S06.E08: The Summit

[Clanstarling]

Just now, magemaud said:

I don't recall Claudia doing anything besides handling agents and wasn't she gone the second (or third) season when Gabriel took over? I'm also curious what she does all day in that apartment. Gabriel's apartment was depressing enough, but hers is just bleak. Or am confusing one or both with bare bones safe houses? Asides from talking occasional walks in the park, how does she fill the time between Elizabeth and now Paige's visits? 

She was - she returned to the Soviet Union to "reconnect" with her kids, or something like that. They didn't care for her, apparently. And I expect her apartment (which you're right, not sure which one is "hers" or the safe house) is a big step up from what she was allocated there.

[magemaud]

1 hour ago, Scout Finch said:

This is the first episode I can ever recall where I was unable to look away at ALL.

I confess I had to look away during the paintbrush down the throat scene and I still don't understand why a pillow over Erica's face wouldn't have done the job more efficiently. I get that Elizabeth wanted it to appear that she had choked on her own vomit, but then she cleaned her up. 

[Scout Finch]

Okay, I DID look away from part of that!

[Pink-n-Green]

4 minutes ago, Scout Finch said:

Okay, I DID look away from part of that!

How did you do with the scene with Marilyn, Phillip and the ax last week?  I had to rewind three times before I could get through the whole thing without my hands over my eyes.

[TaurusRose]

On 5/17/2018 at 2:27 PM, anonymiss said:

None of the characterizations I take issue with acknowledge she was robotically following orders. They essentialize her work as who she is--a monster, a sociopath, a hateful shrew who enjoys this. Years ago, after Elizabeth's mission with the lady who was an addict went bad, and she ended up killing her to stop her from going to the police, there was a comment about how Elizabeth enjoys this and was getting antsy not having murdered in a while like the sociopath she is. It was agreed with and one of many that paint her that way. So I don't see the cheering. I see a vilification, which, for the reasons I've mentioned previously, is a double standard. 

I’ve never cared for Elizabeth because she never, ever appeared even remotely sympathetic to me. Her hatred of the U.S. and all things American always felt fanatical. Her gender has nothing to do with it. She has done monstrous things with little regret or regard for the people she’s crushed to meet her objectives. The few times when she allowed her mask to slip didn’t change my opinion of her because she never tried to explore her feelings or operate differently afterwards. Whenever she’s met with resistance by Phillip she gets cold and nasty. So, I stand by my opinion of her as a hateful shrew in those instances because she’s always been like that.  Yes, Phillip is also a killer and has ruined people as well, the difference is Phillip‘s deeds took a toll on him and eat at his soul. Elizabeth acts as if she doesn’t have a soul and views this as a terrible flaw.  She’s always been the good little operative never questioning any order she was given or thinking for herself. Elizabeth is an extremist and I wouldn’t like her any better if she were a man. The Jennings are not the heroes of the story in my opinion, I want to see both of them go down for what they’ve done, but of the two, Elizabeth’s personality is more distasteful to me.

[Scout Finch]

55 minutes ago, Pink-n-Green said:

How did you do with the scene with Marilyn, Phillip and the ax last week?  I had to rewind three times before I could get through the whole thing without my hands over my eyes.

Nope, didn't watch any of that!

[Cardie]

I was on vacation last week and could not bear to remain in the dark about what happened in this episode, so I read several review/recaps and figured I had ruined it for myself. But it was still absolutely mesmerizing. I perhaps would have wished to assume Elizabeth would kill Jackson and had surprise/relief when she didn't, but it was nice not to have my stomach in knots during that scene.

Since I have so severe a gag reflex that doctors cannot use tongue depressers on me, I was grateful to have a warning to look away from the paintbrush down the throat sequence.

Totally agree that Philip was buying his funeral suit. I loved the meta-ness of Curtis praising Elizabeth's hair, as that's such a big part of Keri Russell's star image.

[Umbelina]

By the way, in an interview the writers said something about the suit Philip was buying.

They said he was just doing what capitalists do when they feel down, go buy something expensive to make them feel better.

[sistermagpie]

21 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

By the way, in an interview the writers said something about the suit Philip was buying.

They said he was just doing what capitalists do when they feel down, go buy something expensive to make them feel better.

I saw that but...it's dumb. :-) There's a reason so many people spontaneously and individually got the same thing out of it (and nobody got this out of it that I've seen).

Besides the widespread shared interpretation, what they're saying just doesn't work. "Capitalists" do not go out and buy something expensive to make themselves feel better. Some do, some don't. If you want to show a character doing retail therapy they need to either have a known habit of doing that so we get it or it needs to be explicitly made clear.  Showing a guy buying a suit while looking miserable is not going to read as that. Especially when the scene's surrounded by the guy trying to talk to people he cares about and renting a Russian movie in a huge breach of protocol. Not to mention the guy's still got a wife with a far bigger designer wardrobe than he has

It would be like if they had Philip go to a diner and buy a sundae and expected us to get that he's stress eating because that's something Americans do.

They should have kept their mouths shut and taken credit for what people got out of it!

[Umbelina]

Could be, but Philip is kind of into buying things.  He loved that fast car he bought WAY back when Henry was shorter than him, and he has a car phone, and fast new car, complete with removable tape deck, as well as new clothes, the newest computers, and redecorated the office.

It could be misdirection and be a funeral suit, but I hardly think Philip would care what he's buried in.

[sistermagpie]

6 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Could be, but Philip is kind of into buying things.  He loved that fast car he bought WAY back when Henry was shorter than him, and he has a car phone, and fast new car, complete with removable tape deck, as well as new clothes, the newest computers, and redecorated the office.

One car that he bought when he was happy years earlier and stuff he has now 3 years later with his expanded business really doesn't imply compulsive unhappy shopping, though.

9 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

It could be misdirection and be a funeral suit, but I hardly think Philip would care what he's buried in.

