I  see him as a bitter, vindictive man who is a drunk with a vicious streak.  I don’t like his character at all.  While Franklyn was a bit of a buffoon, at least he’s came across a looking out for his crew and a  friendly guy. And oh man Ciaran Hinds facial expression while being (I presume) bitten by the magic bear was just priceless.  I think only comparable to the opening scene of Jaws, lol!

[Ohwell]

17 hours ago, Sighed I said:

For me it's a lot of little things which added up over time. In the first episode, when he was in the mess hall, he was very fixated on the wrongness of a dog possibly "outranking" a man. It seemed like a petty thing over which to get his knickers in a twist. When David Young started coughing up blood, Hickey recoiled and backed away while all of the other men tried to help him. Neither of these things are all that odd on its face, but it was enough to get my attention.

The first thing that really made me go "Hmm" was when he shit in Gibson's bed. To me that was a display of dominance, and brought to mind animals marking their territory. Gibson threw him under the bus, though, so at the time I brushed it off as a disgusting but possibly justifiable act, at least from his point of view. But then he went into the captain's quarters, poking around in Crozier's personal stuff, and read the letter he'd written to Sir John. That raised my eyebrow. Later on, we learn he's not permitted to even be in that part of the ship unless he's been assigned a specific task there, so not only was he violating Crozier's privacy, he took advantage of no one being on the ship to snoop in an off-limits area. That suggested to me he's a man who doesn't respect protocol, and does what he wants when nobody's looking.

After that, he kidnapped Lady Silence. His reasoning for acting had a certain logic to it, but the fact of the matter is, Terror is Naval vessel and what he did was a major violation of protocol. He's not an officer, and it wasn't his place to make such a call. At the very least he should have spoken to one of the officers first. Crozier had already decided to question Lady Silence the next day. Hickey wasn't privy to that, and by handling it in the way he did, he made the situation more antagonistic than it needed to be. Crozier needed information from her. He understood the need to treat the woman with respect. Hickey had already tried and judged her guilty. Now she was scared and even less inclined to talk than she already had been. Maybe it wouldn't have taken her a month to talk if she hadn't been manhandled and threatened with violence. He argued with Crozier and would not back down, becoming increasingly insolent, disrespecting the Captain and questioning his judgement and authority. He thought he would be rewarded for his initiative, but misread his relationship and standing with Crozier.

When he was lashed, his face turned into pure rage. As someone in the episode thread put so well, we saw a villain being born in that scene. Sure, you could say of course he'd be pissed off, but to me it went beyond that. It was the actor's performance which convinced me the character had turned a corner.

When he bribed Gibson to spy for him (and we find out that he pilfered David's ring), he said he wanted to know "which officers were unhappy, and why". If all he wanted was inside information to stay in the loop--what are they doing with/about the supplies, what decisions command might be considering, etc.,--why the emphasis on the unhappiness of the officers? If he'd said he wanted to know about their morale, I might be able to rationalize it as him wanting to get a read on how serious their situation was; by asking specifically who was unhappy, it suggested he wanted to use that knowledge to create or exacerbate a wedge between the officers. They are in a life or death situation; why would he want to destabilize the command structure?

Then we have what happened in this episode. Maybe I could rationalize him touching the Private's brain once out of curiosity, but based on the squelching sounds, he was poking at it repeatedly, maybe even squishing it (excuse me while I barf ;). He was insubordinate to Lt. Des Voeux, even staring him down. There's been some debate in this thread about whether he intentionally killed a man, but I remain convinced there is no way he couldn't have known that was a man he was cutting into, and believe that's what the actor was trying to convey.

If these were isolated incidents, I might chalk it up to him being a bit of a conman or a rogue, and if they'd never gotten gotten stuck in the ice that's probably who he'd be, breaking a few rules here and there but clever enough to slip by undetected. All together, though, they add up to a man I wouldn't turn my back on.

He told Gibson Crozier saw something in him, that it could "lead anywhere". I think it goes beyond schmoozing his way up the ranks.  If the conflict between Crozier and him hadn't happened, he probably would have been satisfied with being the Captain's right hand man. But now that he hates him, I believe Hickey believes he's capable of and should be running the show. Only he knows nothing about command or running a ship, and even if he has prior arctic experience, it pales in comparison to Crozier's. Blanky is probably the only one who even comes close, and he doesn't have command experience. Hickey's smart and often two steps ahead of the other men, but he doesn't know as much as he thinks he does and makes a lot of assumptions based on partial information. He can't see the big picture; he can't see past his own ambitions and ego.

