S06.E05: The Great Patriotic War

[AllyB]

6 minutes ago, Bannon said:

I don't think she is competent because every emotional note she conveys seems to  be,  to me, an actor signaling.  I never cross the threshold with her, and forget I'm looking at an actor. Like I've said, however, the writers and directors have done her very few favors.

It's possible Holly Taylor is in fact a very good actor. Alexis Bledel never shined as an actor in the Gilmore Girls, especially as she got older. She grew up in the character or Rory Gilmore but was never captivating or convincing. But on The Handmaid's Tale she has been a revelation and showed real skill as an actor. So in some other role Holly Taylor may surprise us all but in The Americans she tends to suck the energy out of scenes.

[Bannon]

14 minutes ago, AllyB said:

It's possible Holly Taylor is in fact a very good actor. Alexis Bledel never shined as an actor in the Gilmore Girls, especially as she got older. She grew up in the character or Rory Gilmore but was never captivating or convincing. But on The Handmaid's Tale she has been a revelation and showed real skill as an actor. So in some other role Holly Taylor may surprise us all but in The Americans she tends to suck the energy out of scenes.

It can be very hard to separate writing, directing, and acting issues. An example: I believe it was last season that there was a scene with Paige, Phil, and Liz in the kitchen, with Paige upset about something, and cleaning the kitchen floor. Holly Taylor was obviously told to be scrubbing the floor in a fashion which communicated emotional distress, but it was done so ham-handedly that I thought I was watching a high school drama club production. A director has to prevent that kind of cartoonish nonsense.

[Clanstarling]

9 hours ago, CaliCheeseSucks said:

Exactly. She's become this cartoonish serial killing machine. 

I don't know that I see her as cartoonish - I see it as Elizabeth hanging by a thread on an unraveling rope. I see it as a legitimate progression in her story - things are spinning out of control and Elizabeth's operating mostly by reflex.

She's overwhelmed by her official Centre work, because she has so many irons in the fire regarding the summit and very little backup (her two lookouts and Paige, right?). Then she's got the off books mission which is arguably more important (as explained to her, anyway). She has nobody to discuss methods and approaches with on that mission. It's all on her. In a normal world, this much pressure would be too much for anyone.

She's dealing with problems reflexively - kill them and the problem doesn't exist any more (in the short run, of course - I'm thinking they will matter in the long run).

Someone else can count them up, but if my memory is correct, with the exception of Gennadi (who she was ordered to kill), his wife(collateral damage) and the sailor(who knows? motivation is murky), most of the kills have been for the off books mission, as a direct result of the General failing to comply as a source.

Not that I'm blaming the General for his failure to comply - the opposite. On the other hand, I don't count his death as an egregious one, since he brought the gun to the party and Elizabeth was actually fighting for her life. Nevertheless, maybe the kills due to this unknown (to Elizabeth) treason will be the thing that ends her.

37 minutes ago, AllyB said:

It's possible Holly Taylor is in fact a very good actor. Alexis Bledel never shined as an actor in the Gilmore Girls, especially as she got older. She grew up in the character or Rory Gilmore but was never captivating or convincing. But on The Handmaid's Tale she has been a revelation and showed real skill as an actor. So in some other role Holly Taylor may surprise us all but in The Americans she tends to suck the energy out of scenes.

You make a good point. I was never fond of Alexis Bledel - and had similar issues with the "older" Rory as I do with Paige. But she is wonderful in the Handmaid's Tale. Of course, in Gilmore Girls she wasn't playing opposite particularly good actors(not a fan of Lauren Graham, though I love Kelly Bishop).

On the other hand, Holly Taylor is playing with some of the best. I did think she showed something different in the bar scenes - so who knows. Maybe if you're handed a two note character, maybe that's all you play.

17 minutes ago, Bannon said:

It can be very hard to separate writing, directing, and acting issues. An example: I believe it was last season that there was a scene with Paige, Phil, and Liz in the kitchen, with Paige upset about something, and cleaning the kitchen floor. Holly Taylor was obviously told to be scrubbing the floor in a fashion which communicated emotional distress, but it was done so ham-handedly that I thought I was watching a high school drama club production. A director has to prevent that kind of cartoonish nonsense.

Granted, and yet part of the director's job is to find an action the actor can use to communicate their feelings. Maybe Holly never scrubbed a floor - I know I hadn't at that age. If scrubbing doesn't work, find something else. There are a number of tasks in a kitchen that could easily have been better at communicating her distress. I'm not a particular fan of HT, but heck, even Keri sucks at cigarette smoking (though I did notice an improvement in this episode). 

Edited April 29, 2018 by Clanstarling

[lucindabelle]

Die Elizabeth.

[Dev F]

1 hour ago, Clanstarling said:

Granted, and yet part of the director's job is to find an action the actor can use to communicate their feelings. Maybe Holly never scrubbed a floor - I know I hadn't at that age. If scrubbing doesn't work, find something else. There are a number of tasks in a kitchen that could easily have been better at communicating her distress.

It can't just be something that communicates distress, though, since it's a specific callback -- to the scene in season 2 where Elizabeth wakes Paige up in the middle of the night and forces her to clean out the refrigerator and mop the floor. It's about how she's internalized the message Elizabeth conveyed to her all those years ago:

"Being a grown-up means doing things you don't want to do, all the time. It means working when you are exhausted and almost never getting what you want when you want it. Your father and I never had a childhood. Nothing came easy for us -- ever. You're so lucky, Paige. Mop and bucket are in the basement."

If it played weird, I think it's largely because people didn't recognize the callback -- I certainly didn't, until someone pointed it out on Reddit months later. But that's why I tend not to dwell too much on the acting, despite the fact that most of the actors do brilliant work. This isn't an performance-driven show, where the writing leaves a lot of possibilities open, the cast shoulder much of the responsibility of determining what their characters are thinking and feeling, and the writers take their cues from those acting choices going forward. This is a writing-driven show, where every motivation is carefully laid out in the script, and we're more likely to get at the story's deeper meanings by parsing its dialogue, symbols, and themes than by analyzing the performances.

[sistermagpie]

12 hours ago, hellmouse said:

I agree that it was a step backwards. It let Paige off the hook for making such a poor decision. It became about handling your liquor rather than about making smart decisions in the moment

Yes, and it seems like that's the pattern. All of Paige's mistakes link back to the same thing, that everything is still all about her. She's got plenty of personal fear that makes her want to spar or lash out, but she doesn't understand her real place in the world. So here once again she used her status as a spy to make herself feel better as herself and when called on it got defensive and dismissed it as something easily dealt with and just said she wouldn't do it again--a promise that seems to work because so far she hasn't wanted to do it again. Even though she's actually already learned this lesson, or should have. It's the same mistake coming out in different ways.

And Elizabeth let her. Her tough talk simply doesn't work that well. Every single time it's just led to Paige sulkily admitting she was wrong rather than actually having a moment of realization of what she did. Compounded on that is her still not getting what Elizabeth is saying about not spying on the intern rather than not sleeping with him. She's letting her ongoing battle with her mother where she's either her biggest fan or annoyed with her, dictate everything.

So wow, having Elizabeth go back into denial and consider this a teaching moment for how not to get drunk and talking about sex couldn't be more of a reward for her behavior. She just gave her another spy trick to learn that Paige will no doubt be just as eager to use as Paige Jennings. Of course Elizabeth isn't like Philip in that she's not ready to have a serious talk about what Paige really did there, about how good it feels to punch somebody who scared you. But she just keeps encouraging her to solve her problems that way, by leaning on the Centre, the Cause, violence and sex to feel not afraid.

12 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Elizabeth explained why Paige wouldn't know, she looked through her history books.  Mine were the same, barely a mention.

