Tusk to Tchaikovsky: Re-watching the Americans

[sistermagpie]

18 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Yeah, keep murdering or support me murdering, mostly innocent people by the way, and I'll love you.  Not unhealthy at all.

I don't think that's quite what she demands. She can still love him if he's not murdering or if he's openly condemning or preventing a murder of hers. Just as he can still love her knowing she killed Gennadi and Sophia in front of their kid. They just need the other person to not lose the other side of them. Philip needs Elizabeth to be a human being and Elizabeth needs Philip to care about the world and their country. Ultimately they both do still care about those things, but you can see why they fear the other person has lost it. Though I think Philip, as ever, shows more faith in Elizabeth than she shows in him. Partly because she's in such a worse place mentally by S6 and partly because that's where his greater faith lies. 

Philip never accuses Elizabeth of not loving the children even when she's putting Paige's life in danger and trying to instruct her in being a different person and erasing Henry. That's something he does from the first season, too. He never hits Elizabeth with Gregory's words about sacrificing her family or not wanting the children. She probably doesn't even know Gregory told him that. (It would be interesting if she ever found that out.) He never doubts her love for the children or says he doubts it to change her behavior. (I don't think his faith is misplaced there either.)

Edited August 17, 2018 by sistermagpie

[Umbelina]

I think we need to take all this to the Philip/Elizabeth thread.  xoxo

Oddly I didn't feel quite as much chemistry during the love making between Oleg and Nina as I did between him and Tatiana.  (!)  It shocked me kind of, but I may rewatch.  I certainly felt passion, at least on Stan's part, with Nina.  Oleg and Nina have a ton of passion, but for me anyway, it's more in the day to day stuff, like teaching her to take a polygraph, or his flirting and her resistance early on, and certainly during and after she's sent home

I really kind of love how loyal Nina was to Stan for most of the first season.  Had he not killed Vlad, I am not sure her promotion at the Residentura would have been enough to make her turn triple agent, but maybe...it sure seemed like his murdering a relatively innocent Vlad was what screwed everything up.  Of course it also nearly screwed up Gaad's career as well, leading to the incredible scenes between Arkady and Gaad.

I wish we had had more of Arkady, Gaad, and Oleg, all in the USA.  Nina was amazing, but her story end was something the writers really wanted to do (the quick death right after sentencing, thought to be more human than giving them time to think of it) and semi-interesting prison scenes. 

As I've said before, I will never understand dumping so much of the cast all at once, it seriously hurt the show in season 5, and I think that carried over until season 6.  Also, without the FBI/Residentura scenes we seemed to have so much more exposition, and of course, it made the FBI look pretty idiotic through the first half of season 6 (not addressing Elizabeth's killing spree, etc.)

I know we had to lose Martha and Nina, but dang, Gaad, Oleg, Arkady, Tatiana, and I think I'm forgetting a few, as well as losing most of the Stan interaction at the office and with Philip because of the cutesy wife story...  The characters introduced in season 5 were just never as interesting, and this show excelled at supporting characters until then, I just don't understand what happened there.

[Umbelina]

Oh, I wanted to say something about Stan's wife Sandra!

I wonder if at the time of the original airings I didn't appreciate her quite enough, since Stan/Sandra stuff wasn't nearly as exciting as other things happening on screen?

Watching now, Susan Misner was really amazing whenever they did give her stuff to do. 

 

I also really loved her in the bar scene with Elizabeth, she was so subtle, but so uncomfortable as Elizabeth freely danced sexily away.

I think the cast was just so good I overlooked her, but honestly, I don't remember many comments about her here, or in the reviews, but she, like most of the supporting cast was SO good!

[sistermagpie]

20 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Oddly I didn't feel quite as much chemistry during the love making between Oleg and Nina as I did between him and Tatiana.  (!)  It shocked me kind of, but I may rewatch.  I certainly felt passion, at least on Stan's part, with Nina.  Oleg and Nina have a ton of passion, but for me anyway, it's more in the day to day stuff, like teaching her to take a polygraph, or his flirting and her resistance early on, and certainly during and after she's sent home

Yeah, that's interesting. But in a way it really works because Nina's biggest influence on Oleg wasn't about him being passionately attracted to her. He starts out just thinking she's hot because she is, and he's hitting on her like he would probably any other girl, but ultimately what really gets to him is what she does and how she's punished for it.

Where as with Stan I don't think Nina was that much of a new thing for him. That is, it seems like he wanted to protect her and felt like he failed her, which wasn't about him getting an understanding of her as a new kind of person that made him rethink his previous way of looking at the world. (He doesn't seem so jingoistic that her being Russian is a big deal--it's not like that's something he needs to overcome to be attracted to her.)

20 hours ago, Umbelina said:

I know we had to lose Martha and Nina, but dang, Gaad, Oleg, Arkady, Tatiana, and I think I'm forgetting a few, as well as losing most of the Stan interaction at the office and with Philip because of the cutesy wife story...  The characters introduced in season 5 were just never as interesting, and this show excelled at supporting characters until then, I just don't understand what happened there.

Agreed.

[Umbelina]

Finished season 2 last night.

A couple of stand out scenes, mostly small ones.

When Oleg gives Nina the money, and their words are all proper, because Oleg knows they are being listened to, but their eyes and faces and bodies tell the real story.  SO good.  She knows Oleg is telling her to run, and his heart is broken, and she is so lost, and afraid, but also so grateful, and wistful about what might have been, had she met him sooner.  Heartbreaking.

A minor quibble though.  I honestly can't see the USSR sending Nina back because Stan doesn't turn over ECHO.  She's proven to be so valuable, and proven she's reformed.  I certainly can see them making Stan think she's being sent home to die, and of course, emotionally that's a better story for the writers to tell.  Still though, logically I'd think they would reassign her.  She has experience being a triple agent now, and that's pretty damn valuable.  Reassigning her to another English speaking country just makes more sense to me.  England would be the most likely place, the USSR always had a heavy presence there.

I mean, I can accept it, punishment for her earlier transgressions, and certainly they needed to make Stan think that, that they do what they say they will do.  It's just difficult to think the KGB would willingly take someone so valuable out of the field.  She spent far more time loyal than she did as a traitor. 

---

The emphasis on Paige in season two though?  Ugh.  Now of course we know where it's all going, which, for me anyway, made those scenes even more annoying.  Her worship of father Tim, looking adoringly at him in the bus, starry eyed, and of course Jared's two-fold reason for existence.  The big surprise at the end, that he killed his parents, but more, the introduction of Paige's "second generation" storyline, and the whole LIES thing.  (again)

It's a mix for me, I remember on first watch how good it all was, but now that I know where it's all going, it's less enjoyable for me this time.  On to season 3 and 4, and if I skip much of the Paige stuff, I know I will really enjoy them.  Although, as much chemistry as Nina has with just about anyone?  I never really felt the profound connection with Anton, certainly not enough for her to stupidly end her own life. 

I did love her scenes with everyone else though, from Oleg's dad to the former Resident she betrayed, and though her story with Evi was very disturbing, I also found it quite believable.  In my reading the one thing that struck me as odd, was how intent the KGB was about getting a confession, or proof before execution.  Of course, many times they simply tortured it out of people, and their methods of torture are so horrifying it's almost beyond belief, but still.  I believed them using Nina for that, and I believed her doing that, and Evi falling for it.

I do wish her story with Anton had more resonance though.

[Umbelina]

I forgot to mention something about Nina and Stan.

It seems that a lot of people think Nina didn't care for Stan, that it was all an act, much like Philip or Elizabeth's honeytraps really.  I never felt that way.  Although I certainly do think Nina kept her head in the spy game (her life was at stake after all) I don't think having sex with Stan was a chore for her (pre-Stan killing Vlad and Nina becoming a triple agent, that is.)

After that?  I still never felt that having sex with Stan was either repugnant or unpleasant or even that much of a duty for her.  Of course, she did have to, to string him along after she became a triple, but still?  I don't think, and never thought, she had to "make it real" as Philip would say. 

So, with that in mind, Nina's death scenes, when she's walking into the light, she doesn't see Oleg.  The first man she sees is Stan, and she smiles at him, it seemed genuine.  Stan says "I'm so sorry."  Nina turns kind of confused, and sees Anton next.

Anyway, that dream-moment with Stan seemed to confirm my feelings about Nina's feelings, and Stan is her first warning that she's going to die as well.  That's who she conjures up.  Seemed significant to me...

Edited August 20, 2018 by Umbelina

[Erin9]

I don’t think it was all an act with Nina regarding Stan either. But I think her feelings for him were complicated at best- even before Vkad’s death. He successfully blackmailed her, resulting in her risking her life, betraying her country.....How exactly she felt about him is difficult to say imo. 

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

So, with that in mind, Nina's death scenes, when she's walking into the light, she doesn't see Oleg.  The first man she sees is Stan, and she smiles at him, it seemed genuine.  Stan says "I'm so sorry."  Nina turns kind of confused, and sees Anton next.

I think that also might symbolize that Nina thought Stan was actually going to get her out--which he did genuinely want to do. So her seeing him and smiling and then having him say he was sorry was like her associating him with being saved and him letting her down by not handing over echo and in general their original deal for extraction not going through (not that this was totally Stan's fault).

[sistermagpie]

Watched In Control so here comes the deep dive!

This ep is really interesting in retrospect. So much of it is almost a foreshadowing of the endgame. The central conflict especially. But there's other stuff too.

We start with Amador helping Stan with his Russian via flashcards. I really missed Stan's struggles with Russian when they disappeared, although I can see how it could get silly after a while. I wished we'd gotten a little nod at some point that he gave up because I think it's clear he never made much progress (plus in the last season he's no longer in CountIntel anyway). But I loved how the first season used language and misunderstanding so much, especially in this ep and in Comint where it's thematic--here Stan's wife accuses him of finding it hard to talk to her in English too. Stan's been in beginning Russian 6 days a week for at least a month, it seems, and he still can't really say hello. Six days a week! I like how Amador seems kind of enthusiastic about this stuff, even if he doesn't seem that good at it either. The FBI culture doesn't really seem to give anybody a helpful learning environment.