Him buying it wouldn't mean he cared what he was buried in. It would just be a way of taking control of it, even unconsciously. There's dignity in doing it.

I don't think it's misdirection and they're lying, I just think they accidentally wrote something that people saw as meaningful when they actually just ran out of good ideas to keep Philip onscreen until he was needed at the end. Nobody got their joke.

[Clanstarling]

17 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

One car that he bought when he was happy years earlier and stuff he has now 3 years later with his expanded business really doesn't imply compulsive unhappy shopping, though.

Him buying it wouldn't mean he cared what he was buried in. It would just be a way of taking control of it, even unconsciously. There's dignity in doing it.

I don't think it's misdirection and they're lying, I just think they accidentally wrote something that people saw as meaningful when they actually just ran out of good ideas to keep Philip onscreen until he was needed at the end. Nobody got their joke.

As a lit major I came to the conclusion that a lot of what we interpret as meaning was unintended by the creators - sometimes because of overthinking, and sometimes because the creators weren't aware of their own influences and revealed something they didn't know. So while the writers may have intended a joke, nothing about what came across on screen was even close to humor or irony. Instead of not getting their joke, maybe we saw something that was more related in theme to the excellent work they've been creating.

This is better, though, than the Sherlock creators who told their unhappy audience, who hated the final episode (I think it was the final one) that they were just too stupid to understand.

[Umbelina]

I don't think in any way, the writers intended it to be a joke.

[sistermagpie]

9 minutes ago, Clanstarling said:

As a lit major I came to the conclusion that a lot of what we interpret as meaning was unintended by the creators - sometimes because of overthinking, and sometimes because the creators weren't aware of their own influences and revealed something they didn't know. So while the writers may have intended a joke, nothing about what came across on screen was even close to humor or irony. Instead of not getting their joke, maybe we saw something that was more related in theme to the excellent work they've been creating.

Exactly. Plus it might have seemed different on the page than it came across in the episode after editing or whatever. Not to mention there's a performance there. Though I don't think it's just MR's face that makes you think of funerals.

I really do think they more wrote something like what the audience saw than what they intended just because of the other stuff going on around it. I mean, sometimes a writer might explain themselves and I appreciate it because then I can see it and it brings something to the work that was missing. Sometimes I'm not going to see any reason to try to make myself see it. (There are people who desperately try to see some things that JK Rowling says in interviews in the text that obviously aren't there.)

5 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

I don't think in any way, the writers intended it to be a joke.

I should just say reference. I didn't really mean it was supposed to be funny, just that he's buying stuff because he's a capitalist now. That, to me, is making a sad joke.

[Plums]

Re: Phillip's suit shopping- I get the funereal vibe from it, but I guess I can get what the J's were talking about too- Everything is crumbling in Phillip's life. He's losing his business, he's just felt like he betrayed and lost someone who was a good friend and who he just learned was actually a WAY better friend than he even knew he was taking for granted, he's just admitted to betraying his wife and she may very well leave him over it if she doesn't kill him for it, he's losing his relationship with his kids. To quote a common theme for this season, everything has gone to shit. I could see someone deciding to splurge on luxuries because why not? you're losing everything anyway, might as well take advantage of any remaining credit before there's no credit left. 

but i prefer the funereal interpretation. 

[SusanSunflower]

Alternatively, FWIW, if Phillip is anticipating following Elizabeth into the Belly of the Summit, he would need a suit that did not stand immediately out amongst the bespoke-suit crowd .... ymmv. 

[Umbelina]

He's got a ton of nice new clothes already.

[SusanSunflower]

Nevermind. 

[sistermagpie]

4 minutes ago, Plums said:

To quote a common theme for this season, everything has gone to shit. I could see someone deciding to splurge on luxuries because why not? you're losing everything anyway, might as well take advantage of any remaining credit before there's no credit left. 

Sure, I can totally imagine *someone* doing it. That's a totally recognizable thing that's been in movies and TV. Usually it's very obvious. There was just nothing in this episode or the show that gave me a reason to think that's what he's doing.

[Milburn Stone]

On 5/16/2018 at 10:45 PM, Sarah 103 said:

Does anyone know the movie that was playing when Phil was in the video store? I'm almost 100% sure Cary Grant was in it, but I could not near the dialogue clearly enough to look up a quote.

I also heard Ann Sheridan's voice, and that would make it I Was a Male War Bride, directed by Howard Hawks. (Which also makes sense because that movie came from Fox, which produces The Americans.)

[lazylou]

5 hours ago, taurusrose said:

The Jennings are not the heroes of the story in my opinion, I want to see both of them go down for what they’ve done, but of the two, Elizabeth’s personality is more distasteful to me.

Protagonists...but not heroes.  P is easier for us to sympathize with because he struggles with the morality of his actions, particularly in later seasons as he realizes the Kremlin has lied about the purposes of their missions.  Ultimately, his driving purpose is the safety of E and the kids. E is a true believer and like a true believer is willing to accept any means to reach the desired ends...in her case, the safety of the USSR.

[duVerre]

3 minutes ago, lazylou said:

Protagonists...but not heroes.  

To me, this is why it's like a tragedy. I'll compare it to the married killers in Macbeth. Lord and Lady M are absolute monsters, monsters whose hearts and minds we've come to understand. It's a moral imperative in Shakespeare's universe that they meet a miserable end, so their deeds in the play don't go unpunished. It's a sign of our humanness that we see the humanity inside them. But the pain of watching them go down is perhaps a moral judgement on us as well--for having excused them of their actions because we "knew" them.   

Not a perfect parallel with the Jennings, but ... I would find it pitch-dark and deeply cynical if the world of the series turned out to be one in which there's no punishment for them. "Cynical" doesn't have much depth, and I think it would be much too easy too. If, instead, the show unfolds in tragedy, then the Jennings will gain in stature, because they'll be wise and self-aware, people who have some good inside but who also know that they've earned their fates. They could still become heroes. Tragic ones.