But the bigger problem isn't really that in high school Paige would have learned a US-centric version of the Cold War. (Certainly she would never have gotten Claudia and Elizabeth's version of how it's all about the US taking credit for the USSR's win while also leaving out Stalin's biggest crimes.) But Paige has had plenty of time to read up on Russian history on her own without drawing any attention to herself. The fact that she's years into being an actual traitor for the place (4 years since she learned about her ancestry) and doesn't even understand their role in WWII speaks badly of Paige. WWII is directly related to the war Paige thinks she's fighting now.

Elizabeth had a better memory of Paige's WWII lessons than Paige did. Once again it wasn't a conversation here Paige showed any intelligent interest. She just drank in her new view of the world where the Soviets won WWII because they're awesome and tough.

8 hours ago, MissBluxom said:

Excellent point. I wonder if the writers were given some last-minute change they had to make. The text that P spoke to Kimmie now sounds like it was written in a hurry - without sufficient thought.

No it didn't. Philip and the writers obviously gave careful thought to Philip's warning. He's intentionally outing himself to make sure she gets the message clearly and earlier is talking through his real feelings with her.

 

1 hour ago, Dev F said:

This isn't an performance-driven show, where the writing leaves a lot of possibilities open, the cast shoulder much of the responsibility of determining what their characters are thinking and feeling, and the writers take their cues from those acting choices going forward.

I totally disagree. The show might be very writing focused but the type of writing it is absolutely depends on actors doing a ton of work because these aren't characters who often say what they mean or even know what they mean. Someone once even wrote about glancing at one of Alison Wright's scripts and being amazed at the detailed notes she had for every line. The showrunners have talked about having long talks with actors about exactly where the character's coming from which end with them reminding the actor that the character themselves doesn't know any of this. It's a very actor heavy show. It's up to them to show us the incremental changes going on between every line.

Paige herself would certainly understand the call-back to that earlier scene (I remembered it at that time immediately) and that would give HT something to work with. It is a lot harder for a young actor so that should be taken into account, but I disagree that she's getting worse material. I think she's been given a lot of juicy scenes that had plenty of opportunities for more variation. She's good in scenes that are in her wheelhouse: confessing to Pastor Tim, breaking up with Matthew, any scene now where she's just acting like a regular girl flirting. But she seems really bad at anything spy related to me. I don't mean working as a spy but just emotionally playing scenes regarding that whole topic since S3 (and not in a way that says she's *playing* Paige as disconnected when she shouldn't be.) One thing that stands out for me was I remember critics praising her in the reveal scene in Stingers and I didn't think she did anything in that scene that was on the level of what was happening. That's why she was much better in the beginning part where she was confronting her parents.

Some might blame that on the writing since she wasn't given any big obvious breakdown, but I don't think that would have been appropriate.

Edited April 29, 2018 by sistermagpie

[candle96]

On 4/27/2018 at 10:33 PM, MissBluxom said:

Yes. But it's killing her family even more. It is so hard - almost impossible - for me to believe this lovely woman can engage in a plan that means she will watch her family die of some emotional disease. How can she behave that way? Is it due to brainwashing?

It's interesting that you see it that way. I've never though of Elizabeth as lovely woman. From my viewing, she has been the job/Soviet Union duties first. The mission at all costs. Think of how many innocent people she's killed, or the lives she's destroyed.  She loves her children and husband, but they've never been first, IMHO. She's always behaved that way, it's just more corrosive and destructive now. I don't know if I'd call it brainwashed as much as indoctrinated, as I'd assume spies on this side of the pond would be too.

There have been times where I've felt for Elizabeth, when we see glimpses of her vulnerability, because perhaps she never had a chance, given her childhood. But unlike Phillip, she often refuses to see the other side of all of this. Phillip can at least admit they have it pretty good with their cushy American lifestyle. All these years living amongst Americans, and she can't see that maybe there are lot of innocent people on BOTH sides? And now, with this covert mission and all the murders, she's just too far gone.

[CaliCheeseSucks]

30 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

I totally disagree. The show might be very writing focused but the type of writing it is absolutely depends on actors doing a ton of work because these aren't characters who often say what they mean or even know what they mean. Someone once even wrote about glancing at one of Alison Wright's scripts and being amazed at the detailed notes she had for every line. The showrunners have talked about having long talks with actors about exactly where the character's coming from which end with them reminding the actor that the character themselves doesn't know any of this. It's a very actor heavy show. It's up to them to show us the incremental changes going on between every line.

Completely agree. The majority reason I've hung on is because of Rhys, Ronin, Emmerich, et. al. have sold me on their characters and their conundrums. Even when the writing fails from a narrative standpoint, as I think it's done massively over seasons five and now six, I'm invested in where they've taken these individuals above and beyond the pages of the script. Rhys' climactic scene on the phone in this episode made the hour for me. It doesn't wave away all the stuff I found ridiculous/unbelievable/poorly conceived - to a certain extent, it makes me more annoyed all the other stuff was there.

But it does make me go, "Damn. This is why I'm still here."

[Bannon]

36 minutes ago, CaliCheeseSucks said:

Completely agree. The majority reason I've hung on is because of Rhys, Ronin, Emmerich, et. al. have sold me on their characters and their conundrums. Even when the writing fails from a narrative standpoint, as I think it's done massively over seasons five and now six, I'm invested in where they've taken these individuals above and beyond the pages of the script. Rhys' climactic scene on the phone in this episode made the hour for me. It doesn't wave away all the stuff I found ridiculous/unbelievable/poorly conceived - to a certain extent, it makes me more annoyed all the other stuff was there.

But it does make me go, "Damn. This is why I'm still here."

I know I've written it many times, but I get annoyed that so many wonderful actors are given such a sloppily constructed story. There isn't any reason at all that this show could not have been written much more tautly, with realistic consequences stemming from the characters actions. Again, it is as if the writers didn't trust the audience to enjoy the show, absent some James Bondian nonsense.

[sistermagpie]

29 minutes ago, CaliCheeseSucks said:

Completely agree. The majority reason I've hung on is because of Rhys, Ronin, Emmerich, et. al. have sold me on their characters and their conundrums. Even when the writing fails from a narrative standpoint, as I think it's done massively over seasons five and now six, I'm invested in where they've taken these individuals above and beyond the pages of the script. Rhys' climactic scene on the phone in this episode made the hour for me. It doesn't wave away all the stuff I found ridiculous/unbelievable/poorly conceived - to a certain extent, it makes me more annoyed all the other stuff was there.

And that seems pretty common for prestige TV. The two have really developed together. The big shows are known for their writing, but good writers want actors who can really bring the material to life and good actors are attracted to material with a lot to work with. So we have all these shows not just with famous people wanting to be on TV but all these discoveries of character actors who look interesting and do great work. This show's had a really stellar track record, especially giving work to a lot of stage actors.

Matthew Rhys was a particularly interesting find. I know he said they saw him in a production of Look Back in Anger but I would love to have been there on that casting process just because Keri Russell was already so known. (Though her work's been a revelation as well, so it's not like she wasn't also hired for her talent and what she brought to this role.)

[Umbelina]

I agree too, this is a completely ACTOR skill driven show, in spite of the writing, the actors (with one major exception) have been able to compel, to sell, to emote complicated and at times simultaneous conflicting feelings.  That's what's kept me glued.  In the beginning, the show was also really excellent at pacing and tension, which also helped, but would have never worked without the the outstanding acting skills of most of this cast.

Mad Men was micromanaged nearly to death by the writing, actors were NOT allowed to improvise, or even bring anything other than Weiner's scripted emotions to a scene, even something like "character looks down, sighs, glances up" was WRITTEN into scenes.  Honestly, I don't know how the actors could stand it.  (All of the above from commentary.) If an actor so much as turned their face away, or touched their jacket, they were scolded and told to do the scene again AS WRITTEN.