That the character arouses such strong reactions, both positive and negative, is a testament to the actor's portrayal. No doubt about it, Hickey can be very charming. Sociopaths and narcissists often are.

I had to quote all of this because I like the way you carved up Hickey, especially with all of it being true.

[AuntiePam]

21 hours ago, Earlwoode said:

In your opinion, of course. I wouldn’t do it myself but people who aren’t squeamish son’t seem put off by that sort of thing.  I found odder and more repulsive that they poured hot sealing wax on the man’s eyes.  And besides, Hickey’s actions only happened in the last episode so that doesn’t answer my question as to why we are meant to find him repulsive?

I think the wax on the man's eyes is for protection.  If his eyes never closed, his eyeballs would dry out.  If he manages to "wake up" someday, he'll want to be able to see.

[Captanne]

Closing the man’s eyes with wax is to keep the eyeballs hydrated naturally and protected. We do that now during surgeries but we do it with medical tape.  It’s not a big deal.  https://www.quora.com/During-surgery-why-are-a-patients-eyes-taped-shut

As for any aberrant behavior, they are all mad on lead poisoning by now.  Hence the red cheeks, the whole surreal nature of the carnival, and the very subtle possibility that all this time Tuunbaq has been a figment of their imaginations.  The damage, clearly not.  But the monster could well be imagined in very sick, fertile, 19th Century, susceptible minds.  (Tuunbaq is Lady Silence’s religion.  To her he is very real.)

As for Hickey, he is as ill as the rest of them but, as made clear in that excellent evaluation of his timeline, he has been an insubordination problem since the beginning.  Now, he is as demented as everyone else. (I agree, poking his finger in the catatonic victim’s exposed brain is particularly depraved.  It is a very bizarre form of violation which reminds me of raping an unconscious victim. To find this act un-troublesome is, in and of itself, troublesome.)

Edited April 28, 2018 by Captanne

[Sighed I]

2 hours ago, Earlwoode said:

Wow lol, that’s a really long list.  All very interesting but it still does not make him a repulsive character in my book.  Just sneaky and underhanded but I can accept that in their situation.  And Jeez, you blame the man for being enraged at his barbaric, humiliating punishment.  Would you have felt loving kindness towards whomever had ordered  that for you and who kept saying “again” over and over?  It’s perfectly understandable he would have been enraged.  I do agree about the poking the brain scene, yeah the sounds were barf worthy, lol.  I know I differ from almost everyone else here but i don’t see Crozier as a hero - I  see him as a bitter, vindictive man who is a drunk with a vicious streak.  I don’t like his character at all.  While Franklyn was a bit of a buffoon, at least he’s came across a looking out for his crew and a  friendly guy. And oh man Ciaran Hinds facial expression while being (I presume) bitten by the magic bear was just priceless.  I think only comparable to the opening scene of Jaws, lol!

Aw man, you mean I spent all that time writing a long ass post and you're still not convinced?! ;)

Actually, it wasn't so much I was trying to convince you he's repulsive as it was explaining why I, personally, find him disturbing and don't trust him for a second. I don't find him repulsive exactly myself; whether that changes remains to be seen.

I believe the writers and actor want us to feel ambivalent about Hickey. Did he rescue Manson from going into the dead room because he was helping a friend, or is it a calculated move so Manson will owe him one later? Did he fix the lid on David's coffin as a sign of respect, or did he spy the ring on his finger and saw an opportunity to snatch it while making himself look good in front of his mates in the process?

I liked Cornelius from the beginning. For starters, I'm a sucker for dimples and Adam Nagaitis' smile... <fans self> ;) Seriously, though, I liked his swagger and his cool, found him charming and witty. He's mysterious, and has secrets behind his eyes. There's a very seductive quality to his character. But as I said before, stuff started niggling at me, and as he grew more brazen, it was a lot easier to look back and recognize a consistent pattern of behavior. It made me completely reassess his character and confirmed, in my view, that my instincts were right.

I love how this show forces me to think, even question reality. What is the truth, who is to blame? I saw (or read, I can't remember) an interview with Jared Harris and he said one of his favorite things about the show is the characters are written from the assumption that they're right, their version is the truth. We're supposed to see how this tragedy unfolded from many angles, through many different perspectives.