[AMDG]

This, like any good show is about relationships. There’s are two relationships that will drive the end of the show:

Of course you have P&E. I have always viewed them as a Jagger/Richards type of deal. They have major differences but they both know they need each other.

The second big relationship is Philip and Stan. I have never viewed Renee as a spy. Remember that Stan has spent the last few years out of counter intelligence, therefore, he would be of no use to the Soviets. The purpose of Renee was to have Philip check her out in order to protecthis best friend. If it came back to him that she was a spy he would have sabotaged the relationship.

Until this season I thought the driving dilemma was going to be P&E having to choose between their family and their mission. I now think the ultimate dilemma will be Stan’s.

Edited May 20, 2018 by AMDG

[sistermagpie]

7 minutes ago, duVerre said:

To me, this is why it's like a tragedy. I'll compare it to the married killers in Macbeth. Lord and Lady M are absolute monsters, monsters whose hearts and minds we've come to understand. It's a moral imperative in Shakespeare's universe that they meet a miserable end, so their deeds in the play don't go unpunished. It's a sign of our humanness that we see the humanity inside them. But the pain of watching them go down is perhaps a moral judgement on us as well--for having excused them of their actions because we "knew" them.   

But the Macbeths were acting out of selfish ambition and the Jennings were acting out of a genuine desire to protect their country and help the oppressed. As Philip laid out in this ep, they believed in something very big and very good, and were taught that the way to make those good things happen were to do what they were told. Little by little they realize that these orders are not always in line with those values, and then they act to get more in line with them.

So I have no problem calling them heroes. Tragic heroes, of course, who will probably die or have some other tragic end. But they're still, imo, always acting out of heroic motivations. Some have called them anti-villains. They're in the role of the villain, but with heroic characters. They're not the first heroes to kill innocent people. There's actually a lot of movies and TV shows that let heroes do bad things without judgment because we understand they're the good guys. The Jennings actually start at a greater disadvantage in that they were raised to believe that the behavior we consider bad was good. The fact that they're able to throw off that conditioning (something many people never do in their life) and see themselves as culpable for what they did and do makes them seem even more like heroes to me.

[Umbelina]

I never really saw them as villians.  They were fighting for their country, and I always tried to flip things around as if they were American's embedded in the USSR.  (Not that that happened, American CIA really didn't have the patience for studying Russian for a minimum of five years just to finally get placed there, and security in Russia was extreme.)

Still, IF they were fighting for the USA against the USSR during the very scary times of the cold war?

Anyway, I think both are honorable, they are soldiers for their country, and war sucks, innocents die, and it's always been that way.

As far as the "funeral" suit Philip bought, I saw that in the recap here, and I understand why some saw it that way (and you may be right!)  I just didn't, and I certainly do not think Philip is thinking about what to wear in his coffin.  I took it a bit as I eventually read the showrunners did.  Everything sucked, so he went shopping.  He did own a lot of "fancy clothes" now, as he said to Stavros.

[duVerre]

3 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

But the Macbeths were acting out of selfish ambition and the Jennings were acting out of a genuine desire to protect their country and help the oppressed. As Philip laid out in this ep, they believed in something very big and very good, and were taught that the way to make those good things happen were to do what they were told. Little by little they realize that these orders are not always in line with those values, and then they act to get more in line with them.

So I have no problem calling them heroes. Tragic heroes, of course, who will probably die or have some other tragic end. But they're still, imo, always acting out of heroic motivations. Some have called them anti-villains. They're in the role of the villain, but with heroic characters. They're not the first heroes to kill innocent people. There's actually a lot of movies and TV shows that let heroes do bad things without judgment because we understand they're the good guys. The Jennings actually start at a greater disadvantage in that they were raised to believe that the behavior we consider bad was good. The fact that they're able to throw off that conditioning (something many people never do in their life) and see themselves as culpable for what they did and do makes them seem even more like heroes to me.

Yes, as I said, the MacBeths are "not a perfect parallel with the Jennings."

It's true that the MacBeths are self-interested, but on the other hand, commitment to a larger cause doesn't always translate into heroism or even goodness. The Nazis believed in what they were doing; so do the leaders of Gilead.  In my view, it doesn't matter if the MacBeths commit atrocities for their own advancement or the Jennings commit them for the world's advancement. Atrocities are an abomination. They contaminate the soul in the same way, no matter who you are or why you did them. But everyone's mileage will vary on this. Is there a poignancy if someone believed they were doing good?

I agree that at this point in the series (and in Philip's case, for quite a few seasons) the Jennings have had some self-awareness and I expect they'll grow more in the two hours left. I hope that the show will give them the dignity of tragic stature, because they're already blossoming on that path. (You think they are already there.) But in my post I was thinking about how the series will ultimately frame this self-awareness and the actions it may prompt them to take. That's the "meta" meaning of the show.

To me, tragedy has to have some moral imperatives. If MacBeth ended with Lord and Lady M sitting on their thrones saying "whew! We go away with it!" Shakespeare would have negated all the tragic aspects of the play. Similarly, if Philip and Elizabeth don't have to pay some kind of price for what they've done, the writers will wipe out the tragic heroism they have started to develop. So, though it sounds bloodthirsty, I want the Jennings to pay a price. (That price can be ambiguous--The Godfather is a great example.) If they don't pay a price, the writers will have diminished two great characters, and that will be a shame.

This is just the way I see the dramatic scales. 

[lazylou]

It does seem odd to include an apparent shopping spree in this carefully sequenced series of events.  We already see P has been on a spending bender; he has already admitted to Stan that he sees there is no need to grow...staying the same would be better, maybe...acknowledging his bad business decisions.  He has made amends to Stavos and does seem to expect he may die...but I have trouble imagining anyone buying a suit to be buried or to die in.  I think the suit has some future purpose; for some reason he thinks he needs a suit that is both right in style and a little too big (though the salesman suggests alterations. ) . 