This ep is the one where Paige takes her first step into serious world events. Watching TV with Matthew she makes a reasonable observation about how it's ghoulish the way the news keeps replaying footage of the shooting. But Matthew pushes back by saying the fact that people might die is what's ghoulish. Paige then shows up at his house and dramatically announces she's sorry, explaining that she watched it over and over, especially the secret service agent who throws himself in front of the president and then remembered that Matthew's dad has a dangerous job, unlike her own dad. Matthew admits that he tries not to think about that but it was hard today. Then they go into awkward teen banter about the dangers of tourism.

It seems to me to subtly link human connection to this kind of thing in Paige's eyes. She's genuinely pleased at the talk she's ultimately able to have with Matthew. She's not faking her feelings to impress Matthew or anything, but I do feel like she connects what she's doing here to making a human connection. Since to me it seems like that's a major motivator for Paige throughout, it seemed important. The reward brings her back for more. Also, there's really nothing about Paige's earlier comment that conflicts with what Matthew is saying. The news isn't showing the shooting over and over because dying is serious, but for entertainment purposes. I'm pretty sure this'll be referenced later with a clip of Buckwheat's assassination on SNL.

Later the whole family's watching TV. Henry asks Philip about WWI and Philip says Henry doesn't have to worry about that. Paige says it's history, which repeats itself, so he does have to worry about it. Philip ignores her--though it seems like this is our first glimpse of Paige getting on Philip's nerves, if only mildly. But it also shows Philip instinctively shielding Henry from thinking about this sort of thing for as long as possible. Elizabeth, too, is happy that Henry doesn't seem to know what's going on. There's Henry 's endgame right there. (Henry is also present at the Beeman's earlier, this time ignoring everyone else and typing alone on a typewriter since he doesn't have a computer yet.)

Amador really interested me in this ep. Doing back-up for Stan's meeting with Nina he fails to warn him of a suspicious looking car. I've said in earlier episodes that it seems like Amador's always slightly off or behind the other agents in some way. This particular thing echoes the earlier scene where the FBI is watching Stan's first meeting with Nina. There, Gaad asks Amador if everything's clear and he says he thinks so. Gaad says, "Come on, Chris" and he gives a better answer. Here he sees the car and goes for his radio, but then hesitates. It seems like the show was setting something up with him. He's not incompetent, but he lacks the confidence to take decisive action and make decisions on his own, automatically second-guessing himself. It makes me wonder if they originally considered a mentor relationship here with Stan where Amador would develop more with Stan's help.

Originally I mostly associated Amador with the show's awkward attempt to retcon a friendship with Stan. That's still awkward, but the show did put a lot of work into making him an individual character with potential both as a character and as an agent. I wonder if they just then realized they needed to kill him and wherever they might have gone with him fell short. If Stan had had more of a mentor relationship with him it would make his feelings about his death much clearer and more IC for Stan.

Stan's relationships in this ep are a big contrast to Philip and Elizabeth. He doesn't feel he can rely on Amador, he can't communicate completely with Nina and can't talk to Sandra. (Even his most personal moment when he remembers Kennedy is directed mostly at Philip.) Stan's monolingualism is referenced here again--he couldn't get "you're welcome" on his flashcards in Russian but reflexively corrects Nina's idiomatic expression in English. Watching Sandra ask Stan why it's so hard for him to talk to her I couldn't help but think about a) Noah Emmerich's odd comment about how Stan's marriage was so good and b) how Stan quite possibly winds up with a wife who allows him to not talk because she's simply using him. However, Stan's pov seems to be potentially helpful in the scene with the Jennings when he gives them the real scoop about Hinkley. Elizabeth asks if "everything is going to be all right" and Stan says, "What do you mean?" It's a little nod to how right Philip was--the worries that Elizabeth thinks are so obvious have never entered the minds of any of the American characters, and Stan's confusion is one of those tiny moments of danger, especially since Nina just told him that this was the default pov of the Soviets. Stan's personal story about the Kennedy assassination subtly connects him with Paige and Matthew just in terms of how he processed this huge event in a primarily personal way.

One other funny thing in this ep is the characters Philip and Elizabeth play when they question Reagan's nurse. For whatever reason Elizabeth totally dominates the interview. There's a shot where Elizabeth is explaining things and Philip seems about to speak but then Elizabeth just goes on and he shuts up. In the end he mostly just gets to be the one to present the nurse with a pin from the VP's office. We know they work this stuff out beforehand, and it's just funny to see them play with the dynamic this way, especially given how Philip will refuse that role during this ep.

The heart of the ep is Philip and Elizabeth and here's where the ep really seems to foreshadow the endgame. There's superficial connections--an internal coup that's only seen by one side, Stan sort of being the one to calm things down. But mostly it's in the themes of the conflict between the Jennings. This is really the ep where Elizabeth meets Claudia and we learn Claudia's name. (And that Claudia was probably *only* following Philip in earlier eps, not Elizabeth.) Claudia immediately starts flattering Elizabeth--she's read her file and recognized her as being like her. (Later Claudia will use that same information to choose Elizabeth, presumably, for Mexico City while Arkady will read Philip's file and similarly recognize a kindred spirit with him and Oleg.) She starts talking about Stalingrad, which we know is a quick way to get Elizabeth desperate to prove herself. In S6 Claudia will hammer on this even harder. Here and there Claudia and Elizabeth are trying to impress the world of the past onto the present.

In In Control I can't help but feel like Claudia actually likes crises like this one specifically because they remind her of the war. She encourages Elizabeth, who's already primed to see things this way, to see the coup as real. As in S6, Elizabeth embraces this pov, insisting on driving around to map the targets for Operation Christopher even after they've got confirmation that Reagan's fine (leading to the murder of the security guard). While Elizabeth gets orders from the Centre Philip goes out to find facts on his own based on his own logic, which is how he gets the name of the nurse. He hopes that will be the end of it, which eventually leads to the laundry room fight where Philip explains that Haig could have 10 nuclear footballs and it's still not a coup.

This is the exact conflict we have in the final season. Firstly, Elizabeth wants to just follow orders--when Philip points out that *they* are the ones escalating things or potentially escalating things Elizabeth says she's not the one making the decisions--iow, she doesn't have to take responsibility for any results of her actions. For her following orders is an end in itself even if it makes her the threat she's claiming to fight. Philip begs her not to obey him but to try to look at things in a different way--i.e., from the perspective of a US citizen who doesn't see a coup happening here. There's an opportunity for the audience to do this right in the episode when Nina witnesses a fight between some government guys at a bar. She thinks they're fighting over Haig taking over, but really they're arguing over Haig being an ass.

Elizabeth seems to express a long-held resentment at Philip, saying that he thinks he understands things better than her because he "thinks like the kids" do and everyone "likes talking to him." She says she plays her role as an American as well as he does but claims the difference is that she--unlike he--*remembers* what it was like to have nothing, where she comes from, and to care about things bigger than herself. Philip replies that he remembers all of that, it just doesn't blind him to what's in front of him.

Two things that strike me here. One is that this seems to be central to Elizabeth's pov at the end. She starts off thinking, like Claudia does, that people who don't think the way she does must simply not truly understand or love the country. But Elizabeth ultimately recognizes that Gorbachev and Nestrenko *do* love the country and are trying to do what's best for it. That seems to be something Philip represents to her, this new understanding. She ultimately acknowledges at the end of this ep that the Centre was lucky to have Philip on the ground. He was thinking of his own country and the world, not taking America's side against the USSR or opting out. She ends the ep by being okay with keeping this a secret just as in S6 she never considers telling on Philip about Oleg. Philip's argument is also the same as in S6--he wants Elizabeth to look at what's in front of her face. She's been in the US long enough to understand some differences. It's not disloyal to see things more accurately.

Elizabeth's resentment seems to be, imo, connected to Philip's aiblity to connect with the kids, though she also references his generally more friendly nature. She sounds as if she's presenting herself as someone who doesn't have the connections and friends Philip has--for not being liked the way Philip is--but then giving it a noble cause. Yet even by this fourth episode Elizabeth seems far more connected than Philip. We've already seen Zhukov, Gregory and Claudia liking her especially while Philip has gotten the opposite. Zhukov asks if he's loyal, Claudia follows him out of suspicion, his friendship with Robert is mostly talked about in the context of Robert not trusting him, just as Elizabeth didn't. This is the first ep where we meet Charles Deluth and his relationship with Philip is also bit spiky--when Deluth says he hopes Reagan dies Philip ironically says his "commitment to the struggle" has always been "total." (This type of relationship will be a familiar one with Philip.) The other person Philip has is Stan, a relationship that obviously involves a lot of dishonesty. Yet here's Elizabeth acting as if isolation and loneliness is yet another burden she carries that Philip doesn't and seeming to think that Philip being talked *at* is the same as being talked *to* - iow, if people do see him as a good listener, that doesn't mean he feels connected in the other direction.

Maybe most important, when she says that she cares about things bigger than herself she implies that Philip doesn't. This is central to her behavior in S6--and he acknowledges it, calling himself the same old asshole who only cares about himself. Yet Philip's actually practically defined by the opposite. He enjoys being able to do things he enjoys etc., but over and over he's drawn back by being told somebody needs him, be it Elizabeth, the USSR, Elizabeth, Mischa, Elizabeth, Elizabeth... Caring about others is the thing that inspires his rebellion in large part--he wants to protect Kimmy, wants to protect Martha, wants to protect Stan, wants to protect Mischa. Hates himself for killing random strangers without being able to justify it. Even as a teenager Irina lied to him because she says she knew he wouldn't follow his own plans with a baby (Mischa will be hidden from Philip again in S5). Philip compulsively feels responsible for others--even while he's being accused of the opposite (Henry and Stavos also hit this note S6 and it's effective as always). To Elizabeth the only way to not care about yourself is to follow orders from the Centre. That's presumably why she's so struck by gestures that show that Philip is happy to make sacrifices when he sees a reason. Though the show never seems to make her question whether her own pov is actually self-centered.