I don't blame Hickey for being enraged. I would expect him to be because it's consistent with his character. Tom Hartnell, on the other hand, would not. He would be, and was, contrite. All I was saying is it was a defining moment in shaping my view of the character. I watched Hickey cross over to the dark side in that scene, and saw murder in his eyes. YMMV.

I do empathize with Crozier. He's made some questionable decisions for sure and can be kind of an asshole; I also think there is some justification for his bitterness. But yeah, it's (well past) time to suck it up and do his job. Franklin's paternal warmth may be comforting but it's not enough to keep them alive. I do think Sir John cared about his men, but he was reckless with their lives and they all paid the ultimate price. I'll take the asshole who keeps me alive over the surrogate father who gets me killed. ;)

 

14 hours ago, SoSueMe said:

Great post. You really did your homework and reminded me of a lot things I had forgotten/missed. I guess "repulsive" is a rather subjective word but while I can appreciate that he is basically hard wired this way, I am "repelled" by many of his  actions. So...

Thanks. Once I got going I thought aw, hell, let's go for broke! ;) This show is like an onion and I enjoy peeling off the layers.

Sometimes I can't bear to look at Hickey, yet I can't take my eyes off him either. Till now he mostly made me uneasy, but in this episode he truly disturbed me. Killing Dr. MacDonald was my personal "I'll never look at Hickey the same way again" moment.

4 hours ago, Lamima said:

Very well written and hits the nail on the head. I want to add that he climbed down in the grave to cover that first dead guy's coffin. Nobody else wanted to. He likely did it out of sick morbid curiosity much like the brain poking session. That is when he stole the poor dead bloke's ring. 

Was he also one who helped carry the dead guy to the cellar storage room when the one dud was freaking out? Again, kind of morbid curiosity in him.

I see a bit of Opposition Defiant Disorder. Therefore his grudge against feeling wronged by Crozier will not be forgotten. Injustice collector. 

Thank you. It really does make you look back and see previous events in a new light. And yes, he popped in and saved the day when Manson freaked out. On its face, he was being a good mate; to me, it was more calculation than altruism. I think we'll find out in the near future.

And yes, he most definitely counts grievances.

2 hours ago, Ohwell said:

I had to quote all of this because I like the way you carved up Hickey, especially with all of it being true.

You guys are making me blush ;), but thank you. Hickey conceals so much, a lot of what he's done has been pretty open to interpretation, and as this discussion illustrates, still is. For me personally, he becomes more transparent in this episode, which validated some theories I'd been kicking around about the character.

[Captanne]

I don’t think Hickey intentionally killed the man at the sailcloth. That was a veritable, single-minded stampede and, IIRC, he did yell at them to step back.  His decision to stab and cut them out anyway was very Utilitarian — the needs of the many outweighed the needs of the one. In some ways his decision was heroic.  His one shining moment of heroism for which he is destined to be misunderstood.  

[Ohwell]

I'm sorry, but I just cannot defend a bed-shitter and brain-poker. 

[Captanne]

Oh Well, did you see my earlier post about him?  

 

I make no defense. He is the two-dimensional villain of the piece.  I’m just making an observation about that one moment in his narrative.

 

(In his dimensionless villainy I compare him often to Floki from Vikings.)

Edited April 28, 2018 by Captanne

[Ohwell]

14 minutes ago, Captanne said:

Oh Well, did you see my earlier post about him?  

Yes, and I agree that it could be the lead poisoning making him do such things.  However, I have a feeling that he was a shit-stirrer long before any food became contaminated.  I haven't read the book (don't want to be spoiled), so I don't know how he really was so I all have to go by is what I see on tv. 

[Captanne]

Yep! I said he was an insubordination problem from the very beginning.  I think Best example is his snooping and then stealing the ring. 

[Ohwell]

Yeah, I was kind of half-joking in my description of him.  Too bad I don't want to be spoiled because he's an interesting character and I do wonder what he was really like in the book. 

[Paws]

So if they are all mad on lead poisoning, that means Lady silence is the only reliable storyteller. And she just cut out her tongue.

I am am absolutely obsessed with this show. I love how  FitzJames has gone from smug to ashamed about Croziers predictions. I love how he maintains optimism and clearheadedness when everything seems so shitty. He was asking for an oar as a lever with the fire blazing around him as if we were asking for two lumps of sugar in his tea.

 

so when he dies, all hope will go with him....