He has admitted to E that they are ultimately responsible for the things they have done...in fact, he has prepared us for his death in the manner prescribed by the Greeks.  But, this is American TV, so accepting responsibility may not be a precursor to death.  

On on the other hand, I see no such acceptance of fate on the part of E.  She has at last come to see that she is a pawn of the Center.  Why did it not seem to bother her that the biological weapons had been used as weapons and not simply as a means for devising an antibody, that it was going to take years for the Soviets to use the miracle wheat they'd stolen, or even that the plans they stole for the submarines actually caused the death of many Russian seaman (why didn''t the Russians test the system before putting it to use?)  Maybe the most we can hope for her is the place she is now...she knows she has been used ...but this is not the same as accepting responsibility for her actions.  Lacy Macbeth goes crazy from guilt before she commits suicide, but E is likely to die or be arrested trying to make her Cause great again...that may not be quite Aristotelian, but it would work, I think, for us to accept her death.

But I am an American. This is a TV show.  Maybe everything will turn out OK in the end...Gorbachev still has some time left, P and E can help Arkady and Oleg bring down the saboteurs in the Center, return to Russia, meet Mischa Jr., help Paige learn Russian, and live happily ever after. Well, OK for everyone except Henry.  But maybe he can change his name, go into a field that will not require a security clearance, and live happily ever after.  

Edited May 20, 2018 by lazylou
Typos.

[whiporee]

Just want to toss this in: That intern had the greatest day ever, even if he didn't know it. 

He got laid by one of the world's best trained fuck-ers. 

He saved the world (if he hadn't done the box thing, E would have gone ahead and killed the guy on C's orders, then hard-line Soviets kill Gorbachev and who knows how the world goes from that. I'm guessing nukes.) 

And he didn't get killed by someone who probably should have killed him. She did sentence him to the paving industry in Georgia, but still ... 

Not a bad day for a guy who hangs out at foreign film theaters. 

[Clanstarling]

7 hours ago, duVerre said:

To me, this is why it's like a tragedy. I'll compare it to the married killers in Macbeth. Lord and Lady M are absolute monsters, monsters whose hearts and minds we've come to understand. It's a moral imperative in Shakespeare's universe that they meet a miserable end, so their deeds in the play don't go unpunished. It's a sign of our humanness that we see the humanity inside them. But the pain of watching them go down is perhaps a moral judgement on us as well--for having excused them of their actions because we "knew" them.   

Not a perfect parallel with the Jennings, but ... I would find it pitch-dark and deeply cynical if the world of the series turned out to be one in which there's no punishment for them. "Cynical" doesn't have much depth, and I think it would be much too easy too. If, instead, the show unfolds in tragedy, then the Jennings will gain in stature, because they'll be wise and self-aware, people who have some good inside but who also know that they've earned their fates. They could still become heroes. Tragic ones.

 

7 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

But the Macbeths were acting out of selfish ambition and the Jennings were acting out of a genuine desire to protect their country and help the oppressed. As Philip laid out in this ep, they believed in something very big and very good, and were taught that the way to make those good things happen were to do what they were told. Little by little they realize that these orders are not always in line with those values, and then they act to get more in line with them.

So I have no problem calling them heroes. Tragic heroes, of course, who will probably die or have some other tragic end. But they're still, imo, always acting out of heroic motivations. Some have called them anti-villains. They're in the role of the villain, but with heroic characters. They're not the first heroes to kill innocent people. There's actually a lot of movies and TV shows that let heroes do bad things without judgment because we understand they're the good guys. The Jennings actually start at a greater disadvantage in that they were raised to believe that the behavior we consider bad was good. The fact that they're able to throw off that conditioning (something many people never do in their life) and see themselves as culpable for what they did and do makes them seem even more like heroes to me.

 

6 hours ago, Umbelina said:

I never really saw them as villians.  They were fighting for their country, and I always tried to flip things around as if they were American's embedded in the USSR.  (Not that that happened, American CIA really didn't have the patience for studying Russian for a minimum of five years just to finally get placed there, and security in Russia was extreme.)

Still, IF they were fighting for the USA against the USSR during the very scary times of the cold war?

Anyway, I think both are honorable, they are soldiers for their country, and war sucks, innocents die, and it's always been that way.

As far as the "funeral" suit Philip bought, I saw that in the recap here, and I understand why some saw it that way (and you may be right!)  I just didn't, and I certainly do not think Philip is thinking about what to wear in his coffin.  I took it a bit as I eventually read the showrunners did.  Everything sucked, so he went shopping.  He did own a lot of "fancy clothes" now, as he said to Stavros.

I agree with all of you in parts. One of the things I love about this show is that it gives us insight into the thinking (hearts and minds) of an "enemy" agent (role of a villain, with heroic characteristics). And I always ask myself, if they were Americans, how would I feel about them? Which is a complicated question for me, since I grew up in the military and spent most of my formative years within a couple of miles of the border of two communist countries (East Germany and Czechoslovakia). So I'm not exactly naturally drawn to see Soviets as heroes or even protagonists.

But what drew me in to this show was seeing my experiences as viewed through a different mindset. And once I understood them and saw them as fully drawn human beings, their acts were difficult to accept, but understandable (which isn't to say I approved of them). If all I saw Philip and Elizabeth as were evil villains, I wouldn't even watch this show. And I'd  be missing the point entirely. Because this is a story of patriots and soldiers whose country asks a lot of them, which eventually breaks them. I also believe we're asked to understand that they are not dissimilar from our own patriots and soldiers. Who are also often broken by what our country asks of them.

I've believed for years now that this won't end happily for anyone, and from what it looks like, I may be right. Because even if Philip and Elizabeth manage to thwart the anti-Gorbachev people (the fictional ones, in any case), they will have enemies within their own country, as well as ours.