Actually, now that I think about it, maybe this is a sign of how underneath Elizabeth is all too aware that with all of these relationships have everyone saying they'd sacrifice her if necessary, just as her mother sent her away etc. Where as Martha and potentially Kimmy as well, are personally loyal to him even after they know the truth. Oh, and Stan too.

That also reminds me of another Paige thing. She specifically singles out the secret security guard who threw himself in front of the president. Later she'll admire Jesus for sacrificing himself for the world. These are both specifically physical sacrifices that involve the body being used for some purpose. She seems very enamored of the idea, but ultimately very limited when it comes to putting it into practice. As a spy trainee, especially, she resents not being able to put her own priorities first. Her final fight with Elizabeth is in part about exactly this, she's indignant that Elizabeth might have been sleeping with lots of men even when Paige was a BABY. Elizabeth's defense is exactly what Paige claims to admire--that she and Philip make sacrifices with their bodies. But it turned out that Paige finds this kind of behavior so out of bounds she sometimes denies it even when it's right in front of her face.

ETA: Oh, I forgot another funny thing right at the beginning. Elizabeth and Philip start and end the episode making out. In the kitchen in the beginning Elizabeth shyly asks Philip if they're "still on" for that afternoon--meaning their hotel tryst. Immediately Paige pops out of nowhere and asks, "On for what?" Just seems fitting and goes with my theory of Paige being above interested in having a personal relationship like her parents have, though she's probably not thinking about it in those terms.

Edited August 27, 2018 by sistermagpie

[theredhead77]

I just finished my first run of the series and Amazon really screwed up by promoting the "final season" during season 6. I thought the finale was season, not series. I have a lot of thoughts but can't even do justice to the amazing posts in this thread and in the START thread. But I really need to get this off my chest: someone in the START thread said the McDonald's was the most McDonald's to ever McDonald's and that is so true. It was far too modern to be set in the 80s. The bags and cups were accurate but just look at the condiment counter and paint on the drive-thru as they pull away. It's current design (and I rarely eat at McDonald's).

 It's like the set dresser left and the post-production editors said F it. And if that is my only complaint from the series I think I can say I loved it.
 

Edited September 6, 2018 by theredhead77

[kokapetl]

On 06/09/2018 at 8:44 AM, theredhead77 said:

I just finished my first run of the series and Amazon really screwed up by promoting the "final season" during season 6. I thought the finale was season, not series. I have a lot of thoughts but can't even do justice to the amazing posts in this thread and in the START thread. But I really need to get this off my chest: someone in the START thread said the McDonald's was the most McDonald's to ever McDonald's and that is so true. It was far too modern to be set in the 80s. The bags and cups were accurate but just look at the condiment counter and paint on the drive-thru as they pull away. It's current design (and I rarely eat at McDonald's).

 It's like the set dresser left and the post-production editors said F it. And if that is my only complaint from the series I think I can say I loved it.
 

The roof of an eighties McDonald’s would’ve been brown/grey, right?

[theredhead77]

19 minutes ago, kokapetl said:

The roof of an eighties McDonald’s would’ve been brown/grey, right?

Google says this is from OH, 1980

 

Edited September 9, 2018 by theredhead77

[sistermagpie]

Just re-watched Comint!

Couple of interesting things about this one in retrospect. This ep has two big themes in it. There's a communication theme that comes up organically. The Jennings are looking for encryption devices that are portable, so there's the comint of the plot. We also have Vasily asking Nina if she knows the English word "jitters" and demonstrating it for her when she doesn't. Nina later uses the word for Stan. Stan himself listens to his Russian tapes and tries out a "trust me" in Russian with Nina. He makes a mistake that ironically makes his meaning more clear instead of less by implying that Nina has no choice but to trust him, which is absolutely true even though Stan is trying to play that down. (This is the only time he ever tries to speak Russian with anyone and it's actually the only thing that seems to make Nina feel a bit better in the convo because it gives her some control.) Stan makes a rather elaborate metaphor about Nina seeing him as a wall between her and the elements of the US government who are out to get her--that reminded me of his later "soft mouth" speech to Vlad. Stan used to go in for some colorful metaphors! Later on Elizabeth and Philip have a very direct talk and Philip at one point asks Elizabeth to explain exactly what she's talking about to cut through any miscommunication. Characters are often communicating in subtextual ways--Philip brings Elizabeth a donut by way of apology (and then apologizes outright to make that clear), Nina claims (pretty correctly) that Stan ordered her to sleep with Vasily, Sandra wears a sexy new nightgown to offer sex to Stan and he notices...and rejects it.

Oh, btw, when Sandra talks to Stan about their life before his going undercover she mentions that the two of them used to go...line dancing! How funny! They have been married for 23 years, btw. I never thought about how long they'd been married before, but that's a long time, and they really did seem to have a more fun-sounding life with friends and bridge nights and family fun.

Watching Sandra try so hard to get to Stan made me think of Philip and Elizabeth in S6. Philip has an advantage in that he understands Elizabeth's work and so it is easier for her to talk to him, but Stan's a lot more polite to Sandra than Elizabeth is to Philip. But then, that too is a sign that the Jennings have a chance. Elizabeth's angry at Philip because she wants him and she does make genuine attempts to connect at times. Poor Sandra's just got nothing to work with. In In Control she lays out her dissatisfaction, here she tries a softer approach and she still gets nowhere. In fact, in this ep when Elizabeth tells Philip she's worried all the time and he says she can't live like that she says, "Show me another way," which is pretty much what Philip tries to do from then on.

The other big theme was women dealing with harassment at work. We've got Martha, Nina and Elizabeth all as the victims of it in some way. First there's Martha, who gets a compliment on her shoes showing off her calves by Amador. Amador's line there doesn't come across as creepy, imo, but Martha tells him it's sexual harassment. It is, if nothing else, another moment where Amador is a bit off from everyone else, randomly complimenting Martha's calves in front of co-workers when she's giving Gaad a message. He seems sincere but elsewhere his comments are more sexist. He complains that when he was dating Martha she only wore "nursing shoes" and later says Stan's acting moody like his ex when she was on her period. Iow, seems like he's probably at his nicest before the dating starts. Gaad makes a speech about respect in response to Martha's comment that seems to back her up, but then rolls his eyes at the whole idea as soon as she leaves. (Clark later compliments Martha's shoes in a better context, and there's little doubt that the shoes were for him to begin with).

Nina tells Stan she "sucked [Vasily's] cock like [Stan] told her too" and Stan insists he would never do that, but he pretty much did. He told her he knew she could get Vasily to talk by going on and on about how beautiful and bright she was--stressing the beautiful part, and what else was that supposed to mean than use sex somehow? I don't think I noticed this the first time, but Noah Emmerich really does play that part as a guy starting to fall in love with Nina. His second "very beautiful woman" seems more like Stan saying it to himself--so in a way that's another form of the same problem. Stan's desire for Nina just put her even more into the position of sex object. Even before that, though, Vasily was flirting with her and calling her "Ninotchka" at work which seems pretty damned inappropriate for their relationship. She's got good reason to think he'll go for her ploy even though he ought to be smarter than this.

Finally, of course, there's Elizabeth. The guy she seducing to get Comint info is pretty quick to finish the sex and though she acts complimentary it turns out what he really gets off on is whipping and spanking her. So there's a guy getting off on having power over a woman. She feigns tears and terror to get him to stop. Then she goes home to Philip in full caveman mode, trying to stomp off and beat the guy up no matter how many times Elizabeth tells him she doesn't want him to do that. She accuses him of acting like her "daddy" which is, of course, exactly what he's doing--he beat up a guy who perved on Paige and other little girls earlier.

Philip at first reacts to this deserved smack-down by getting pissy about it and being short with the kids. Actually, it's kind of funny in retrospect to see Elizabeth as the easy-going parent, especially since what Philip is actually saying to Henry isn't all that bad--he's not really "torturing" Henry as Elizabeth says, he just tells him if he's lost his thermos he's not getting another one. In retrospect this is actually a good issue for Philip to use as an excuse to get harsh since his own early life is mostly defined by deprivation. Had he ever had anything as valuable as a thermos he would certainly not have gotten a replacement if he'd lost it. (Or more likely had it violently stolen from him by bigger people.)

In a walk and talk Claudia brings up women's rights, claiming that American women aren't as tough about these things as Russian ones and also claiming that their job is twice as hard or close to it as a woman. She has little reason to really be bringing these things up. She claims that she can sense something wrong with Elizabeth, but I think she's just looking for an excuse to gain influence over her the way she's constantly doing throughout the series. Through this subject she both separates Elizabeth from Americans and from men--iow, she and Claudia are uniquely strong and have a unique understanding of each other's position. By contrast, when she meets with Philip later she gives him the message and that's it. I suspect that some of Paige's feminism in S6--in Dead Hand, iirc--is due to Claudia's influence. Not that Paige herself couldn't also have feminist values for real, of course. I don't think she's simply parroting Claudia (although I could also easily imagine her rejecting those views after the end of the show and becoming a more conservative woman as well). But Claudia is always about that special club with Elizabeth and Paige only fulfills one of the requirements. There's no way she wouldn't be encourage in those views at Russia club, at least.

This made me think about the discussion of the pilot and how there was such a theme there of women being preyed on by men. It made me wonder if the show originally thought they'd be leaning into that more heavily to make Elizabeth more sympathetic. I don't mean they had some storyline they aborted or anything, just that the show did seem to always want to make Elizabeth more sympathetic and sexism is an easy way to do that. It's still there in Elizabeth's story because it's just reality, but not the way it is here and in the pilot. If they had really leaned on that it would have gotten insufferable pretty quick, I think.