On this show however, the writers/showrunners have applauded their actors and the ADDITIONAL stuff they bring, and said numerous times, "I never expected that, but it was amazing" when their actors choose different ways to deliver.

Without the amazing actors on this show, I would have probably bailed long, long ago.

Edited April 29, 2018 by Umbelina

[Ellaria]

12 hours ago, MissBluxom said:

Excellent point. I wonder if the writers were given some last-minute change they had to make. The text that P spoke to Kimmie now sounds like it was written in a hurry - without sufficient thought. Too bad they don't have someone with your POV on staff to help they with the writing. You would clearly be better at it than the writers they have - unless of course, there was some last minute emergency which caused them to write that text in a big hurry without sufficient time to think it through.

While I don't necessarily agree, I will give you credit for viewing this scene in a different way. IMO, that scene is incredibly important and I think that the writers were probably deliberate in presenting it as they did.

Now, if only that happened with other scenes like the "drink vodka and talk about sex"... 

2 hours ago, CaliCheeseSucks said:

Completely agree. The majority reason I've hung on is because of Rhys, Ronin, Emmerich, et. al. have sold me on their characters and their conundrums. Even when the writing fails from a narrative standpoint, as I think it's done massively over seasons five and now six, I'm invested in where they've taken these individuals above and beyond the pages of the script. Rhys' climactic scene on the phone in this episode made the hour for me. It doesn't wave away all the stuff I found ridiculous/unbelievable/poorly conceived - to a certain extent, it makes me more annoyed all the other stuff was there.

Frankly, this is the only reason that I have hung on. I am primarily invested in Philip and Oleg and their ends. Their character arcs have been the most compelling and the actors have never failed to deliver. As much as I like Emmerich, I think that the writing has failed him as an actor and the character of Stan.

And I don't think that this is different from lots of shows. In the end, our investment is in the people because - if the writers have done it properly - that's what we identify with. 

Edited April 29, 2018 by Ellaria Sand

[dubbel zout]

3 hours ago, candle96 said:

All these years living amongst Americans, and she can't see that maybe there are lot of innocent people on BOTH sides?

I don't think Elizabeth wants to see that there are innocent Americans.

[Dev F]

3 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

I totally disagree. The show might be very writing focused but the type of writing it is absolutely depends on actors doing a ton of work because these aren't characters who often say what they mean or even know what they mean.

Of course. But I don't think any of that is inconsistent with the show being writing-driven. The actors play a critical role in putting across what's on the page, but what's on the page is extremely specific. That's all I mean when I say it's writing-driven. More performance-driven shows in this sense would be, for instance, Judd Apatow's shows, your Freaks & Geeks and Girls, where the writing is much looser and more "Let's put these two characters together and see what happens," the producers encourage the actors to improv, and a whole story arc might be based on an actor ad libbing the line "It was nice to see you. Your dad is gay."

[wendyg]

I thought the hockey game Gennadi was watching with such excitement was a hint that after the many, many mentions of Henry's talent/skill for hockey he might be able to survive in Moscow.

[sistermagpie]

1 minute ago, Dev F said:

Of course. But I don't think any of that is inconsistent with the show being writing-driven. The actors play a critical role in putting across what's on the page, but what's on the page is extremely specific.

True, but even if you're not dwelling on acting it's going to inform all the writing--the same play is totally different depending on the production. Like in this case, Bannon was saying that the scene played weird because he could see an actor wiping the floor because it was in the script and the director said action. As opposed to, say, Matthew Rhys in the  pilot being told to try on cowboy boots and two step in front of the mirror. That could have also played weird. Or in this ep, when Elizabeth asks Philip how it went in Michigan and he says it went fine, the performance is a big part of how the line comes across.

 

4 minutes ago, wendyg said:

I thought the hockey game Gennadi was watching with such excitement was a hint that after the many, many mentions of Henry's talent/skill for hockey he might be able to survive in Moscow.

He's also really good at math, also a respected skill in Moscow!

That also just made me wonder if Henry might know about that murder. If it's in the news and Henry's really into hockey he might be talking about it. Don't know if they're going there, but if the murders are in the news it actually would be natural for Henry to talk about murders his mother committed without knowing it. Plus Philip and Stan already talked about them so the discussion could be pretty open. (Now I'm imagining a dinner conversation where Paige decides to defend the Soviets in some way if she hears about it.)

[duVerre]

7 hours ago, Dev F said:

I tend not to dwell too much on the acting, despite the fact that most of the actors do brilliant work. This isn't an performance-driven show, where the writing leaves a lot of possibilities open, the cast shoulder much of the responsibility of determining what their characters are thinking and feeling, and the writers take their cues from those acting choices going forward. This is a writing-driven show, where every motivation is carefully laid out in the script, and we're more likely to get at the story's deeper meanings by parsing its dialogue, symbols, and themes than by analyzing the performances.

I get what you’re saying, Dev, but I can’t get with the terms “actor-driven” and “writer-driven.” Maybe I’m being too technical about it. So--full disclosure--I was an actor (stage, tv and commercials) for 15 years. I am also a (bad) playwright, with two scripts produced before I realized I should not be doing that for a living. But in the course of that second career, I had to learn how to write toward the strengths of certain actors, listen to their ideas—and resist them when I thought what they wanted was wrong for the story.

All that said—any script is just a blueprint for something larger—the thing it becomes in performance. The written dialogue and stage directions are, like an iceberg--just the part that shows above the water. But 90% of what is going on in any scene is unspoken—the subtext. It is unseen, and it has more layers than any actor could ever capture. Because of subtext, actors who are doing a scene in which no improv is allowed have just as much freedom, just as much room to maneuver, and just as many choices to make as actors in shows with an improv element. And they affect the show just as deeply. Motives may be laid out in the script--in the stuff you can literally read on a piece of paper--but a tissue of other motives, emotion and confusion still exists underneath. Suggesting all that--the character's inner life--begins with the writer, and then passes to the actor and director. It's done at all those levels, in any kind of show. For instance, I’d say that the problem with HT’s performance is the lack of inner life—we get only the surface, or what actors call "conversational reality"—whereas a better performance lets you sense and intuit what’s underneath the outline on the page. Paige, as written, seems very childlike and not too bright. But imagine if an actor could have played exactly the same material, but hinting at Paige's motives, inner damage, hopes and dreams, hang-ups, emotional needs. That kind of thing always lies, ultimately, with actors, whether they're given pages of lines or just a few. (I often wish that Garner had Taylor's part. She has little to work with, but her Kimmy is a fully realized young woman.)

Actors have a specific kind of influence in something like Freaks and Geeks, where the writing is looser …. Ideas, comic bits and punch lines often come from actors. But the actors wouldn’t be improvising that particular moment and have that particular inspiration if the character and the moment hadn’t been set up by the writer, the director and other actors. Again, the creative aspect is all interdependent.

So it’s just the word “driven” that bothers me, because it implies that there’s a steering wheel involved, and that the person who’s got it is the creative authority of the show. Or at least leading the parade.  

I’m comfortable with “writer-driven” if you’re talking about the greats—Shakespeare, Shaw, Paddy Chafesky, that sort of thing—then the writer is sort of the auteur of it all, so giant that their influence can’t be denied. Certain directors are like that as well; their creative stamp is impossible to miss because their choices are so individual and extreme. Orson Welles, Scorcese.

But usually, I don’t think inspiration and credit are so easily divvied up.

Can an actor’s performance be KEY, as opposed to driving something? I can get behind that statement, because there’s no single key to any work. I saw Frank Langella do Dracula in New York. I saw Gwen Verdon. Etc. etc. Those were key performances. Paramount, really. And yet, would I say that they drove the production? I would say that, if anything, it's the other way around, because everything in the show was intended, written and shaped to show them off; as the stars, they sit atop a careful infrastructure that is unseen by the audience but nonetheless there. 