2 minutes ago, whiporee said:

Just want to toss this in: That intern had the greatest day ever, even if he didn't know it. 

He got laid by one of the world's best trained fuck-ers. 

He saved the world (if he hadn't done the box thing, E would have gone ahead and killed the guy on C's orders, then hard-line Soviets kill Gorbachev and who knows how the world goes from that. I'm guessing nukes.) 

And he didn't get killed by someone who probably should have killed him. She did sentence him to the paving industry in Georgia, but still ... 

Not a bad day for a guy who hangs out at foreign film theaters. 

Funny how best and worst can pretty much be the same thing.

[SunnyBeBe]

Good points above about the suit and Philip probably not anticipating a funeral.  Not sure if P and E discuss it, but, if there were some kind of death to either one of them, say car accident, heart attack, etc., I doubt they would want to be put into a casket or viewed, since it invites opportunity for discovery and calls attention to yourself, which they discourage.  Wouldn't they ask for immediate cremation and no funeral.  They wouldn't want people from the office showing up and mingling with Stan. And then Stan seeing that they have no real family or friends, even in case of death. 

[Ellaria]

10 hours ago, duVerre said:

Yes, as I said, the MacBeths are "not a perfect parallel with the Jennings."

...To me, tragedy has to have some moral imperatives. If MacBeth ended with Lord and Lady M sitting on their thrones saying "whew! We go away with it!" Shakespeare would have negated all the tragic aspects of the play. Similarly, if Philip and Elizabeth don't have to pay some kind of price for what they've done, the writers will wipe out the tragic heroism they have started to develop. So, though it sounds bloodthirsty, I want the Jennings to pay a price. (That price can be ambiguous--The Godfather is a great example.) If they don't pay a price, the writers will have diminished two great characters, and that will be a shame.

This is just the way I see the dramatic scales. 

This entire post is brilliant, @duVerre. The various points of view on tragedy/heroism in fiction is a perfect way to view the end of this great show. Heroism - in the context of The Americans - can be ambiguous and I think that's the point. The idea of "Bad Guys vs. Good Guys" is an allusion. The Americans has done a wonderful job of showing how blind commitment to a cause or an ideal can slowly chip away at your humanity. 

Philip is an expertly nuanced character. He understands what he values and what he has sacrificed. It is heart-breaking to watch Philip move thru the routine of his life - trying to reach out to Henry, visiting Stavros, chopping off hands, confronting Elizabeth. He is all pain, loneliness and realization. I think that the writers want us to have this debate about Philip because Philip is having this debate within himself. The character of Philip Jennings should be classified as one of the great anti-heroes of modern TV, along with Tony Soprano and Walter White.

Having said all that, I agree that the Jennings have to pay a price. Maybe that price is their lives, the life of one of their children or their freedom. As mentioned above, The Godfather is a great example of another possibility: living in a hell of your own making.

3 hours ago, Clanstarling said:

I've believed for years now that this won't end happily for anyone, and from what it looks like, I may be right. 

I agree but I am not sure what I think will happen. Our main characters will need to make choices but none of those choice will be about "making things right." Its too late for that.

11 hours ago, AMDG said:

This, like any good show is about relationships. There’s are two relationships that will drive the end of the show:

...Until this season I thought the driving dilemma was going to be P&E having to choose between their family and their mission. I now think the ultimate dilemma will be Stan’s.

 

Interesting take. This show is about the authenticity of relationships: love, parenting, friendship, loyalty. And that's where the problems will enter. I like the suggestion here that Stan will play a major role in driving the fate of the main characters. 

FWIW on Philip's suit-shopping scene: I don't think that he was intentionally buying his burial suit. I think it was a reaction to the conversation with Stavros. Didn't Stavros say something about "all the clothes, the fancy cars?" Philip - the failed capitalist - tries to use material things to soothe his soul. 

Edited May 20, 2018 by Ellaria Sand

[SunnyBeBe]

9 minutes ago, Ellaria Sand said:

This entire post is brilliant, @duVerre. The various points of view on tragedy/heroism in fiction is a perfect way to view the end of this great show. Heroism - in the context of The Americans - can be ambiguous and I think that's the point. The idea of "Bad Guys vs. Good Guys" is an allusion. The Americans has done a wonderful job of showing how blind commitment to a cause or an ideal can slowly chip away at your humanity. 

Philip is an expertly nuanced character. He understands what he values and what he has sacrificed. It is heart-breaking to watch Philip move thru the routine of his life - trying to reach out to Henry, visiting Stavros, chopping off hands, confronting Elizabeth. He is all pain, loneliness and realization. I think that the writers want us to have this debate about Philip because Philip is having this debate within himself. It is heart-breaking to watch him. The character of Philip Jennings should be classified as one of the great anti-heroes of modern TV, along with Tony Soprano and Walter White.

Having said all that, I agree that the Jennings have to pay a price. Maybe that price is their lives, the life of one of their children or their freedom. As mentioned above, The Godfather is a great example of another possibility: living in a hell of your own making.

I agree but I am not sure what I think will happen. Our main characters will need to make choices but none of those choice will be about "making things right." Its too late for that.

Interesting take. This show is about the authenticity of relationships: love, parenting, friendship, loyalty. And that's where the problems will enter. I like the suggestion here that Stan will play a major role in driving the fate of the main characters. 

FWIW on Philip's suit-shopping scene: I don't think that he was intentionally buying his burial suit. I think it was a reaction to the conversation with Stavros. Didn't Stavros say something about "all the clothes, the fancy cars?" Philip - the failed capitalist - tries to use material things to soothe his soul. 

Maybe. I thought that P is the one who said it to Stavros, that those things don't really mean much.  My grandfather came up in hard times.  He struggled to survive, but, once he got established as an adult, he insisted on the finer things in life. He always had his suits tailor made, got a new car every couple of years and had the latest in technology in his home.  I was always amazed that a man of humble beginnings lived that way.  So, I see your point. 