Which brings me to Philip who's the total bad guy in his fight with Elizabeth. I can't say it's totally OOC at all since he did go after Errol from the mall, obviously, but he does seem a little set up here. I think it felt more so to me on rewatch because when I first watched it I assumed, as I know at least some others did, that this type of reaction from Philip was going to be explained/explored the way this sort of thing is with Elizabeth. Maybe not some on-the-nose flashback where we learn his mother was whipped to death by an encryption specialist in front of him, but something. Now I know that it's not really explored being younger Philip liking to deal with things that upset him by beating someone up, which doesn't completely explain why he's ignoring his partner's wishes. (Luckily this won't be a recurring problem, which would have been really bad.)

In response to Elizabeth's "You're not my daddy" comment Philip says he's her husband and this is what husbands do. Seeing that now I can't help but wonder what that means. Where is he getting that idea? Who are his husband role models for that claim? He's been Elizabeth's fake husband for years, presumably without beating anyone up. This can't be the first time she's been hurt as a spy. We now know he didn't grow up with a father and we already knew there weren't a lot of husbands in his world growing up, so the scene seems less revealing in retrospect than more. Especially since he's so angry about it throughout the ep, as if Elizabeth's in the wrong for stopping him from being a husband or something. The main thing is just that this is exactly the kind of behavior the show would want to jump in and explain a bit for Elizabeth while in this case it's just not Philip's story. It just feels like an anomaly, a bit like his pushiness in the Pilot.

The best thing about it is that it makes it clear that the Timoshev thing wasn't about Elizabeth wanting Philip to save her, and again there that seems more clarifying Elizabeth than Philip.

The most chilling moment in retrospect, though, is the talk Claudia and Elizabeth have early on about Adam Dorwin. Dorwin is the source who's desperate to talk to his handler, who turns out to be Vasily. Vasily can't see him because of this new FBI tech. Elizabeth suggests talking to Dorwin herself, explaining the situation until Vasily can get free. Claudia first talks about how in general you need a personal relationship with your sources so they're loyal. First, that made me think how Philip winds up demonstrating that sort of thing throughout the show more than Elizabeth. She doesn't really get stories where a source is particularly loyal to her because of their relationship. Sometimes it goes the other way instead, like when Karen gets shaky and falls off the wagon and says she's going to confess, Elizabeth kills her rather than calming her down. When she does have someone personally loyal to her, there's romantic desire involved more than emotional dependence.

Claudia then goes into a specific story about an agent she ran in West Germany (which seems illogical, but whatever). He was "one of these loners, an oddball who never learned how to make friends. So [she] became his friend." Then she got sent away and the Centre didn't need him. She explained it to him, he thanked her for the opportunity to work and then killed himself shortly afterwards because while they no longer needed him, he needed them.

In context and on first watch the speech obviously relates to Dorwin but on re-watch...that's totally Paige. Right there was Paige's potential future if Father Andre hadn't intervened.

Interesting in an ep where Paige herself barely appears. It was so glaring I looked back at the ep thread for Harvest to see if the connection was made then and yes, more than once people connected her to this guy and Dorwin. In fact, there was a bit of a discussion with at least one person questioning why Paige wouldn't have friends since she doesn't have anything obvious about her that would put people off--she's a blandly pretty middle class girl who can have a conversation just fine. There's also always been attempts to blame this on her parents, saying they didn't allow the kids to have friends or whatever, but that's explicitly untrue as well. They more than once mention expecting the kids to have normal social lives and although we rarely see friends at the house, Henry has no trouble inviting them over.

So when Claudia talks about becoming this guy's friend, it's very easy to see her playing Paige the same way---with a touch of grandmother thrown in. (Much easier than Paige's actual Russian grandmother she wasn't ready to try to get to know and who couldn't even speak English.) here's Claudia saying this to Elizabeth and years later Paige explaining just as clearly that she has no friends and is relying on her and Claudia to, well, have something like a life.

Edited September 10, 2018 by sistermagpie

[Umbelina]

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

In response to Elizabeth's "You're not my daddy" comment Philip says he's her husband and this is what husbands do. Seeing that now I can't help but wonder what that means. Where is he getting that idea? Who are his husband role models for that claim? He's been Elizabeth's fake husband for years, presumably without beating anyone up. This can't be the first time she's been hurt as a spy. We now know he didn't grow up with a father and we already knew there weren't a lot of husbands in his world growing up, so the scene seems less revealing in retrospect than more. Especially since he's so angry about it throughout the ep, as if Elizabeth's in the wrong for stopping him from being a husband or something. The main thing is just that this is exactly the kind of behavior the show would want to jump in and explain a bit for Elizabeth while in this case it's just not Philip's story. It just feels like an anomaly, a bit like his pushiness in the Pilot.

In retrospect, that's probably (aside from the ending and most of season 5) my biggest issue with the show, dropping it down from my top ranked shows of all times.  I really don't understand why they couldn't have given us at least as much of Philip's backstory as they did Elizabeth's.  Frankly, I would have preferred MORE of his, since Elizabeth's was pretty "done" and relatively boring after they established

1. Mom was tough and wouldn't sleep with men for food or favors.
2. Mom "never hesitated" when the KGB wanted her daughter.
3. Daddy was a coward and a traitor (at least by Stalin's standards, where anyone who surrendered, even if vastly outnumbered and out of ammunition was a traitor.)
4. 1-3 shaped Elizabeth's entire character.

We can watch wheat grow and 10 minutes of a hole being dug, and completely blacked out murders in a warehouse, and endless Paige nonsense and the Pastor's, but they couldn't spare a few short scenes to define the male lead?  WTF?

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

The best thing about it is that it makes it clear that the Timoshev thing wasn't about Elizabeth wanting Philip to save her, and again there that seems more clarifying Elizabeth than Philip.

Elizabeth could have killed Timochev herself.  She never needed Philip to "save" her.  What she responded to was that he CARED about her, that the fact that she'd been raped made him angry enough to abandon his dream of being an American and free from the KGB.  That ELIZABETH mattered more to him than anything.

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

Claudia then goes into a specific story about an agent she ran in West Germany (which seems illogical, but whatever). He was "one of these loners, an oddball who never learned how to make friends. So [she] became his friend." Then she got sent away and the Centre didn't need him. She explained it to him, he thanked her for the opportunity to work and then killed himself shortly afterwards because while they no longer needed him, he needed them.

Curious, why would you think it odd that she ran a West German agent?  Berlin was the place with the most spying and spies for a very long time, from many countries, certainly the USA, USSR, Great Britain most of all.

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

So when Claudia talks about becoming this guy's friend, it's very easy to see her playing Paige the same way---with a touch of grandmother thrown in. (Much easier than Paige's actual Russian grandmother she wasn't ready to try to get to know and who couldn't even speak English.) here's Claudia saying this to Elizabeth and years later Paige explaining just as clearly that she has no friends and is relying on her and Claudia to, well, have something like a life.

Yes, Granny, much like Elizabeth early on in Paige's recruitment, was totally "seducing" and recruiting Paige non stop, and at the same time, playing/conning Elizabeth about Paige.  The funny thing was, or maybe the overlooked thing was, Elizabeth was also playing/conning Granny about Paige's "skills."  You'd think the dead woman Philip removed hands and head from would have talked to Granny about just how bad Paige was, since Elizabeth wasn't listening, and her life could be endangered...

 

Good points about the sexism theme.  This show was always, and in retrospect it's easier to see, about Elizabeth, about women and their power and challenges.  We got a few little things about some of the men, Gabe had his big moment talking about fear and Stalin and quitting (and thank God for that, he was amazing in that scene, and the writing was so good.)  William's story was also so very good, writing, but I give a bigger nod to the incredible acting.  Philip, was around a lot, and had issues (mostly about WOMEN) and Henry was ignored almost completely.

They definitely wanted a show about women, and it was a good concept and worked very well for what it was, the hard-line 1/2 of the spy couple being the female for a change.  I think it fell apart a bit with Elizabeth's odd choices in season 6, but still, it was different, it was their version of feminist, having the man be the one with all of the overt feelings.  I think the mother/daughter story should have been scrapped, or modified, and they did try at the end to do that (a bit) by having Paige finally suck openly at spycraft.   In many ways, this was the story of Elizabeth and the guy who loved her, and the daughter she wanted to be a mini-me.

In season 5, I really liked most of the new/added characters, but they just didn't resonate for me the way the rest of the supporting players have always done.  I think the Russian couple and the kid could have been so interesting, and Tuan as well (as the more-Elizabeth than Elizabeth character.)  If they had developed the Russian Couple and kid more, made us care more, and certainly devoloped bad-teeth woman and the hockey player more (since they were going to be important in the finale season) I think season 5 would have been better.  They should have dropped the wheat, or at least shortened it, and their affairs there as well, it didn't need that much screen time to make the points it made.  We probably wouldn't gotten a "Nina, Oleg, Martha, or William" out of it, but we may have.  I think they just added too many, and didn't have the time to make us care about any of them.

Edited September 10, 2018 by Umbelina
)

[sistermagpie]

14 hours ago, Umbelina said:

In retrospect, that's probably (aside from the ending and most of season 5) my biggest issue with the show, dropping it down from my top ranked shows of all times.  I really don't understand why they couldn't have given us at least as much of Philip's backstory as they did Elizabeth's.  Frankly, I would have preferred MORE of his, since Elizabeth's was pretty "done" and relatively boring after they established.

Watching it this time it just really stood out how this wasn't anything they ever really explored when it seems like it would be really interesting. Especially since it would have gotten, imo, even more into that particular quirk of the time and place they grew up. They both had single mothers, but Elizabeth's mother was also very much reflecting a certain personality that Elizabeth had herself and was trying to recreate in Paige. Where as Philip was living in a home with a single mother in dire circumstances with two little boys depending on her, like so many people who weren't as driven by Party loyalty. We know about two times that Philip was threatened as a kid, once where his mother stood up for him and once when he did it himself. They even seemed to connect Philip's feelings about Elizabeth to his mother, so it's interesting they never thought it was worth exploring that more specifically. We don't even know when/if she died.

It's kind of like William saying, "She's pretty. He's lucky." Like it's assumed it's obvious why people would be in love with Elizabeth so there was no psychology there worth digging more deeply into while the psychology of Elizabeth's love for Philip, specifically, (and Gregory too) was pretty explicit. Irina, too, was just the girl who was there as far as we know.