Edited April 28, 2018 by Paws

[Starchild]

This is a very good show but I'm kind of disappointed it wasn't the show I thought it would be when I first saw the trailers. I was convinced it would turn out that they got stuck in the ice and then were come upon by Frankenstein's monster, still up in the Arctic after all those years.

Edited April 28, 2018 by Starchild

[Lava VaVoom]

I always come here before watching the episode, so I'm prepared.

I thought the bear/spirit looked like a dog.

[proserpina65]

On ‎04‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 9:28 PM, Earlwoode said:

Wow lol, that’s a really long list.  All very interesting but it still does not make him a repulsive character in my book.  

I've found his actions pretty damned repulsive.  Finding out that he stole that ring from a dead man was just the topper.

On ‎04‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 9:28 PM, Earlwoode said:

While Franklyn was a bit of a buffoon, at least he’s came across a looking out for his crew and a  friendly guy.

Except that he absolutely wasn't looking out for his crew.  If he had been, he'd have sent for help when Crozier suggested it.  Franklin was after glory, and nothing, not even the possibility of being iced in for another winter was going to interfere.

I don't see Crozier as a hero.  He's a flawed human being, but he's one who's had the best grasp on their dire situation from the get go.

For what it's worth, I think Hickey is nothing more than a flawed human being as well, but one whose actions I find to be repulsive.

Edited April 30, 2018 by proserpina65

[CoachWristletJen]

I'm sure that Hickey's brain-poking could be foreshadowing. He may have other... predilections.

He's a dyed-in-the-wool sociopath. 

That being said, how much did they understand about the brain back then? Not just doctors, but Hickey? In his mind, he could have just been poking at a liver. And, he knew nothing about sanitation. Not that it excuses it or makes it any less gross, but even he couldn't have fathomed the damage we know he was doing at this point (although sadly, most of the damage has already been done).

It's barely enough to be called mitigating.

[slothgirl]

2 hours ago, CoachWristletJen said:

I'm sure that Hickey's brain-poking could be foreshadowing. He may have other... predilections.

He's a dyed-in-the-wool sociopath. 

That being said, how much did they understand about the brain back then? Not just doctors, but Hickey? In his mind, he could have just been poking at a liver. And, he knew nothing about sanitation. Not that it excuses it or makes it any less gross, but even he couldn't have fathomed the damage we know he was doing at this point (although sadly, most of the damage has already been done).

It's barely enough to be called mitigating.

If the guy was dead, I could write it off as curiosity.

It's also possible he knew that it might be harmful and he was wanting to kill him.

[AZChristian]

On 5/1/2018 at 5:48 AM, CoachWristletJen said:

I'm sure that Hickey's brain-poking could be foreshadowing. He may have other... predilections.

He's a dyed-in-the-wool sociopath. 

I half expected him to lick his fingers after digging them into the man's brain.  He's that creepy.

[paramitch]

On 4/23/2018 at 7:42 PM, tennisgurl said:

I also found the scene with Crozier and Jopson to be very nice, and surprisingly tender considering how harsh the show is. Hopefully Crozier is through the worst of it, because the men are REALLY going to need some leadership soon. 

I loved the scenes between Crozier and Jopson. Jopson was so gentle and supportive, and the rapport between the two men was profoundly moving to me.

On 4/23/2018 at 8:33 PM, thuganomics85 said:

Tobias Menzies in a Roman uniform delighted me more then it probably should.  It was nice of James to try and throw a party before they had to drop some big ass bad news on them, but as with most things on this show, nothing ever ends up working out.

I loved that little shoutout to "Rome!" Also, Fitzjames's idea was actually a really smart one -- ships had all sorts of little rituals and celebrations to break up the monotony, and these men have been facing a series of catastrophes. His idea of a celebration before they rally up and head off onto the ice I felt was really smart here.

On 4/23/2018 at 9:18 PM, slothgirl said:

My least favorite episode so far. When Crozier goes into their makeshift carnival tent and asks "How did they manage to do all this?" I was all "THANK YOU!!!".  I had EXACTLY the same question. But on rewatch I realized they had a week, so it was do'able. It just seems like it took far more stuff than they would have had on the ships.

Ships of these sizes could carry a MASSIVE amount of supplies and material.  

Quote

 

From Wikipedia:

Erebus (378 tons) and Terror (331 tons) were sturdily built and well equipped, including several recent inventions. Steam engines were fitted, driving a single screw propeller in each vessel; these engines were converted former locomotives from the London & Croydon Railway. The ships could make 7.4 km/h on steam power, or travel under wind power to reach higher speeds and/or save fuel.