 I would say that a handful of the actors are key to getting me back to “The Americans” week by week. (M. Rhys, in particular, has a hold on me. I first saw him in "Brothers and Sisters.") But, though the writers have failed in all kinds of ways, they have also delivered, especially where suspense is concerned. Season 5 accepted, you could cut the tension with a knife in my house when I’m watching the show. Together, the actors and writers made me believe six impossible things before breakfast, and I’ll always be grateful for the ways they succeeded. And though their failures are very public, their successes have been, I think, spectacular—and, ahem, as "key" to me as watching as any of the performers.

Anyway, I think the writers and actors need each other, and that they drive things together. They are joined at the hip. And for actors, keeping strictly to the script as written is a discipline--not a limitation.

Thanks for reading the screed!

Edited April 30, 2018 by duVerre
repetition

[Clanstarling]

6 hours ago, Dev F said:

It can't just be something that communicates distress, though, since it's a specific callback -- to the scene in season 2 where Elizabeth wakes Paige up in the middle of the night and forces her to clean out the refrigerator and mop the floor. It's about how she's internalized the message Elizabeth conveyed to her all those years ago:

"Being a grown-up means doing things you don't want to do, all the time. It means working when you are exhausted and almost never getting what you want when you want it. Your father and I never had a childhood. Nothing came easy for us -- ever. You're so lucky, Paige. Mop and bucket are in the basement."

If it played weird, I think it's largely because people didn't recognize the callback -- I certainly didn't, until someone pointed it out on Reddit months later. But that's why I tend not to dwell too much on the acting, despite the fact that most of the actors do brilliant work. This isn't an performance-driven show, where the writing leaves a lot of possibilities open, the cast shoulder much of the responsibility of determining what their characters are thinking and feeling, and the writers take their cues from those acting choices going forward. This is a writing-driven show, where every motivation is carefully laid out in the script, and we're more likely to get at the story's deeper meanings by parsing its dialogue, symbols, and themes than by analyzing the performances.

I had no idea there was a callback, much less that it was specific. Seems way too subtle to expect an audience to remember (though some of you wonderful people are brilliant at remembering the details). Heck, I barely remember the scene.

3 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Mad Men was micromanaged nearly to death by the writing, actors were NOT allowed to improvise, or even bring anything other than Weiner's scripted emotions to a scene, even something like "character looks down, sighs, glances up" was WRITTEN into scenes.  Honestly, I don't know how the actors could stand it.  (All of the above from commentary.) If an actor so much as turned their face away, or touched their jacket, they were scolded and told to do the scene again AS WRITTEN.

On this show however, the writers/showrunners have applauded their actors and the ADDITIONAL stuff they bring, and said numerous times, "I never expected that, but it was amazing" when their actors choose different ways to deliver.

That may be why it took me a while to get into Mad Men. I cannot imagine why Weiner wouldn't want the actors to, you know, act. Having acted (amateur level only), that sounds like a nightmare to me.

I was going to comment on "actor driven" vs "writer driven" but basically @duVerre covered the little I might have said with a much more thoughtful and interesting "screed."

[duVerre]

4 minutes ago, Clanstarling said:

I had no idea there was a callback, much less that it was specific. Seems way too subtle to expect an audience to remember (though some of you wonderful people are brilliant at remembering the details). Heck, I barely remember the scene.

That may be why it took me a while to get into Mad Men. I cannot imagine why Weiner wouldn't want the actors to, you know, act. Having acted (amateur level only), that sounds like a nightmare to me.

I was going to comment on "actor driven" vs "writer driven" but basically @duVerre covered the little I might have said with a much more thoughtful and interesting "screed."

I also didn't recognize the callback. I have loved this show ... and am often a complete idiot about plot points.

I fell into Mad Men because I was a teenager during that era, living right where the characters lived, and was overwhelmed to see something that aligned with my early experience. I think, like The Americans, MM began with some superb initial seasons, and then started to lurch about. I wonder if Matt Weiner would have had more success if he had been looser with the actors and let them contribute more to the vision. Well, there's a tradition of this kind of writer or director. David Mamet, Harold Pinter--George Bernard Shaw! 

That "screed" was an awfully long one--all that writing to wind up at a very simple point, "keeping strictly to the script as written is a discipline--not a limitation." 

[Umbelina]

18 minutes ago, Clanstarling said:

I had no idea there was a callback, much less that it was specific. Seems way too subtle to expect an audience to remember (though some of you wonderful people are brilliant at remembering the details). Heck, I barely remember the scene.

That may be why it took me a while to get into Mad Men. I cannot imagine why Weiner wouldn't want the actors to, you know, act. Having acted (amateur level only), that sounds like a nightmare to me.

I was going to comment on "actor driven" vs "writer driven" but basically @duVerre covered the little I might have said with a much more thoughtful and interesting "screed."

 

8 minutes ago, duVerre said:

I also didn't recognize the callback. I have loved this show ... and am often a complete idiot about plot points.

I fell into Mad Men because I was a teenager during that era, living right where the characters lived, and was overwhelmed to see something that aligned with my early experience. I think, like The Americans, MM began with some superb initial seasons, and then started to lurch about. I wonder if Matt Weiner would have had more success if he had been looser with the actors and let them contribute more to the vision. Well, there's a tradition of this kind of writer or director. David Mamet, Harold Pinter--George Bernard Shaw! 

That "screed" was an awfully long one--all that writing to wind up at a very simple point, "keeping strictly to the script as written is a discipline--not a limitation." 

From what I've read and listened to from the show runners on The American's they absolute LOVE and celebrate every single thing their actors add to a scene, to the point of "I had no idea it could be so good!" 

I'll give you one comment about Weiner on Mad Men.  Robert Morse, who yeah, has probably lost a step or two, but nonetheless is an actor with not only vast experience and several award nominations and wins?  Had to do a scene 40, yes, FORTY times, to get his finger going in the precise arc that Weiner demanded.  It was the scene where he's convincing Roger to start a new firm, talking about dying if you lose your "appetite."  Another actor had to do the twirl of his finger just as Mathew Weiner remembered it being done to him decades earlier.  Jerrod Harris, when some fellow Brits were guest-staring, and all of the Brits tried to get ONE adlib moment or gesture in.  Listening to the commentary is really amazing, both what is said, and what is implied, by all of them.  I think John Hamm, Elizabeth Moss, and John Slattery were eventually given a smidgen more leeway.  The guy who played Harry mentioned that he was afraid he might get fired if he ever tried to "add anything" at all, so he stuck to the script.  People talking about their scripts say how words were underlined, meaning STRESS this word, as well as any and all gestures they had to make, and which word to make them on.  Touch your forehead in the wrong place? 

There is no chance The American showrunners expect the written word to be golden, or tell their cast when to sigh, when to look down, when to blink.  None.  Zip.  They should do it with HT, but I think she's just there to say lines, and they are grateful she can pull that much off.

[Clanstarling]

42 minutes ago, duVerre said:

I also didn't recognize the callback. I have loved this show ... and am often a complete idiot about plot points.

I fell into Mad Men because I was a teenager during that era, living right where the characters lived, and was overwhelmed to see something that aligned with my early experience. I think, like The Americans, MM began with some superb initial seasons, and then started to lurch about. I wonder if Matt Weiner would have had more success if he had been looser with the actors and let them contribute more to the vision. Well, there's a tradition of this kind of writer or director. David Mamet, Harold Pinter--George Bernard Shaw! 

That "screed" was an awfully long one--all that writing to wind up at a very simple point, "keeping strictly to the script as written is a discipline--not a limitation." 

I was Sally's age - so I got into it that way, though my life could not have been more different, being a military brat. Though I swear at least one of Sally's dresses was the same as one I had as a kid.