And yet I still do find all his flashbacks more interesting. Even in S5 it's interesting to compare Elizabeth's more dramatic flashback with a deadly accident and a dying horse and a lecture from her spy trainer with Philip's memory of begging for scraps from a communal kitchen. 

14 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Elizabeth could have killed Timochev herself.  She never needed Philip to "save" her.  What she responded to was that he CARED about her, that the fact that she'd been raped made him angry enough to abandon his dream of being an American and free from the KGB.  That ELIZABETH mattered more to him than anything.

Exactly--and I do think that was clear in the Pilot itself, especially since Elizabeth clearly could have killed him and deliberately chooses not to do it. But this ep sets Philip up to make that clear again in case there was any doubt. And once he gets that she's able to share some fears with him while Stan's still locked in his cone of silence.

14 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Curious, why would you think it odd that she ran a West German agent?  Berlin was the place with the most spying and spies for a very long time, from many countries, certainly the USA, USSR, Great Britain most of all.

It just seemed like there was no reason for Claudia to be trotting around the globe running agents here and there when she's trained so well to pass as American--well enough to be played by MM. I'm sure it's explainable, but it felt like it was just thrown in to remind us that this was a global operation. 

14 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Yes, Granny, much like Elizabeth early on in Paige's recruitment, was totally "seducing" and recruiting Paige non stop, and at the same time, playing/conning Elizabeth about Paige.  The funny thing was, or maybe the overlooked thing was, Elizabeth was also playing/conning Granny about Paige's "skills."  You'd think the dead woman Philip removed hands and head from would have talked to Granny about just how bad Paige was, since Elizabeth wasn't listening, and her life could be endangered...

I guess Marilyn probably didn't have access to Claudia. Elizabeth would probably be as high up as she got in the organization--Paige gets special treatment because she's Paige. I do wonder what Marilyn would have said if given the chance. It would have been interesting if she'd tried to feel out Philip on the issue in Chicago. I honestly kept imagining her opening a hotel door to see Philip there and saying, "Oh thank god, I thought she might have called that Julie kid and I was going to just shoot myself in the head right now."

The funny thing about Elizabeth playing Granny is that one good reason for Claudia to fall for that is that it's so counterproductive on Elizabeth's part. In the past she would never have wanted to give the Centre damaged goods and had no problem rejecting somebody for their mistakes. As Paige's mother you'd also think that Elizabeth had good reason to be realistic about her skills to protect Paige herself. Not to mention, if she kicked Paige out she'd protect her from finding out all the things about this work Elizabeth apparently never wanted her to know. Instead she put herself on a collision course for all three things, seeming to make the same choices as she did on the question of staying in the US--she just always chose to keep risking it all until it blew up rather than taking any of the opportunities to back down.

But by the end she was apparently just too wrapped up in her own issues too see it. The best she could do was drop little hints to Philip he wasn't picking up. I wonder what was truly at the bottom of her denial about Paige. There's plenty of reasons for it I could imagine--does Paige represent that Elizabeth is a failure as a mother and an agent since her daughter isn't good at this? Is she scared that if Paige isn't spying they won't have any connection, a prophecy she's fulfilled herself with Henry? Is there some latent hostility there towards Paige having a life? Just a general disgust with anyone not doing this? A need to compete with Philip's brilliant success with Henry (which of course isn't actually Philip's success at all)?

14 hours ago, Umbelina said:

We got a few little things about some of the men, Gabe had his big moment talking about fear and Stalin and quitting (and thank God for that, he was amazing in that scene, and the writing was so good.)  William's story was also so very good, writing, but I give a bigger nod to the incredible acting.  Philip, was around a lot, and had issues (mostly about WOMEN) and Henry was ignored almost completely.

And Claudia and Elizabeth were both examples of women being the most committed and single-minded almost because as women they felt they had to be the coldest and the most committed. Paige wasn't that but she seemed to think she was doing that in her mind. Meanwhile the men were all burnt out and full of regret, yet stayed in the game for their own individual reasons. When Gabriel says that "in the end" William is "a patriot" and Philip asks if that's not who he is anymore, that does seem to be a conversation about Philip himself. 

It feels like there's similarities in all the generations for both genders but the women seem to be trying to fit / live up to the same mold while the men often seem to be trying to avoid the mistakes of their fathers or trying to set a better example for their sons and then tragically realizing they've somehow followed the same pattern yet again.

14 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Philip, was around a lot, and had issues (mostly about WOMEN) and Henry was ignored almost completely.

It's funny how Henry was shown to so often go to Stan to talk about women, and even at Thanksgiving Stan asks if he's seeing anyone and Henry says a girl broke up with him and he has no clue why. Both are obviously capable of attracting women and having relationships but it does sometimes seem ironic (if understandable) that Henry saw Stan as the role model in that department when Philip's so comfortable with women of so many types and in so many ways--even Granny, who he doesn't like. It's not like Henry will get much help drawing on his relationship with his mother. On one hand I could imagine Henry wanting to avoid his father's marriage, but I don't know that he quite sees it like that. 

Of course, it's impossible to know with Henry since we just don't know him. He doesn't seem to be in search of True Love the way Paige does to me. He might currently just want to have fun with girls without being that serious. 

That just reminded me that when he asks Stan how he met Sandra (who was Henry's first big crush) Stan talks about Sandra laughing while Henry asks his father why his mother's so sad. I don't have any real conclusion to draw from that--his crush in S5, Chris, seems like she could easily be more a case of Henry seeking out his mother since she's so goal-oriented on his behalf.

[Umbelina]

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

It just seemed like there was no reason for Claudia to be trotting around the globe running agents here and there when she's trained so well to pass as American--well enough to be played by MM. I'm sure it's explainable, but it felt like it was just thrown in to remind us that this was a global operation. 

Oh, speaking perfect English would be a huge asset in Berlin and in West Germany, and remember, that East Germany was PART of the USSR, so she was hardly globe trotting.  Honestly, I'd be shocked if a spy of Claudia's caliber didn't spend time in Berlin.  (My spy novel obsession showing here.)  ETA also, Berlin might have been a good place to polish up her English and hear it spoken more...

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

I do wonder what Marilyn would have said if given the chance. It would have been interesting if she'd tried to feel out Philip on the issue in Chicago. I honestly kept imagining her opening a hotel door to see Philip there and saying, "Oh thank god, I thought she might have called that Julie kid and I was going to just shoot myself in the head right now."

That would have been SO good!  I wish it had happened, but that would have permitted more focus on Philip, and honestly the show, in the end, was all about Elizabeth really, or at least, she was the lead character and the ones the writers built the show around.

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

The funny thing about Elizabeth playing Granny is that one good reason for Claudia to fall for that is that it's so counterproductive on Elizabeth's part. In the past she would never have wanted to give the Centre damaged goods and had no problem rejecting somebody for their mistakes. As Paige's mother you'd also think that Elizabeth had good reason to be realistic about her skills to protect Paige herself. Not to mention, if she kicked Paige out she'd protect her from finding out all the things about this work Elizabeth apparently never wanted her to know. Instead she put herself on a collision course for all three things, seeming to make the same choices as she did on the question of staying in the US--she just always chose to keep risking it all until it blew up rather than taking any of the opportunities to back down.

Elizabeth honestly wasn't very intelligent.  She was very good at what she did, very dedicated, very capable, and obviously she had a brain or she couldn't have learned English so well.  Still, she was incapable of abstract thought, or of "thinking outside of the box."  She was intelligent by rote, a perfect soldier, never thinking for herself, but good at adapting during missions, but again, that was training, in the end she really enjoyed and excelled at just following orders.  Or another way of putting it is that she was closed and single minded, something she prided herself on.  USSR is GOOD.  USA is BAD.  That's all she needed to know. 

Emotionally of course, she was a basket case, and Philip served his role of humanizing her a bit, or at least bringing out some emotion and bringing some thoughtfulness (not much) to her character.  At least she stopped reporting on him!  She came to care about Young Hee as well.  That openness was strange and mostly uncomfortable for her though, as shown with the wheat guy cheating on her, and her opening her mind to other options near the end.

It's possible she was smart enough to know that if she really allowed herself the THINK, she would agree with Philip about all of it, but she blocked thinking, by far preferred to just do as told, until the end when she finally decided to think for herself and disobey Center and Claudia.  Unfortunately, she didn't extend her thinking enough to realize she better kill Claudia and cover up her disobedience or have the KGB out to kill her and her husband.

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

But by the end she was apparently just too wrapped up in her own issues too see it. The best she could do was drop little hints to Philip he wasn't picking up. I wonder what was truly at the bottom of her denial about Paige. There's plenty of reasons for it I could imagine--does Paige represent that Elizabeth is a failure as a mother and an agent since her daughter isn't good at this? Is she scared that if Paige isn't spying they won't have any connection, a prophecy she's fulfilled herself with Henry? Is there some latent hostility there towards Paige having a life? Just a general disgust with anyone not doing this? A need to compete with Philip's brilliant success with Henry (which of course isn't actually Philip's success at all)?

I really don't think Elizabeth was that complicated. 

She needed a mini-me, just as she wanted to be a mini-her-mother, and never hesitate to give her daughter to the KGB. 

If not?  Her entire self definition would crumble, and she would have to consider that she's been wrong about everything all along, and so was her mommy.

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

And Claudia and Elizabeth were both examples of women being the most committed and single-minded almost because as women they felt they had to be the coldest and the most committed. Paige wasn't that but she seemed to think she was doing that in her mind. Meanwhile the men were all burnt out and full of regret, yet stayed in the game for their own individual reasons. When Gabriel says that "in the end" William is "a patriot" and Philip asks if that's not who he is anymore, that does seem to be a conversation about Philip himself. 

It feels like there's similarities in all the generations for both genders but the women seem to be trying to fit / live up to the same mold while the men often seem to be trying to avoid the mistakes of their fathers or trying to set a better example for their sons and then tragically realizing they've somehow followed the same pattern yet again.