[duVerre]

51 minutes ago, Ellaria Sand said:

This entire post is brilliant, @duVerre. The various points of view on tragedy/heroism in fiction is a perfect way to view the end of this great show. Heroism - in the context of The Americans - can be ambiguous and I think that's the point. The idea of "Bad Guys vs. Good Guys" is an allusion. The Americans has done a wonderful job of showing how blind commitment to a cause or an ideal can slowly chip away at your humanity. 

Philip is an expertly nuanced character. He understands what he values and what he has sacrificed. It is heart-breaking to watch Philip move thru the routine of his life - trying to reach out to Henry, visiting Stavros, chopping off hands, confronting Elizabeth. He is all pain, loneliness and realization. I think that the writers want us to have this debate about Philip because Philip is having this debate within himself. It is heart-breaking to watch him. The character of Philip Jennings should be classified as one of the great anti-heroes of modern TV, along with Tony Soprano and Walter White.

Having said all that, I agree that the Jennings have to pay a price. Maybe that price is their lives, the life of one of their children or their freedom. As mentioned above, The Godfather is a great example of another possibility: living in a hell of your own making.

I agree but I am not sure what I think will happen. Our main characters will need to make choices but none of those choice will be about "making things right." Its too late for that.

Interesting take. This show is about the authenticity of relationships: love, parenting, friendship, loyalty. And that's where the problems will enter. I like the suggestion here that Stan will play a major role in driving the fate of the main characters. 

FWIW on Philip's suit-shopping scene: I don't think that he was intentionally buying his burial suit. I think it was a reaction to the conversation with Stavros. Didn't Stavros say something about "all the clothes, the fancy cars?" Philip - the failed capitalist - tries to use material things to soothe his soul. 

Ellaria, what a nice thing to say about the post. Actually, I had/still have a migraine, so I'm just glad the thoughts made sense.

"Hell of your own making" is exactly where the Godfather leaves Pacino. Those are just the right words.

Personally, I find it hard to buy the showrunners' explanation of the suit-buying scene. But I have to admit that my own father, who was raised in an orphanage, never went anywhere as an adult without wearing cashmere. It was as though he was on a perpetual quest to tell everyone "I'm not what I was." Seasoned, perhaps, with "what, me worry?"  I think he believed these luxurious surfaces gave him a kind of protection.

Edited May 20, 2018 by duVerre
verb tense, obsessiveness

[Clanstarling]

40 minutes ago, Ellaria Sand said:

I agree but I am not sure what I think will happen. Our main characters will need to make choices but none of those choice will be about "making things right." Its too late for that.

I agree - it's far too late for that. I'm not sure what form the ending will take, but I'm prepared for tears.

27 minutes ago, SunnyBeBe said:

Maybe. I thought that P is the one who said it to Stavros, that those things don't really mean much.  My grandfather came up in hard times.  He struggled to survive, but, once he got established as an adult, he insisted on the finer things in life. He always had his suits tailor made, got a new car every couple of years and had the latest in technology in his home.  I was always amazed that a man of humble beginnings lived that way.  So, I see your point. 

I love that. Partly because my father came up in similar circumstances, and yet lived in the opposite fashion. He was a skin flint and though he ultimately went to college, "eating out" was a Burger King dinner, and he was disdainful of people "putting on airs." Though, to be fair, he did like to buy the latest in recording technology - when he could buy it dirt cheap as a soldier on overseas bases.

[Ellaria]

1 hour ago, duVerre said:

Actually, I had/still have a migraine, so I'm just glad the thoughts made sense.

Sorry about the migraine. Hope you are feeling some relief.

[MisterBluxom]

11 hours ago, duVerre said:

To me, this is why it's like a tragedy. I'll compare it to the married killers in Macbeth. Lord and Lady M are absolute monsters, monsters whose hearts and minds we've come to understand. It's a moral imperative in Shakespeare's universe that they meet a miserable end, so their deeds in the play don't go unpunished. It's a sign of our humanness that we see the humanity inside them. But the pain of watching them go down is perhaps a moral judgement on us as well--for having excused them of their actions because we "knew" them.   

Not a perfect parallel with the Jennings, but ... I would find it pitch-dark and deeply cynical if the world of the series turned out to be one in which there's no punishment for them. "Cynical" doesn't have much depth, and I think it would be much too easy too. If, instead, the show unfolds in tragedy, then the Jennings will gain in stature, because they'll be wise and self-aware, people who have some good inside but who also know that they've earned their fates. They could still become heroes. Tragic ones.

In order to predict how this series will end, I think the best approach is try to look into the minds and motivations of the show runners. What do they want? It's just my opinion, but I think that anyone who can correctly answer that question has the best chance to correctly guess how this show will end.

Oops. I just noticed this is the wrong thread for this post. I will move it to the Speculation thread. Sorry.

[sistermagpie]

10 hours ago, duVerre said:

To me, tragedy has to have some moral imperatives. If MacBeth ended with Lord and Lady M sitting on their thrones saying "whew! We go away with it!" Shakespeare would have negated all the tragic aspects of the play. Similarly, if Philip and Elizabeth don't have to pay some kind of price for what they've done, the writers will wipe out the tragic heroism they have started to develop. So, though it sounds bloodthirsty, I want the Jennings to pay a price. (That price can be ambiguous--The Godfather is a great example.) If they don't pay a price, the writers will have diminished two great characters, and that will be a shame.

This is just the way I see the dramatic scales. 

I agree. To me the distinction is between the Jennings being punished and the Jennings doing something themselves that leads to their fate, which I think is what's happening. They're basically exactly like Nina. She played the game, did whatever she needed to do to survive (she was slightly different from the Jennings), then freed herself by acting on what she thought was right. She was executed for it, but it reads as a tragedy rather than a punishment. She was punished for a moral act.