21 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

There is no chance The American showrunners expect the written word to be golden, or tell their cast when to sigh, when to look down, when to blink.  None.  Zip.  They should do it with HT, but I think she's just there to say lines, and they are grateful she can pull that much off.

I think there's a difference between the writing being golden and micromanaging the blocking down to the arc of a fingerpoint. On the other hand, it is a collaborative effort, and I think actors should be able to argue their case.

One of my most vivid memories of acting in college was when I was doing one of the Greek tragedies (no room for improv in that one, lol). The director told us not to gesture unless we felt the lines and emotions required it. Sounds kind of silly, but there really was a point where it all came together and words and motion were unified. That direction made a big impression on me, and really helped me create the character. So he was kind of the opposite of Weiner.

Edited April 29, 2018 by Clanstarling

[TimWil]

One of the first things a director learns regarding actors is to NEVER give them line readings. And if you really feel the need to do that you’d better find a way to keep the actor from feeling inept or clueless. That’s a tricky thing to navigate when dealing with insecure actors.

 

Oh...Holly Taylor. By all accounts she’s a lovely young lady. Yes, she was very well cast in the role initially. But as time went on I got the sinking feeling that she simply didn’t have the chops and maybe even the life experience to satisfyingly pull off this particular role as it was being developed. By the third season all I saw week after week was this ballerina girl with the tight bun in her hair, in her own cut-off little world as ballerina girls tend to be in (and I know from them, I worked on the crew of the film Black Swan). Taylor was also, apparently, a child ballerina. It makes sense. But this has meant  there has been a zero sense of danger and complexity contained in her portrayal all this time  and that’s not been good for this show at all. It’s sweet that the showrunner and writers think so highly of her but I wonder what they really think. I think they actually secretly view this as a missed opportunity. I think they should have minimized Paige’s participation in the storyline as of Season 4 and in fact either have written her out or killed her off. Or even have her not be in Season 4 and then have a recast Paige reappear in Season 5. Yes, I know, this sounds like something only soaps do but it might have been something necessary. This all sounds harsh, I know, but making a truthful piece of art is a tough thing, much tougher than most people can begin to imagine.

Edited April 30, 2018 by TimWil

[duVerre]

40 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

 

From what I've read and listened to from the show runners on The American's they absolute LOVE and celebrate every single thing their actors add to a scene, to the point of "I had no idea it could be so good!" 

I'll give you one comment about Weiner on Mad Men.  Robert Morse, who yeah, has probably lost a step or two, but nonetheless is an actor with not only vast experience and several award nominations and wins?  Had to do a scene 40, yes, FORTY times, to get his finger going in the precise arc that Weiner demanded.  It was the scene where he's convincing Roger to start a new firm, talking about dying if you lose your "appetite."  Another actor had to do the twirl of his finger just as Mathew Weiner remembered it being done to him decades earlier.  Jerrod Harris, when some fellow Brits were guest-staring, and all of the Brits tried to get ONE adlib moment or gesture in.  Listening to the commentary is really amazing, both what is said, and what is implied, by all of them.  I think John Hamm, Elizabeth Moss, and John Slattery were eventually given a smidgen more leeway.  The guy who played Harry mentioned that he was afraid he might get fired if he ever tried to "add anything" at all, so he stuck to the script.  People talking about their scripts say how words were underlined, meaning STRESS this word, as well as any and all gestures they had to make, and which word to make them on.  Touch your forehead in the wrong place? 

There is no chance The American showrunners expect the written word to be golden, or tell their cast when to sigh, when to look down, when to blink.  None.  Zip.  They should do it with HT, but I think she's just there to say lines, and they are grateful she can pull that much off.

This directing style of being the Godhead, the one who always knows best, is just destructive, and I imagine that when you have directors who double as writers, it is sort of intolerable. To believe that you, and only you, know the nature of a scene ... well, it's ludicrous on its face. And yet, some directors carry on that way. I read a quote from Mary Pickford the other day in which she critiqued D.W. Griffith on that basis, saying that he directed every move of her hand, and that she felt like a puppet ... in 1909!  In my experience it is no fun at all to be controlled that way, and I never worked for that kind of director for months on end.

I have always been impressed by how much laughter there is on the set of The Americans. That's a healthy, healthy workplace, and probably a really creative one (aside from the need to blow off steam). 

An actor should keep improvisation in rehearsal, though. A scene should be "set" before the cameras roll--because film is money--and, with the unions, so is time.  

[Ellaria]

1 hour ago, duVerre said:

Suggesting all that--the character's inner life--begins with the writer, and then passes to the actor and director. It's done at all those levels, in any kind of show. For instance, I’d say that the problem with HT’s performance is the lack of inner life—we get only the surface, or what actors call "conversational reality"—whereas a better performance lets you sense and intuit what’s underneath the outline on the page. Paige, as written, seems very childlike and not too bright. But imagine if an actor could have played exactly the same material, but hinting at Paige's motives, inner damage, hopes and dreams, hang-ups, emotional needs. That kind of thing always lies, ultimately, with actors, whether they're given pages of lines or just a few. (I often wish that Garner had Taylor's part. She has little to work with, but her Kimmy is a fully realized young woman.)

Thanks for your entire thoughtful post @duVerre. A great read!

Completely agree with your assessment of HT's performance of Paige. It is one-dimensional. We have no sense of what lies beneath the surface. And that is so unlike the other actors on this show.

It is interesting to think what Julia Garner could have done with the role.

14 minutes ago, TimWil said:

This sounds harsh, I know, but making a truthful piece of art is a tough thing, much tougher than most people can begin to imagine.

Brilliant! And that is what any writer, show runner, etc should be dedicated to.

Edited April 30, 2018 by Ellaria Sand

[FormerMod-a1]

Please take discussion that is only about acting vs writing vs direction in general (i.e. not related to the episode) to the Small Talk thread.  

Keep talk here about the actual episode.

[Anela]

I would like to see more of Henry. I said in another thread, that Paige should have been the one to go away to school, after she found out about her parents. I wonder if Elizabeth has any contact with him at all, or if Paige does (if they do, we haven't seen it). 

[Pink-n-Green]

On 4/26/2018 at 12:37 PM, DoubleUTeeEff said:

I thought the scene with Claudia, Elizabeth and Paige was fine. Margo Martindale can do no wrong in my eyes, though. They do make Paige seem more naive than she has any right to be, it's kind of an over the top portrayal of what they are going for, I think.

I'll tell you one thing:  if my mother casually mentioned that she used to eat rats, I might have asked a question about it.  Maybe even two!  

[Umbelina]

12 minutes ago, Pink-n-Green said:

I'll tell you one thing:  if my mother casually mentioned that she used to eat rats, I might have asked a question about it.  Maybe even two!  

People were carving up live horses for their meat, or other people...Elizabeth probably thought rats were an easier, milder sale.  All pets disappeared first...

Paige's obliviousness in that scene was disturbing, not even a bit of sympathy that Claudia lost nearly all of her family?  Not even a question, or an "I'm sorry?"  Giggling when she told Paige that she had sex for food?

Good God, nice job raising an empathetic kid there Elizabeth. 

Edited April 30, 2018 by Umbelina

[Clanstarling]

8 hours ago, Pink-n-Green said:

I'll tell you one thing:  if my mother casually mentioned that she used to eat rats, I might have asked a question about it.  Maybe even two!  

My mother wasn't Russian, (she was an Austrian national and daughter of a political dissident) - but she was bombed out three times, worked on body retrieval crews (in her early teens). I know most of this (and more) because I asked.

8 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Good God, nice job raising an empathetic kid there Elizabeth. 

Can't raise your kid to be something you're not - and don't have any respect for.

[Erin9]

Paige has generally been pretty empathetic, I think. I don’t remember her being extremely harsh and unfeeling. 