Because of my disappointment with the finale, and with the "edgy" hole digging "edgy" slow wheat growing and "edgy" dark scene, I think the writers were just pretty simplistic.  What they did was role-reversal.  Pure and simple, the men were thoughtful and emotional, the women steadfast and duty oriented.  Whoop.

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

Of course, it's impossible to know with Henry since we just don't know him. He doesn't seem to be in search of True Love the way Paige does to me. He might currently just want to have fun with girls without being that serious. 

That just reminded me that when he asks Stan how he met Sandra (who was Henry's first big crush) Stan talks about Sandra laughing while Henry asks his father why his mother's so sad. I don't have any real conclusion to draw from that--his crush in S5, Chris, seems like she could easily be more a case of Henry seeking out his mother since she's so goal-oriented on his behalf.

Honestly, it just gave Stan screen time, and Henry was SO tall that I think the writers put him in scenes with the very tall Stan.  They'd also determined their ending before season two even started, so Henry having a relationship with Stan was important for Paige's story. 

Too bad, I think he had better acting instincts and was by far the more interesting of the kids.

Edited September 10, 2018 by Umbelina
clarity

[sistermagpie]

21 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Or another way of putting it is that she was closed and single minded, something she prided herself on.  USSR is GOOD.  USA is BAD.  That's all she needed to know. 

It's funny that at the end of the show it's almost like you've got a hero who's a big gun with humans plotting to try to point her in the direction they want. Philip wins by asking the gun to consider who it would choose to shoot.

This also for some reason made me think about how Gabriel left the US after lying about Mischa because he felt this was a betrayal too far. He was their handler, certainly handled them like an expert, but said this was, in his mind at least, the first time he'd "lied to them." I suspect that might be disputed, but he himself at least felt like he'd now betrayed the personal relationship he had with them, one that was like family.

Claudia up until the end lies to Elizabeth in just as serious a way and not only doesn't feel any guilt she turns it around on Elizabeth, taunting her with the question, "What's left for you now?" She would have destroyed Paige. Probably by tricking her into doing something truly dumb that Paige herself wouldn't even understand, knowing that Paige would go down for it, but not until after Claudia got what she wanted.

21 hours ago, Umbelina said:

I really don't think Elizabeth was that complicated. 

She needed a mini-me, just as she wanted to be a mini-her-mother, and never hesitate to give her daughter to the KGB. 

If not?  Her entire self definition would crumble, and she would have to consider that she's been wrong about everything all along, and so was her mommy.

True--I definitely see that. But there's a couple of different ways that this could have played out. Like if Elizabeth was truly being professional she would have admitted to the Centre that her daughter wasn't up to the jobs she was given to do and maybe they need to come up with something else. Or demand the best from Paige, harshly punishing her for her mistakes, certain she has it in her. Instead she seems to be doing one of those classic Elizabeth moves where she presents herself as being completely professional while secretly chasing what she wants. She avoids being truly honest with Paige about her abilities, lies to others about how well she's doing, tells herself and everyone that Paige is learning from mistakes when she's obviously not. 

She seems committed to some magical thinking of her own where if she can just get Paige to a job with the State Department she'll be secure in a magically-cozy spy job where she just hands over documents she sees at work. Elizabeth will get it both ways. The Centre will get an incredibly important spy that reflects incredibly well on Elizabeth, Paige will continue to look up to and respect Elizabeth and the job Elizabeth herself does while also being totally protected from the stuff Elizabeth doesn't want her to know about.

21 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Honestly, it just gave Stan screen time, and Henry was SO tall that I think the writers put him in scenes with the very tall Stan.  They'd also determined their ending before season two even started, so Henry having a relationship with Stan was important for Paige's story. 

 

That does seem to be the main gist. Though it never fails to amaze me not that that they gave Henry and Stan a relationship, but that similar scenes that are happening with Philip off-screen were never an interest, even as a background to other things. Of course the Henry relationship was useful in a practical way for Stan where Philip had other outlets. (Honestly the most interesting thing about Stan/Henry to me is Matthew.) But given they obviously knew early on that Henry was the kid who would probably be left puzzling over the man they would have been interesting. (Also they did want that relationship to be established as very important to both of them in S6.) Henry doesn't overly care about the parts of Stan he doesn't know the way Matthew does or the way he would care about Philip. 

[Umbelina]

19 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

This also for some reason made me think about how Gabriel left the US after lying about Mischa because he felt this was a betrayal too far. He was their handler, certainly handled them like an expert, but said this was, in his mind at least, the first time he'd "lied to them." I suspect that might be disputed, but he himself at least felt like he'd now betrayed the personal relationship he had with them, one that was like family.

At the time I really thought it was because he knew Philip was skating on thin ice (which he WAS) and didn't want to be the one to eliminate, or give the orders to eliminate Philip, in order to preserve the much more valuable to the KGB, Elizabeth's loyalty and commitment.  I still think that would have been a much better story.

Again though, the male spy was more thoughtful and human.  Gabe was never Claudia, he knew the flaws, and he knew why he made the decision to kill friends, because he was afraid for his own life.  He knew Stalin was a monster, something Claudia would never admit.  He knew the current leadership of the USSR and KGB made errors.  Claudia was more like Elizabeth, Gabe more like Philip, mirrors really.

Although Claudia did show doubts a couple of times, after the KGB went behind her back and recruited that son, and during one mission.  Honestly though, that was out of character a bit, but did make her a tad more human than Elizabeth.

19 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

Claudia up until the end lies to Elizabeth in just as serious a way and not only doesn't feel any guilt she turns it around on Elizabeth, taunting her with the question, "What's left for you now?" She would have destroyed Paige. Probably by tricking her into doing something truly dumb that Paige herself wouldn't even understand, knowing that Paige would go down for it, but not until after Claudia got what she wanted.

Claudia, like Elizabeth, was a very good spy.  If you think of them in terms of employees, and you as the boss, you would want spies who follow orders, because presumably, you would have a better overview of all of the surrounding factors.

The show chose to depict Center as completely out of touch several times, which I'm sure was true, especially in the whole second generation crap.  It would have been more balanced to show them KNOWING MORE than the people on the ground at times though.  Instead, we leave with the idea that the spies in the field knew more all the time, and honestly the KGB made SO many errors it became a bit silly. 

While I do think errors are made by "headquarters" in spy organizations, heaven knows that is a theme of many spy novels?  There must be times when they are right, and we didn't see much, if any, of that.  Since we saw it from the point of view of spies usually?  I guess that's OK, but the reality that one spy wouldn't be given a whole picture, for reasons, was never, that I recall, addressed.  Protecting other sources was usually the main reason information was compartmentalized.

19 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

True--I definitely see that. But there's a couple of different ways that this could have played out. Like if Elizabeth was truly being professional she would have admitted to the Centre that her daughter wasn't up to the jobs she was given to do and maybe they need to come up with something else. Or demand the best from Paige, harshly punishing her for her mistakes, certain she has it in her. Instead she seems to be doing one of those classic Elizabeth moves where she presents herself as being completely professional while secretly chasing what she wants. She avoids being truly honest with Paige about her abilities, lies to others about how well she's doing, tells herself and everyone that Paige is learning from mistakes when she's obviously not. 

True.

Elizabeth's motivations are necessary to understand her choices with Paige.  Also, she was never self aware or really even interested in examining "feelings."  Had she?  She would have made better professional and personal decisions about Paige.  She discounted "feelings" and pushed them away though, and since her actions with Paige are almost completely from her emotional walls that began in childhood?  No chance she would tear down those walls.

I WISH, since the show did focus on WWII, they had addressed the fact that her daddy may not have been a traitor after all, at least not in any sane person's definition.  Again though, that would require examining the soviet union, and Elizabeth wasn't about to do that.

19 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

She seems committed to some magical thinking of her own where if she can just get Paige to a job with the State Department she'll be secure in a magically-cozy spy job where she just hands over documents she sees at work. Elizabeth will get it both ways. The Centre will get an incredibly important spy that reflects incredibly well on Elizabeth, Paige will continue to look up to and respect Elizabeth and the job Elizabeth herself does while also being totally protected from the stuff Elizabeth doesn't want her to know about.

Frankly, that made Elizabeth willfully stupid in the extreme. 

19 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

That does seem to be the main gist. Though it never fails to amaze me not that that they gave Henry and Stan a relationship, but that similar scenes that are happening with Philip off-screen were never an interest, even as a background to other things. Of course the Henry relationship was useful in a practical way for Stan where Philip had other outlets. (Honestly the most interesting thing about Stan/Henry to me is Matthew.) But given they obviously knew early on that Henry was the kid who would probably be left puzzling over the man they would have been interesting. (Also they did want that relationship to be established as very important to both of them in S6.) Henry doesn't overly care about the parts of Stan he doesn't know the way Matthew does or the way he would care about Philip. 

They were males.  The writers didn't care to address that much.  Their interest was always more focused on the females.  To the show's detriment IMO.  I would have rather seen at least a 60/40 split.  I get the desire to reverse roles, but come on.

[Umbelina]

I just feel like adding a comment/clarification.

I don't like many of the cutesy/edgy things the writers did in the past two seasons (the stupid Stan's girlfriend-then wife "mystery, or the dark theft, or endless scenes of hole digging) and I still feel season 5 basically sucked, since they didn't make us care about the new characters, and had dumped half the cast, and partially because it lost it's excitement.  I do think the writers got "stuck" on an idea (Paige) and their ending, even though if they had been more adaptable they would have probably ended up with a better show (see Jesse Pinkman or Layfayette not dying in the first seasons as BB and TB intended originally.) 

In spite of all that, the final season was enjoyable for me, and had a LOT of good stuff.  Where it falls apart for me is simply in two ways.  Logic/History and, especially, for me, the "no ending ending."  Other than those two rather important things, at least to me, apparently not for most, it was very good.  For what it was?  It was very well done.  I do wish they'd bothered to define Philip's history more.  I do wish they hadn't left every character in peril, and I think the solutions were SO easy, so I honestly don't get it (for example, not having Elizabeth on a last season murder spree, not killing the FBI agents, most certainly killing Claudia for at least a bit of protection, etc.)