I see something similar in P&E. In fact, if it was punishment they were deserving I'd more expect them to get away with it a la a certain other anti-hero I can think of, where they slip away once more on their own terms. The big difference with the Macbeths is that the Macbeths chose their own fate when they tried to grab the throne and then basically freaked out and were guilty. Philip and Elizabeth were exceptionally good people who tried to help others and when they realize their actions aren't doing that they defy their handlers and put themselves in danger. They're trying to get away with it in that they're trying to avoid capture by the Americans, but that's fine, imo, because the American government is not who they've wronged. By making themselves vulnerable to the punishment of the Centre they really are making some amends for innocents they've killed since those people, too, were victims Philip and Elizabeth as representatives of the Centre.

Basically I expect that the end will emphasize the victims they've always been. Not in the sense of absolving them for the hurt they've caused, but showing us that despite all they've done they really haven't strayed that from from he kids they were when recruited. They haven't become cynical or simply driven by self-preservation. This episode highlighted that by having both Elizabeth and Philip basically talk about the values they signed up for and how they are still trying to live them. Philip didn't even put his marriage above them. It's the one thing he's sure about in practically the entire episode.

10 hours ago, lazylou said:

It does seem odd to include an apparent shopping spree in this carefully sequenced series of events.  We already see P has been on a spending bender; he has already admitted to Stan that he sees there is no need to grow...staying the same would be better, maybe...acknowledging his bad business decisions.  He has made amends to Stavos and does seem to expect he may die...but I have trouble imagining anyone buying a suit to be buried or to die in.  I think the suit has some future purpose; for some reason he thinks he needs a suit that is both right in style and a little too big (though the salesman suggests alterations. ) .

In the funeral interpretation, he's not literally buying a suit to die or be buried in, like that's in his mind. It's just putting his impulse to buy a suit in the same line as all the impulses we saw him have. They fit with someone who was anticipating an end to something. That something different is going on.

The showrunner's version is basically just having Philip doing the equivalent of Elizabeth smoking. A habit that offers a very temporary comfort and then nothing. They wanted to keep him onscreen and didn't want to just have him staring of into space miserably (though he's very good at that). He just said that fancy stuff is meaningless but does it anyway etc. Iow, it stands out from other things he's doing because all those other things are taking actions to change things in some way. Talking to Henry might improve however things are there. Talking to Stavos might improve things there. Renting a Russian movie, especially, is a wildly OOC act. Those things aren't habits for short-term relief. If he's just looking for comfort there the Russian movie's too extreme to really be explained by him just feeling like everything's shit now and Elizabeth put the idea in his head. One of the issues with every show's last season, people always say, is making sure it doesn't seem like the characters know it's the last season. Philip renting a Russian movie is him acting like he knows an end is coming. But it doesn't seem like a mistake because the character himself seems to be aware that he just rolled the dice on his own life.

[Umbelina]

4 hours ago, Ellaria Sand said:

This entire post is brilliant, @duVerre. The various points of view on tragedy/heroism in fiction is a perfect way to view the end of this great show. Heroism - in the context of The Americans - can be ambiguous and I think that's the point. The idea of "Bad Guys vs. Good Guys" is an allusion. The Americans has done a wonderful job of showing how blind commitment to a cause or an ideal can slowly chip away at your humanity. 

Philip is an expertly nuanced character. He understands what he values and what he has sacrificed. It is heart-breaking to watch Philip move thru the routine of his life - trying to reach out to Henry, visiting Stavros, chopping off hands, confronting Elizabeth. He is all pain, loneliness and realization. I think that the writers want us to have this debate about Philip because Philip is having this debate within himself. The character of Philip Jennings should be classified as one of the great anti-heroes of modern TV, along with Tony Soprano and Walter White.

Having said all that, I agree that the Jennings have to pay a price. Maybe that price is their lives, the life of one of their children or their freedom. As mentioned above, The Godfather is a great example of another possibility: living in a hell of your own making.

I agree but I am not sure what I think will happen. Our main characters will need to make choices but none of those choice will be about "making things right." Its too late for that.

Interesting take. This show is about the authenticity of relationships: love, parenting, friendship, loyalty. And that's where the problems will enter. I like the suggestion here that Stan will play a major role in driving the fate of the main characters. 

FWIW on Philip's suit-shopping scene: I don't think that he was intentionally buying his burial suit. I think it was a reaction to the conversation with Stavros. Didn't Stavros say something about "all the clothes, the fancy cars?" Philip - the failed capitalist - tries to use material things to soothe his soul. 

 

Philip said that.  He said something like

I know I look very successful with all the fancy clothes, and cars, and all the rest but the truth is, everything is failing, my life, my business is going down, you were lucky to get out when you did, chance to find another job, blah blah blah.

I remember thinking he was saying Stavros was lucky to get out before he's killed and it's discovered he is KGB, so the taint won't be on fired Stavros quite as much.

Edited May 20, 2018 by Umbelina

[Clanstarling]

26 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Philip said that.  He said something like

I know I looks very successful with all the fancy clothes, and cars, and all the rest but the truth is, everything is failing, my life, my business is going down, you were lucky to get out when you did, chance to find another job, blah blah blah.

I remember thinking he was saying Stavros was lucky to get out before he's killed and it's discovered he is KGB, so the taint won't be on fired Stavros quite as much.

I didn't think that deeply about what Philip said, I like your interpretation. Mostly I was thinking, by Philip's suddenly cold eyes when Stavros talked about the back room, that Stavros was not long for the world. The next time we saw Philip, he was in disguise and I was afraid he was returning to kill him, and thought it was one of his worst disguises ever. Thankfully he was just renting a Russian videotape. (okay, I think maybe he was buying the suit next time we saw him - but the rest still applies to my thought process)

Edited May 20, 2018 by Clanstarling

[Umbelina]

Don't you hate it when you miss a typo and someone quotes it?  Ha. (the s on look)

Yes, Philip's eyes scared me too, I'm glad Stavros didn't invite him in, it might have gone differently.