She doesn’t relate to what they’re talking about. And, sometimes people respond inappropriately when they’re shocked or don’t know how to respond. Or aren’t sober. I’m not sure what they’re going for beyond this is way outside of Paige’s life experience. I didn’t find the scenes interesting enough to watch twice, unlike everything Philip.

But I don’t think she’s supposed to be seen as harsh. Just.....out of it. She didn’t grow up like that. No matter how she responded, it’s not something she can truly understand. She’s not Russian. For all the lessons she’s had. 

Though she may well get some understanding of loss before this is over. 

[Milburn Stone]

22 hours ago, Dev F said:

This is a writing-driven show, where every motivation is carefully laid out in the script, and we're more likely to get at the story's deeper meanings by parsing its dialogue, symbols, and themes than by analyzing the performances.

Totally agree, which is why I find Holly Taylor "adequate," which for any actor should be the highest praise! (It means you're doing your job.) I think your observation applies to most drama. David Mamet has said and written something on a number of occasions that I find insightful; it pertains to his job as a director, when an actor asks him, "What should I be doing here?" His answer is, "You should be doing nothing, other than to say the words I wrote. I already did the work."

[sistermagpie]

11 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Paige's obliviousness in that scene was disturbing, not even a bit of sympathy that Claudia lost nearly all of her family?  Not even a question, or an "I'm sorry?"  Giggling when she told Paige that she had sex for food?

 

She made a great big sad face when Claudia said she lost her family, tbf. 

 

1 hour ago, Erin9 said:

But I don’t think she’s supposed to be seen as harsh. Just.....out of it. She didn’t grow up like that. No matter how she responded, it’s not something she can truly understand. She’s not Russian. For all the lessons she’s had. 

 

Yeah, I agree. When Claudia told her about losing her family she understood that Claudia had told her something sad and reacted basically appropriately--though I don't think it was that real to her either. But later when Claudia and Elizabeth are talking about the old times, the two of them are laughing over it too because you can do that when you've lived through it. I think that part, for Paige, was too removed from her experience to relate to it at all. She might as well have been listening to her hippie parents talking about having sex in the mud at Woodstock. She thinks she's one of them, also, after all. 

Elizabeth and Claudia do seem to talk about that time in their life as if it's what makes them awesome and Paige has never seemed to have enough sophistication to see everything going on underneath there. Philip, from the little we've seen, seems to have the opposite approach. His memories of poverty make him look at what he has now and be amazed and maybe also thankful. 

[wendyg]

I think I'd like to withhold judgement about HT until we see where the show is finally going. But I will say, since someone mentioned MAD MEN, that that show really lucked out with Kiernan Shipka. They cast her when she was five and had no way of knowing she would be able to hold her own in scenes with Jon Hamm when she was 16. I don't *think* I get that same kind of complexity from Holly Taylor, but I don't think giggling was necessarily a wrong reaction - as others have said, it's not uncommon to react inappropriately when confronted with something so far outside your own experience. That said, I thought Jamie-Lynn Sigler did a great job as Meadow Soprano, which was a similar role of a middle-class/wealthy kid with...let's call them problem parents, and there were plenty of people complaining she couldn't act too.

[Umbelina]

I disagree.

Having empathy and sensitivity isn't something that only comes with age.  I've seen very young children react more appropriately to things much less devastating than what Claudia went through when she was about Paige's age.   However, the writers probably did script that giggle from Paige, so I think they are just telling us this season that she's an uncaring, self-centered, nincompoop who not only can't be competent as a spy, but really isn't a very nice person at all.

I do think Elizabeth has empathy, for her, she pushes it aside when it comes to her job.  She sees herself as a soldier, and like any other soldier, must kill people, and sometimes those people are innocent of crimes.  Instead of sending drones to bomb weddings, or launching missiles into schools or churches, she's more like a jungle fighter in Vietnam, it's up close and personal with her.

She hated killing that woman in the Mail Robot factory, she was devastated over ruining Young Hee's life, she was torn up to have to let Larrick kill Lucia, and she's also had empathy with Gabe and with Philip.  She's a loyal citizen to her country.

[grommit2]

Gadzooks...the writers have found an interesting formula:  Have Elizabeth kill someone at the end of every episode.
 

[Bannon]

45 minutes ago, grommit2 said:

Gadzooks...the writers have found an interesting formula:  Have Elizabeth kill someone at the end of every episode.
 

Now, now, the previous episode had her slaughtering schlubs towards the beginning of the episode! Tremendous variety in plot development! 

4 hours ago, wendyg said:

I think I'd like to withhold judgement about HT until we see where the show is finally going. But I will say, since someone mentioned MAD MEN, that that show really lucked out with Kiernan Shipka. They cast her when she was five and had no way of knowing she would be able to hold her own in scenes with Jon Hamm when she was 16. I don't *think* I get that same kind of complexity from Holly Taylor, but I don't think giggling was necessarily a wrong reaction - as others have said, it's not uncommon to react inappropriately when confronted with something so far outside your own experience. That said, I thought Jamie-Lynn Sigler did a great job as Meadow Soprano, which was a similar role of a middle-class/wealthy kid with...let's call them problem parents, and there were plenty of people complaining she couldn't act too.

The writing was so far superior for the Soprano adolescents, compared to the Jennings,  that it puts the two shows on entirely different planes.

[White Sheep]

That olive oil coating the stomach. Does not work at all. Plus who can drink a shot glass of olive oil all at once.  

[dubbel zout]

16 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Paige's obliviousness in that scene was disturbing, not even a bit of sympathy that Claudia lost nearly all of her family?  Not even a question, or an "I'm sorry?"  Giggling when she told Paige that she had sex for food?

I think this is unfair to Paige. It's not as if she burst out laughing with a hearty guffaw. It was more like a nervous laugh, IMO, because she didn't know how to react. Claudia's situation was entirely outside any frame of reference Paige might have.

[Umbelina]

3 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

I think this is unfair to Paige. It's not as if she burst out laughing with a hearty guffaw. It was more like a nervous laugh, IMO, because she didn't know how to react. Claudia's situation was entirely outside any frame of reference Paige might have.

I grew up listening to tales of loss in WWII, and that was mostly about friends and fellow sailors or soldiers of the speaker, not their entire family.  I'm positive I showed more caring at the age of 6 than Paige, an adult now, managed.

Yes, it was out of her frame of reference to eat rats, because apparently Paige doesn't read, except for school and about sexing it up as a spy.  Oh please, she's a college student, she's never heard of that?  Aside from that, her own mother has told her a few things about hunger, starvation and the war in the past, you'd think that would spark enough interest to, I don't know, cause Paige to read something about what it was like for her mother and father growing up.

Still, it was obviously scripted, or at least left in by the director.  I think it's supposed to be meaningful about, if nothing else, Paige's immaturity.  The best excuse would be that Paige was drunk.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Umbelina

[SusanSunflower]

(I'm afraid it speaks volumes about P&E's parenting (very shallow) although in light of Pastor Tim and Paige's "donation" ... I think it was a pretty serious "flub" to have left that in.  This is older Paige, knowing about "civil rights movement" Gregory and through Pastor Tim about poverty (and possibly Central American refugees/displaced) ... There is no way, 3 years into "dedicating herself to the cause" she should be so clueless and so incurious ... What does she know or care about Phillp's side of the equation?  If P&E have any personal dedication to the oppressed they have not communicated "who" those people are or where they might be found.  The hardships of the revolution and WWII were considered "worth it" in part because what came before and the alternative (German victory) were -- for the Russian citizens -- too horrible to allow.  It was dire.  It took amazing strength and endurance to both fight the Nazis but also deal with those who failed to keep their promises of aid  and in some cases were subverting the Revolution.  