I watched Arkady telling Oleg's father that Oleg would be in jail forever in the USA, but I also noticed that he said he's personally doomed as well, and that Oleg's dad may be as well,  so add them to the list of our doomed characters. 

The show has always stayed accurate to history, and we KNOW what's about to happen.  I wish if they were going to time jump they had done it in season 5, shorten that sucker and do it then.  I think they didn't because the story they wanted, Paige staying behind at the last minute, was all they could see.  They didn't WANT the hassle of suggesting up any possible logically good future for any of our characters, or rather, they wanted their story Paige/Elizabeth and the "punishment" of losing the kids more.  In truth, there is no even semi-happy ending for anyone on screen.  They didn't write it, because with their set up, that was impossible, but they didn't want to OWN that either.  That's just something I will never understand.

In addition, I'm kind of insulted by the "write your own, we are so interested to read them!" crap.  Damn, I'm being negative again, and I meant this to be a more positive post.  Pivot!

What was there was good TV in season 6.  Excellent TV really, and some amazing acting.  The only place it really fails for me is as a finale, not as a season.

Edited September 15, 2018 by Umbelina

[Dev F]

49 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

I watched Arkady telling Oleg's father that Oleg would be in jail forever in the USA, but I also noticed that he said he's personally doomed as well, and that Oleg's dad may be as well,  so add them to the list of our doomed characters.

Par for the course at this point, but I totally disagree. Like every other conversation on the show that touches on the fate of the hardline conspiracy, the final meeting between Arkady and Igor makes it clear that they are only doomed if Oleg's mission fails:

"Igor Pavlovich . . . he wasn't there for the KGB. There won't be a trade. He could be in jail for a long time."
"I'll talk to Gorbachev . . ."
"He's not in control of this. That's part of the problem. They're going to come after me, possibly you."
"What you sent him there for . . . it didn't work, then."
"Yes."

If the idea was supposed to be that the mission was inherently dangerous to Arkady and Igor regardless of its outcome, then Igor's inference -- and Arkady's confirmation of it -- make no sense. And if the writers wanted the point of the scene to be that Igor realized everyone involved in the plan was doomed all along, they could've written it that way. Again, you're asking for us to assume that historical events that are completely external to the story override what the story is actually saying.

[Umbelina]

9 minutes ago, Dev F said:

Par for the course at this point, but I totally disagree. Like every other conversation on the show that touches on the fate of the hardline conspiracy, the final meeting between Arkady and Igor makes it clear that they are only doomed if Oleg's mission fails:

"Igor Pavlovich . . . he wasn't there for the KGB. There won't be a trade. He could be in jail for a long time."
"I'll talk to Gorbachev . . ."
"He's not in control of this. That's part of the problem. They're going to come after me, possibly you."
"What you sent him there for . . . it didn't work, then."
"Yes."

If the idea was supposed to be that the mission was inherently dangerous to Arkady and Igor regardless of its outcome, then Igor's inference -- and Arkady's confirmation of it -- make no sense. And if the writers wanted the point of the scene to be that Igor realized everyone involved in the plan was doomed all along, they could've written it that way. Again, you're asking for us to assume that historical events that are completely external to the story override what the story is actually saying.

The first bolded part was what I was referring to.  Arkady admitting his own jeopardy, saying Gorby can't save Oleg, and that he and Oleg's dad are in danger too.

The second bolded part?

I'm not asking you or anyone else to assume anything.  I'm expressing my own opinion, about a show that always stayed grounded historically, if not in actual trade-craft or duties of embedded spies.  I'm writing about why the season, as a finale, didn't work for me at all, and actually makes me incredibly annoyed with the writers.  History is history, and if you can show me one instance where the show re-wrote it?  Please do.  If not, it's logical to assume that history still matters in their futures.

The Coup happens shortly with the exact same type of people involved as were involved in the show.

The Soviet Union collapses.

Edited September 15, 2018 by Umbelina

[sistermagpie]

23 minutes ago, Dev F said:

Par for the course at this point, but I totally disagree. Like every other conversation on the show that touches on the fate of the hardline conspiracy, the final meeting between Arkady and Igor makes it clear that they are only doomed if Oleg's mission fails:

FWIW, that's how I understood it in the ep too. The idea was that everything was lost because Oleg had been captured. That's also what Philip was reiterating when Stan revealed that Oleg was in jail--though Philip of course didn't recognize him by name. That's a reason Philip was saying he absolutely had to get back to the USSR, to deliver the information Oleg wasn't able to pass on. The implication was that if Philip was able to get the info to Arkady the situation would be changed. Gorbachev wasn't in control of the mission Arkady was running with Oleg and without the info he was powerless.

Whether or not that matches up with reality is a different question, of course, but the dramatic set up of the finale seemed to be about Philip and Elizabeth keeping Oleg's mission from being pointless and so also saving Arkady, Igor et al. from that specific threat. If they were wrong and still about to be killed, they didn't know it by the time they stood on the bridge.

[Umbelina]

14 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

FWIW, that's how I understood it in the ep too. The idea was that everything was lost because Oleg had been captured. That's also what Philip was reiterating when Stan revealed that Oleg was in jail--though Philip of course didn't recognize him by name. That's a reason Philip was saying he absolutely had to get back to the USSR, to deliver the information Oleg wasn't able to pass on. The implication was that if Philip was able to get the info to Arkady the situation would be changed. Gorbachev wasn't in control of the mission Arkady was running with Oleg and without the info he was powerless.

Whether or not that matches up with reality is a different question, of course, but the dramatic set up of the finale seemed to be about Philip and Elizabeth keeping Oleg's mission from being pointless and so also saving Arkady, Igor et al. from that specific threat. If they were wrong and still about to be killed, they didn't know it by the time they stood on the bridge.

All they have is that the Coup people were going to frame someone loyal to Gorbachev though.  Gorbachev WAS powerless against that massive coup, and I hardly think "they were going to frame your guy" is valuable enough information to take down a large group of highly placed military, political, and KGB directors who were behind it, most of whom Elizabeth and Philip can't even identify.  Liz only knows about Claudia and  one military guy (or at least a description of him) and Arkady already knew that the head of Directorate S is involved. 

Logically, that just doesn't make sense, so with word of mouth that Gorby's representative was about to be framed suddenly all is OK?  How?  How does that damage the Coup, or save any of them?  I'm honestly asking, not being sarcastic here.

Arkady is going to accuse his boss on that?   If so, why didn't he accuse his boss before?  (because no one would believe him probably)  ETA, also, Claudia is now on the loose (thanks Liz) and if we know Claudia, she's already planned to discredit Liz's information, if not just take out Liz and Philip completely, for either revenge about (in her mind) betraying the glorious cause, or for personal protection.

Claudia hasn't been around all these years, and survived Stalin, because she is stupid, or has no connections...

Edited September 15, 2018 by Umbelina

[Dev F]

5 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

The first bolded part was what I was referring to.  Arkady admitting his own jeopardy, saying Gorby can't save Oleg, and that he and Oleg's dad are in danger too.

Yes, of course, I know, but you can't just ignore the next sentence, in which Igor takes Arkady's comment to mean that Oleg's mission failed, with the clear implication being that they would not be in danger if Oleg succeeded.

Quote

History is history, and if you can show me one instance where the show re-wrote it?  Please do.  If not, it's logical to assume that history still matters in their futures.

There are a few minor things, like the fact that the Russians never lost a nuclear submarine because they stole a propeller and it failed, or that when that FBI plane went down in 1982, there wasn't a guy named Dave aboard. And the writers are obviously fudging things when they never give the name the Deputy Attorney General, presumably because he's not based on Edward C. Schmults, the actual DAG at the time. (Though the character does conveniently disappear around the middle of 1984, when Schmults was replaced by Carol Dinkins, the first female DAG.)

But what we're talking about here is not a literal historical change anyway. The series gives no indication that the hardliners thwarted in 1987 are meant to be the same people who attempted the coup in 1991. Indeed, KGB head Vladimir Kryuchkov, who originated the 1991 plan, didn't ascend to the position until 1988, after the conspiracy depicted in the series would have been resolved. The writers can postulate a group of hardliners who tried to overthrow Gorbachev four years earlier without implying that they remained in power and became the 1991 conspirators.

7 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Logically, that just doesn't make sense, so with word of mouth that Gorby's representative was about to be framed suddenly all is OK?  How?  How does that damage the Coup, or save any of them?  I'm honestly asking, not being sarcastic here.

To me that fact that Claudia says that's what will happen is a perfectly sufficient explanation. She's always been portrayed as having her finger on the pulse of the Centre's operations, and she's a key figure in this particular operation, so one assumes she knows how resilient or how fragile the conspiracy is. Heck, she comes right out and says of Gorbachev, "It's almost too late to stop him," then points out that "there's a chance that this could go badly." It's characterized as a delicate and desperate operation all along, so I have no trouble believing that it would fall apart if the officer whose reports are being used to justify deposing Gorbachev testifies that they've been faked.

And, again, maybe you don't think that all holds together, but it's clearly what the writers intended. So it still seems like the logical conclusion would be "The writers wanted us to think the coup would fall apart but their writing wasn't up to the task" and not "The writers intended for us to think that the coup did not fall apart, even though every scene that talks about it indicates that it will."

[Umbelina]

I get where you are coming from @Dev F, I really do.  We just disagree.

As far as the historical stuff though, I was talking about major evens, the moon landing, the START agreement, who was president, that the Gorbachev will be ousted on Aug 19, 1991, and that the process began months, if not years before that.  Our show ends around Christmas (the tree, etc.) in 1987, so almost 1988.    So, we've got about 2 2/3rds years before the same plot the show gives us HAPPENS.  Timeline of the issues as the USSR fails completely.

1 hour ago, Dev F said:

And, again, maybe you don't think that all holds together, but it's clearly what the writers intended.