Still, I love that scene.

Elizabeth is the one with the death pill, but Philip's the one on his goodbye tour.

[Clanstarling]

24 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Don't you hate it when you miss a typo and someone quotes it?  Ha. (the s on look)

Yes, Philip's eyes scared me too, I'm glad Stavros didn't invite him in, it might have gone differently.

Still, I love that scene.

Elizabeth is the one with the death pill, but Philip's the one on his goodbye tour.

I didn't even see the typo. When I do, oftentimes I correct them because I can't help myself.

You know what I think would be a perfect end for the pill? Shoving it in Claudia's mouth and holding it shut until she dies - a mirror image of the artist's death.

[MaryPatShelby]

On 5/16/2018 at 11:15 PM, jjj said:

No, it does not exist -- and there was never going to be a first day there. 

McElraith not existing doesn't make sense to me either.  Wouldn't a bright guy like Jackson have researched the company, even a little bit...like finding its address even?  I get that the job never existed, obviously, but it seems like Elizabeth would have chosen an existing business in case Jackson decided to look into it.

On 5/17/2018 at 1:04 AM, jjj said:

Good ear, that is exactly what it was!  There were five or six lines of dialogue audible. 

The above is related to the movie being North by Northwest - so, North by Northwest translated from Russian becomes "The Garage"?  Because that was the title of the movie on the screen when Phillip started it in the VCR.

Edited May 20, 2018 by MaryPatShelby

[sistermagpie]

5 minutes ago, MaryPatShelby said:

The above is related to the moving being North by Northwest - so, North by Northwest translated from Russian becomes "The Garage"?  Because that was the title of the movie on the screen when Phillip started it in the VCR.

The movie playing in the video store was "I Was a Mail Order Bride" with Cary Grant (who was also in North by Northwest, but that wasn't the movie that was playing). The movie Philip rented was The Garage.

[MaryPatShelby]

Ah, got it, thanks.  I didn't pay close enough attention to which movie we were talking about!

[SlovakPrincess]

By the time we finally figure out Renee's deal, I will have stopped caring.   Actually, I've already stopped caring.  They haven't made her interesting enough for me to care one way or the other.  If she also turns out to be a Soviet spy, it will just be eye-roll inducing for me, because Stan is already best buddies with a Soviet spy, and having him marry one too is just ridiculous overkill.

Finally, some movement on Elizabeth questioning what the Centre is asking of her!  Maybe next week she'll start questioning why the hell she's involved her oldest kid in this mess.   Her scenes with Philip were intense.  

Claudia took it rather well that Elizabeth defied a very important order ... almost too well ... 

[EtheltoTillie]

52 minutes ago, MaryPatShelby said:

McElraith not existing doesn't make sense to me either.  Wouldn't a bright guy like Jackson have researched the company, even a little bit...like finding its address even?  I get that the job never existed, obviously, but it seems like Elizabeth would have chosen an existing business in case Jackson decided to look into it.

The above is related to the movie being North by Northwest - so, North by Northwest translated from Russian becomes "The Garage"?  Because that was the title of the movie on the screen when Phillip started it in the VCR.

I thought McIlraith existed in the world of the show but I guess it's not a real company. I had a feeling they were alluding to McKinsey, a big consulting firm. 

[Ellaria]

11 minutes ago, SlovakPrincess said:

By the time we finally figure out Renee's deal, I will have stopped caring.   Actually, I've already stopped caring.  They haven't made her interesting enough for me to care one way or the other.  If she also turns out to be a Soviet spy, it will just be eye-roll inducing for me, because Stan is already best buddies with a Soviet spy, and having him marry one too is just ridiculous overkill.

Finally, some movement on Elizabeth questioning what the Centre is asking of her!  Maybe next week she'll start questioning why the hell she's involved her oldest kid in this mess.   Her scenes with Philip were intense.  

Claudia took it rather well that Elizabeth defied a very important order ... almost too well ...

I've stopped caring about Renee as well. And yes, having Stan's wife be KGB would be overkill and that's what this show never does.

I wouldn't trust Claudia as far as I could throw her. There is no way that she is letting Elizabeth walk away.

[sistermagpie]

7 minutes ago, Ellaria Sand said:

I wouldn't trust Claudia as far as I could throw her. There is no way that she is letting Elizabeth walk away.

At this point I think she's honestly just waiting for Elizabeth to come around like always. It's like when Elizabeth said they wanted to return home. Claudia was perfectly nice then too. And then Elizabeth changed her mind...of course. I would imagine that Claudia is now just getting ready to put on the psychological pressure to get her to make the right decision. Threats don't have to come immediately.

[Ellaria]

3 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

At this point I think she's honestly just waiting for Elizabeth to come around like always. It's like when Elizabeth said they wanted to return home. Claudia was perfectly nice then too. And then Elizabeth changed her mind...of course. I would imagine that Claudia is now just getting ready to put on the psychological pressure to get her to make the right decision. Threats don't have to come immediately.

That's true. Claudia has patience. Still, with only two hours to go, she can't have too much patience.

[hellmouse]

37 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

At this point I think she's honestly just waiting for Elizabeth to come around like always. It's like when Elizabeth said they wanted to return home. Claudia was perfectly nice then too. And then Elizabeth changed her mind...of course. I would imagine that Claudia is now just getting ready to put on the psychological pressure to get her to make the right decision. Threats don't have to come immediately.

And she did say that Elizabeth needed to take care of him "today or tomorrow". So she may be thinking, okay it wasn't today, but we still have tomorrow. 

Maybe if Elizabeth still won't do it, Claudia will go after him herself the way she did back in Season 1 when Elizabeth kidnapped but didn't kill Patterson.