(ETA:  Realized, the hit recording "we are the world" was released in 1985 .... it should have made an enormous impression on Paige)

Edited April 30, 2018 by SusanSunflower

[Erin9]

40 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

I grew up listening to tales of loss in WWII, and that was mostly about friends and fellow sailors or soldiers of the speaker, not their entire family.  I'm positive I showed more caring at the age of 6 that Paige, an adult now, managed.

Yes, it was out of her frame of reference to eat rats, because apparently Paige doesn't read, except for school and about sexing it up as a spy.  Oh please, she's a college student, she's never heard of that?  Aside from that, her own mother has told her a few things about hunger, starvation and the war in the past, you'd think that would spark enough interest to, I don't know, cause Paige to read something about what it was like for her mother and father growing up.

Still, it was obviously scripted, or at least left in by the director.  I think it's supposed to be meaningful about, if nothing else, Paige's immaturity.  The best excuse would be that Paige was drunk.

I think there’s a big difference between reading about something and hearing the story from someone you know about themselves.

I totally buy just not knowing how to react, feeling uncomfortable. It’s not about caring or not caring. There are no adequate words for a tragedy. Especially one you’ve had no personal experience with where there’s at least a shared understanding.

People often say nothing- or just avoid people-because they just can’t find the words. Or they try too hard and say something thoughtless. Or they say very little because they just don’t know how to even try to put something so terrible into comforting words, but want to say something.  (My mother can attest to all the “wrong” responses she got when her sister died suddenly at age 10. From adults.) So,  I can see that. Especially having no frame of reference for that kind of tragedy. Happens all the time. 

And- when Claudia and Elizabeth were telling their stories while drinking, they made light of it themselves IIRC. Any response she had during that part of the discussion would have been driven by their own behavior, alcohol, and her lack of knowledge on how to respond particularly given the tone they were taking. I thought her nervous laugh was noteworthy and not fitting, but everything about that conversation was kind of bizarre. She didn’t know how to respond to Claudia. 

I wondered what on earth Claudia and Elizabeth were thinking taking that tone with Paige. She wouldn’t get their ability to make light of things that are obviously not funny or why they might choose to tell it that way. I found the whole scene rather bizarre myself. Never having lived a life like either of them, not sure I’d had a clue how to handle what they said and how they said it. I think if they’d been totally serious, her response would have been different.

I know Paige is pretty disliked around here, and I’ve been critical of a lot of her behavior this season.  (And Elizabeth’s) But, I don’t think she’s uncaring at all. Arrogant, a know it all, wanting to be like her mom and bond, sure. 

[GingerMarie]

Going back to Philip's call to Kimmy.  I almost get the impression he is betting on Kimmy to tell her Dad about Jim and what he said during the call.  Maybe this is in hopes that he can either turn himself in to the FBI and they give protection to Henry and Paige or wanting to get protection for his entire family  Just a thought.  I have never gotten the feeling that Philip does much without having a plan.  While he has let his emotions get the best of him at times I don't think he called Kimmy because of emotion.  I think he is planning to use the FBI to his advantage.  

[Erin9]

10 minutes ago, GingerMarie said:

Going back to Philip's call to Kimmy.  I almost get the impression he is betting on Kimmy to tell her Dad about Jim and what he said during the call.  Maybe this is in hopes that he can either turn himself in to the FBI and they give protection to Henry and Paige or wanting to get protection for his entire family  Just a thought.  I have never gotten the feeling that Philip does much without having a plan.  While he has let his emotions get the best of him at times I don't think he called Kimmy because of emotion.  I think he is planning to use the FBI to his advantage.  

I think he wanted to be clear with Kimmie- so that he knew he’d done everything he could to protect her in that moment. And if she told her father, so be it. Plus, the plan was bad. Torpedoing it thoroughly fits his own goals. 

If Philip wants to talk to the FBI, he can go home and stun Stan. But I don’t see him trying to defect at this point. I think he wants to help Oleg help their country and world relations.  He liked what Oleg had to say. Whatever he does, imo, is a way of reaching that goal. And helping who he can along the way in what manner he thinks is right. Included in that has been some of his most direct conversations to date with Paige and Elizabeth. 

Edited April 30, 2018 by Erin9

[GingerMarie]

He could go to Stan but maybe that hits to close to home.  I am not sure if defecting is what he has in mind but more of getting the FBI to protect Henry and Paige.  He probably realizes he and Elizabeth are done.  The KGB will get them or the FBI.  But his kids maybe just maybe he can cut a deal for them....PEACE

[Pink-n-Green]

20 hours ago, Umbelina said:

People were carving up live horses for their meat, or other people...Elizabeth probably thought rats were an easier, milder sale.  All pets disappeared first...

Paige's obliviousness in that scene was disturbing, not even a bit of sympathy that Claudia lost nearly all of her family?  Not even a question, or an "I'm sorry?"  Giggling when she told Paige that she had sex for food?

Good God, nice job raising an empathetic kid there Elizabeth. 

Perhaps (although, you know Elizabeth; she doesn't tend to sugarcoat things!), but just the fact that she was telling Paige she had been starving and was forced to do something that  would be nearly inconceivable to an American teenager... and Paige had no reaction at all!  Reminded me of a couple of episodes ago when they were making zharkoye (I think?) and Paige asked her mom if she ever got tired of eating that.  She's just not getting it.

[sistermagpie]

3 hours ago, Erin9 said:

I wondered what on earth Claudia and Elizabeth were thinking taking that tone with Paige. She wouldn’t get their ability to make light of things that are obviously not funny or why they might choose to tell it that way. I found the whole scene rather bizarre myself. Never having lived a life like either of them, not sure I’d had a clue how to handle what they said and how they said it been totally serious, her response would have been different.

Yeah, I think they weren't really thinking of Paige. They were talking to each other, enjoying talking about the old country and the stuff they experienced that these soft Americans don't. They like having Paige there as an admiring audience. On her side she's just trying to be one of them. Of course she can't joke along with them about...well, anything. But she can laugh along with them and say obvious things like, "You did NOT do that!" It wouldn't actually be socially correct for her be serious about it if they weren't (though she could ask Elizabeth about it more seriously later). I think if I was there I probably would have made a joke about how my life *wasn't* like that, but Paige isn't the type to do something like share a story about a phase she went through as a kid where she would only eat white food for contrast. She's just going along as best she can.

The real question for me is why they were both so determined to have this fun afternoon without any discussion about the things that apply to Paige and are problems. (It seems like this lesson is their response to the bar fight so Elizabeth must have said something about it--or maybe she just decided this should be taught now without telling Claudia why.) Like her turning her life into a playground for spy lessons. It's not even really clear exactly what she's supposed to have learned about WWII in the first lesson. Claudia reels off her family losses and says America takes all the credit but I guess she didn't get into the hardship if Paige can still be disbelieving even as a joke about food for sex.

A deeper meaning might also be the fact that Claudia and Elizabeth are made so happy by talk of the war and hardship. They're dragging Paige willingly into the past at a time when the country is in a very different place and Elizabeth, at least, should know this since she's part of a coup now. Philip admits that home is just a memory for him now, that he can't really feel connected to the modern place even if he'd like to help them on principle. Elizabeth was impatient with Aleksei when he talked about standing on line for food for hours, comparing it to this time when they were starving. But Aleksei was actually giving very valid criticism of the distribution system. It's silly to accept that in honor of the people who starved to death in the siege of Leningrad. It's a problem facing the country now that Paige knows nothing about.

1 hour ago, GingerMarie said:

He could go to Stan but maybe that hits to close to home.  I am not sure if defecting is what he has in mind but more of getting the FBI to protect Henry and Paige.  He probably realizes he and Elizabeth are done.  The KGB will get them or the FBI.  But his kids maybe just maybe he can cut a deal for them....PEACE

Going to the FBI is close to home no matter how he does it. The main difference doing it this way would be that he'd have no control over it the way he would with Stan. But if he's caught Stan knows about it either way. If his goal was to get protection for Paige and Henry he'd go to Stan, of course. Stan's the person who'd want to protect them. Philip isn't really in a headspace now imo where he's doing things in a circuitous way, like sabotaging himself without admitting he's doing it.