Other advanced technology in the ships included reinforced bows constructed of heavy beams and iron plates, an internal steam heating system for the comfort of the crew in polar conditions, and a system of iron wells that allowed the screw propellers and iron rudders to be withdrawn into the hull to protect them from damage. The ships also carried libraries of more than 1,000 books and three years' supply of conventionally preserved or tinned food.

 

It's also implied here in this episode (I think, or the last one) that they overstocked and were set for 5 years if needed. This means they would not only have tons of food and supplies, but also canvas, wood, cordage, tools, and more. They would also have several chests of supplies for celebrations and onboard theatricals (which were common at the time). So to me the carnival was believable.

On 4/24/2018 at 1:24 AM, Sighed I said:

Same for Bridgens and Peglar's book recommendation scene (I read these two as lovers, personally, and get the impression they've been together for years).

I've grown to like Fitzjames more and more. He's a good counterbalance for Crozier with the men, and I respect him for being honest and honorable enough to admit he was wrong, and wise enough to seek the counsel of those in the know and take their advice (unlike his predecessor). I really care about him now and am sorry to see him showing symptoms of scurvy (?). That doesn't bode well. 

I definitely agree that Bridgens and Peglar are lovers. I adore their relationship. And I've always loved Irish actor John Lynch (Bridgens), so it was great to see him again here.

On 4/24/2018 at 10:29 AM, Apocalypso said:

I believe it's common for ships' companies to have similar celebrations for crossing the equator.  Obviously they weren't going anywhere near the equator (and were even way above the Arctic Circle), but they WERE planning to be gone for years, and I could see Sir John just routinely loading the chest of costumes on his ship as a morale kit in case needed.

Yeah, this was very usual with larger vessels. They'd even carry stuff like cases of earth and props for onboard dramatic theatricals.

On 4/24/2018 at 10:32 AM, slothgirl said:

What was less believable to me was that Fitz only just now discovered that they had that stuff. If you were stuck on those ships for a couple of years unable to spend hardly any time outside, wouldn't you pretty much have explored every inch of them by now just for something to do? Especially if you were an EXPLORER by nature?

The ships' holds would hold huge tons of supplies, often with the less urgent stuff packed to be less accessible in order to help improve the ship's point of sail (some ships sail better with everything toward the bow, or to the stern, or slightly to one side port/starboard, etc.). So it's believable nobody went down and just grabbed a chest of costumes. He would have had to send a group of men down to retrieve them, and it would have been a pretty major task.

On 4/25/2018 at 10:37 AM, slothgirl said:

I love the beast as a metaphor. I don't think it's just bad animation that gave it an almost mask-like human face this time. I also don't think it was an arbitrary piece of editing that we cut directly from a shot showing the beast's face while getting a new shaman to a close-up facial shot of Crozier bursting out of his room sober (after being left alone wondering where everyone is). The beast represents something or someone (or several someones). They are going to great pains to film this so that it's not just a godzilla horror flick with a monster. 

My take here so far (and I haven't seen this confirmed or denied anywhere else!) is that the Tunbaaq starts out looking more bearlike but as it kills more and more people (and eats them?), it is starting to look more and more human, reflecting the evil back at them, maybe?

On 4/26/2018 at 6:15 AM, Osmigo said:

In some ways, this show reminds me of the old Twin Peaks series.  Some of the darkness, the unknown elements, the vagueness combine to create part of a total effect, instead of just being a collection of distinct, individual components. 

I 100% agree with this. I've been reminded of "Twin Peaks" several times with this show so far -- especially the new, more experimental season by Lynch.

Also, poor little Jacko! I was expecting it, but I still cried. Somehow, Goodsir's gentleness and regret made it even worse. He was so saddened by what he'd had to do. (sniffle)

Edited January 3, 2021 by paramitch
Jacko

[DMT]

On 4/23/2018 at 10:22 PM, SoSueMe said:

I'm pretty sure Hickey was "playing" with the brain injured sailor. But credit where due, he did try to rescue people by cutting the canvas. Too bad he killed Dr. McDonald doing it.

Ummm do u not know Hickey is really not the real one? This imposter killed the actual C. Hickey...before they went out onto the ice to leave the ships there was initials on a piece of wood E.C or B on it...he is a psychopath