Philip imo wouldn't want to go to the FBI anyway since he's helping Oleg now. He's trying to protect Elizabeth from being used by the coup and the peace talks from being sabotaged. Neither of those things are helped by giving Kimmy information that might or might not be bringing him or Elizabeth down.

1 hour ago, Pink-n-Green said:

Perhaps (although, you know Elizabeth; she doesn't tend to sugarcoat things!), but just the fact that she was telling Paige she had been starving and was forced to do something that  would be nearly inconceivable to an American teenager... and Paige had no reaction at all!  Reminded me of a couple of episodes ago when they were making zharkoye (I think?) and Paige asked her mom if she ever got tired of eating that.  She's just not getting it.

I think on some level she and Claudia like the fact that she isn't getting it. Because of course she can't really understand it--if she's giving an honest reaction as a middle class America teenager that's exactly the thing that would come to mind being told that someone ate the same thing for weeks. Elizabeth tells Philip that Paige really gets stuff as if these lessons are some magical bond or something but I think she also gets satisfaction out of talking about this stuff with Claudia and just impressing her with it. With Paige--unlike with Philip or Claudia's daughter or whoever--they control the entire narrative.

Talking about Russia this way is something she never did with Philip. First I guess they just couldn't because it's only at Claudia's where they literally have permission to tell Paige about Russia. But also Philip might not have the same attitude about it.

Edited May 1, 2018 by sistermagpie

[GingerMarie]

14 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

 

14 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Going to the FBI is close to home no matter how he does it. The main difference doing it this way would be that he'd have no control over it the way he would with Stan. But if he's caught Stan knows about it either way. If his goal was to get protection for Paige and Henry he'd go to Stan, of course. Stan's the person who'd want to protect them. Philip isn't really in a headspace now imo where he's doing things in a circuitous way, like sabotaging himself without admitting he's doing it.

Philip imo wouldn't want to go to the FBI anyway since he's helping Oleg now. He's trying to protect Elizabeth from being used by the coup and the peace talks from being sabotaged. Neither of those things are helped by giving Kimmy information that might or might not be bringing him or Elizabeth down.

 

SISTERMAGPIE.  My point in Philip not turning himself in to Stan because 'being close to him' is that they have lived by each other for 6 years.  Have been friends for 6 years.  In that Stan may be so pissed off, mad, hurt or feels stupid because he failed to see what was right in front of him for years.  He could just kill Philip outright, this would not help Henry and Paige and Philips goal to protect his children.  And when you think about it Stan may not be the best person to help Philip out.  The FBI surely has questions as to why Stan, the great FBI agent, who has many incidents in his records, did not see what was right in front of his face for years.  They may feel Stan is  part of it.  Why would Philip want to get caught up in this when his main purpose is getting Henry and Paige out.  I am probably way off but after watching the epiode again I saw Philip and he looked like he had made his mind up and not just about Kimmy but about the entire program he believed in all these years.  He is DONE.  Securing a future for the kids is his priority.  PEACE

[Pink-n-Green]

Know another thing I would have thought Paige would react to?  When Elizabeth was telling about her "first time that wasn't really" her first time she mentioned being in the apartment "with all the other families".  Paige - wasn't that even slightly interesting to you???

 

Does anyone else think that the comment Paige about "not being like" him precipitated the beat down Phillip gave her?  I feel like she was practically calling her dad a pu$$y!

[sistermagpie]

13 hours ago, GingerMarie said:

I am probably way off but after watching the epiode again I saw Philip and he looked like he had made his mind up and not just about Kimmy but about the entire program he believed in all these years.  He is DONE.  Securing a future for the kids is his priority.

I agree he looked like he'd made up his mind about the program, but I think his decision was  to not accept Elizabeth's reassurances that Kimmy wouldn't be hurt (after what he heard about Ilya). That decision first led him to refuse to meet Kimmy in Greece and take her to Bulgaria. Then he during the calll he felt like that wasn't enough so he went a step further by just telling her flat out that if somebody else tried to get her to Bulgaria she should refuse--iow, that he had knowledge that somebody might try to trick her there for nefarious purposes. There's nothing that he did that would logically lead to the kids being more or less likely to get FBI protection whether or not Kimmy told her father about it.

13 hours ago, Pink-n-Green said:

Know another thing I would have thought Paige would react to?  When Elizabeth was telling about her "first time that wasn't really" her first time she mentioned being in the apartment "with all the other families".  Paige - wasn't that even slightly interesting to you???

Elizabeth had mentioned the communal apartment before so we should probably assume Elizabeth explained that enough to her that it wasn't.

13 hours ago, Pink-n-Green said:

Does anyone else think that the comment Paige about "not being like" him precipitated the beat down Phillip gave her?  I feel like she was practically calling her dad a pu$$y!

Also he had just started off by telling her that he was like her because he remembered how it felt to first be able to do that. So she was rejecting whatever he was going to say before he even said it because he just wasn't into what she and Elizabeth "do."

The more I think about it the more I wonder what the writers were going for there. That is, is Paige wary of Philip because she can see that Elizabeth sees his perspective as threatening, which we saw in the kitchen? Does she have the impression that anything that Philip says is just a cover for trying to tell her she shouldn't do this? Saying she wasn't like him really was a weird thing to say and it wasn't an innocent weird thing either. Like it wasn't like after she had her baptism and he was trying to say he admired her for being herself (little did he know how little that was true) and she didn't seem to understand it and thought he was telling her not to do drugs. This was like she already had some idea in her head of who Philip was and what he was about and this was her rather arrogant and condescending preemptive argument against it. (I got nothing from the line reading about exactly what she meant--it was just that thing she does where she talks as if she's not sure about exactly what she means herself.)

Edited May 1, 2018 by sistermagpie

[Clanstarling]

9 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

The more I think about it the more I wonder what the writers were going for there. That is, is Paige wary of Philip because she can see that Elizabeth sees his perspective as threatening, which we saw in the kitchen? Does she have the impression that anything that Philip says is just a cover for trying to tell her she shouldn't do this? Saying she wasn't like him really was a weird thing to say and it wasn't an innocent weird thing either. Like it wasn't like after she had her baptism and he was trying to say he admired her for being herself (little did he know how little that was true) and she didn't seem to understand it and thought he was telling her not to do drugs. This was like she already had some idea in her head of who Philip was and what he was about and this was her rather arrogant and condescending preemptive argument against it. (I got nothing from the line reading about exactly what she meant--it was just that thing she does where she talks as if she's not sure about exactly what she means herself.)

I think she does have some idea of who she thinks Philip is. I think Paige, somewhat justifiably by her experience growing up, sees Philip as the "soft" parent. He's always been the one who related to her on an emotional level. Elizabeth didn't deal much with emotion and I think Paige would see her as the strong parent. Of course, we know she has no clue who Philip really is. When there's such a disparity in a family dynamic, the tendency is to want to be more like the stronger parent, because you see the softer parent as weak. And no one wants to be weak. So I think, even as a younger girl, Paige had some incipient contempt for Philip, seeing him as weak, even though she loves him.

Now that he's out of the spy game, and Paige sees herself at her mother's level, she's absorbed Elizabeth's attitude about Philip and her incipient contempt has turned into actual contempt, when it comes to the spy game and I think she sees him as some has been who never (in her mind) was much of anything when it came to spying. Because she's been sheltered - by both parents earlier, and especially from Elizabeth now, though Philip is complicit - from the harsher realities of what they do, she has never really thought of Philip as a spy on the same level as Elizabeth. She's who Paige respects - even as she blows off most of what Elizabeth says and only hears the praise.