Well, they SAID they intended for us all to write our own endings, so for me personally, that does include things that actually happened. 

If they hadn't wanted us to consider a REAL COUP made up of exactly the same kind of people, that would happen very soon, why not choose a made up "jeopardy" story for their Paige stays ending?  Yes, I get that most people don't know Russian history, and obviously most don't care, but I do care.

1 hour ago, Dev F said:

To me that fact that Claudia says that's what will happen is a perfectly sufficient explanation. She's always been portrayed as having her finger on the pulse of the Centre's operations, and she's a key figure in this particular operation, so one assumes she knows how resilient or how fragile the conspiracy is. Heck, she comes right out and says of Gorbachev, "It's almost too late to stop him," then points out that "there's a chance that this could go badly." It's characterized as a delicate and desperate operation all along, so I have no trouble believing that it would fall apart if the officer whose reports are being used to justify deposing Gorbachev testifies that they've been faked.

Claudia was understandably devastated at that moment, predicting, as WILL happen, that the USSR will fail because of Elizabeth's actions. (though we know that isn't the real reason, it does fail, then morphs into a nightmare for any committed communist, and later into a real nightmare for most of it's citizens.)

She wasn't even told about the plan to seduce Jared by Center, so while I think the show definitely portrayed her as a nearly indestructible loyal Soviet, I don't think Center consulted her or listened to her much (that op she admitted to Gabe was far too risky, but Center wouldn't listen to her, or about 2nd generation) or how much of a finger on the pulse she had back home.  Arkady IS back home, and her boss, and he knows HIS boss (the head of Directorate S) is in on the Coup, and he would have a better finger on the pulse IMO. 

 

Anyway you slice it though, it's hard to imagine Claudia not protecting her own ass by getting rid of Philip or Elizabeth, or undermining them even more.  She IS a survivor, and she knows far more than either of them about the USSR, and about surviving in that system.

But, let's just say none of that happens.

The Soviet Union STILL collapses, and everything Elizabeth dedicated her life and body to, all of the lives she ruined, ends up being for nothing at all.  During those first terrible years after the Coup, and frankly the issues the USSR is having when she returns, and let's just say Claudia falls down the stairs and dies so can't exact her revenge/self-protection?  How, in any pipe dream, is Elizabeth not devastated?

ETA:

Claudia retired and did go home remember?  She was unhappy there, she was lonely there, her friends had died or moved on, her grandchildren didn't know her, and so she came out of retirement to go back to the USA.  So, it really doesn't jive that she was "so connected" back there, not anymore, and certainly not as much as Arkady.   Arkady has spent most of his recent life in the USSR, aside from a stint in the USA.  Claudia has not, at least not for years, because she's been running agents in the USA and Canada.  That's probably why she had no one to hang with back "home" and came back to the USA.

Edited September 16, 2018 by Umbelina

[sistermagpie]

2 hours ago, Dev F said:

Quote

History is history, and if you can show me one instance where the show re-wrote it?  Please do.  If not, it's logical to assume that history still matters in their futures.

There are a few minor things, like the fact that the Russians never lost a nuclear submarine because they stole a propeller and it failed, or that when that FBI plane went down in 1982, there wasn't a guy named Dave aboard. And the writers are obviously fudging things when they never give the name the Deputy Attorney General, presumably because he's not based on Edward C. Schmults, the actual DAG at the time. (Though the character does conveniently disappear around the middle of 1984, when Schmults was replaced by Carol Dinkins, the first female DAG.)

That makes me think about Martial Eagle. Elizabeth and Philip get pictures of the training grounds. They're planning to publish them to show citizens what the government is doing. Presumably that never really happened (the picture-taking) but in the world of the show we never hear about the pictures getting out and making an impression on the population.

[Umbelina]

Yeah, but I woudn't call them Major historical events.  Did the soviet union steal military plans/parts?  Sure, we probably did too, so the submarine story doesn't matter, and even if it WERE true, we would have never heard about it.

The fall of the Soviet Union, Reagan's speeches, START, the Coup headed up by the KGB, the moon landing, even the David Copperfield trick with the statue of liberty are all real events, so was the Soviet war in Afghanistan which were all foundation for certain stories.  The also avoided quite a bit of history, things like KAL 007, but they didn't change it, just didn't show it.

I wish they had avoided the subject of a Gorbachev Coup completely, and simply made this all about START, I think, done correctly, it would have been just as dramatic without muddying the waters. 

It still leaves all of our characters mostly screwed, but it would be less problematic for me. 

[Dev F]

On 9/15/2018 at 7:28 PM, Umbelina said:

If they hadn't wanted us to consider a REAL COUP made up of exactly the same kind of people, that would happen very soon, why not choose a made up "jeopardy" story for their Paige stays ending?  Yes, I get that most people don't know Russian history, and obviously most don't care, but I do care.

 

It's explicitly not the same kind of people, though. The real-life coup was an open revolt backed by powerful politicians within the Communist Party who thought Gorbachev had to go; the fictional conspiracy depicted in the series was a covert effort by KGB and military officers to deceive supposedly sympathetic politicians into believing Gorbachev had to go. That's exactly why Elizabeth rejects it -- because it means the Centre is betraying the very Party she swore to serve.

Now, maybe within the fiction of the show, some of the perpetrators of the 1991 coup are meant to be the "certain members of the Central Committee, key military leaders, and regional party secretaries who understand the situation we're in" whom the conspirators planned to trick into deposing Gorbachev. But there's zero reason to believe that they're involved in the conspiracy itself and would therefore swear revenge on the people who exposed it.

Quote

Claudia was understandably devastated at that moment, predicting, as WILL happen, that the USSR will fail because of Elizabeth's actions.

She also predicted that the leaders of the Centre would be thrown in jail for conspiring against their government. Why would the writers make a point of having Claudia say that if it wasn't meant to be predictive? If they'd just wanted to show that she's really sad about the inevitable fall of the Soviet Union, there's another part of her final speech where she says that. They could've just as easily have left out the "They'll put them in jail. All of us" part.

Again, you're trying to build an interpretation by pointing to one sentence and ignoring the one before or after, and I just don't find it at all persuasive. I will always privilege an interpretation that encompasses as much of the evidence of the text as possible over one that conspicuously ignores what the text is saying when it becomes inconvenient.

Quote

Arkady IS back home, and her boss, and he knows HIS boss (the head of Directorate S) is in on the Coup, and he would have a better finger on the pulse IMO. 

OK, sure. Then it's sort of significant that he also indicates that the reformers will be in danger only if Oleg's efforts to expose the coup fail. You can't discount Claudia's perspective by citing some other authority instead, since literally every character on the show who expresses an opinion on the subject expresses this same one. And if they're aaaaalll saying it, I think we should probably give the idea pretty significant weight.

Quote

The Soviet Union STILL collapses, and everything Elizabeth dedicated her life and body to, all of the lives she ruined, ends up being for nothing at all.  During those first terrible years after the Coup, and frankly the issues the USSR is having when she returns, and let's just say Claudia falls down the stairs and dies so can't exact her revenge/self-protection?  How, in any pipe dream, is Elizabeth not devastated?

I was never arguing that Elizabeth wouldn't be devastated by the fall of the Soviet Union, so I'm not sure what you expect me to say here. If the argument is just "How can we consider it a happy ending if something bad is going to happen to Elizabeth in the future?" that's not much more persuasive to me than arguing that a love story can't have a happy ending since we know that the loving couple will die some day.

Edited September 18, 2018 by Dev F

[Umbelina]

10 hours ago, Dev F said:

It's explicitly not the same kind of people, though. The real-life coup was an open revolt backed by powerful politicians within the Communist Party who thought Gorbachev had to go; the fictional conspiracy depicted in the series was a covert effort by KGB and military officers to deceive supposedly sympathetic politicians into believing Gorbachev had to go. That's exactly why Elizabeth rejects it -- because it means the Centre is betraying the very Party she swore to serve.

Now, maybe within the fiction of the show, some of the perpetrators of the 1991 coup are meant to be the "certain members of the Central Committee, key military leaders, and regional party secretaries who understand the situation we're in" whom the conspirators planned to trick into deposing Gorbachev. But there's zero reason to believe that they're involved in the conspiracy itself and would therefore swear revenge on the people who exposed it.

Yes, let's forget all about the Military GENERAL Elizabeth met with, and Arkady telling Oleg how high it went.  Again, much to close time-wise to what really does happen very soon to logically think that these aren't the same people who DO succeed less than 3 years later.  For me anyway, obviously not for you, which I get.

10 hours ago, Dev F said:

She also predicted that the leaders of the Centre would be thrown in jail for conspiring against their government. Why would the writers make a point of having Claudia say that if it wasn't meant to be predictive? If they'd just wanted to show that she's really sad about the inevitable fall of the Soviet Union, there's another part of her final speech where she says that. They could've just as easily have left out the "They'll put them in jail. All of us" part.

Which also didn't happen. 

10 hours ago, Dev F said:

I was never arguing that Elizabeth wouldn't be devastated by the fall of the Soviet Union, so I'm not sure what you expect me to say here. If the argument is just "How can we consider it a happy ending if something bad is going to happen to Elizabeth in the future?" that's not much more persuasive to me than arguing that a love story can't have a happy ending since we know that the loving couple will die some day.

"Dying someday" is not even close to returning to a broke country in chaos that is about to stop being a country at all.  Oh, and she gave her life and all she had to save that country.

 

As I said, they should have just stuck with START being sabotaged. 

[Dev F]

22 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Yes, let's forget all about the Military GENERAL Elizabeth met with, and Arkady telling Oleg how high it went.

What do you mean? I mentioned the military involvement specifically: "a covert effort by KGB and military officers." My point is, regardless of how many high-level members of the armed forces and intelligence apparatus were involved, we are specifically told that no political authorities were implicated:

"The Centre. The very top leaders there are all behind this. They're also working with certain high-level military leaders, like your friend from Mexico."
"But not the Party."
(dismissive) "We're all in the Party."

Essentially, the series postulates a Deep State conspiracy of the the type President Trump imagines is plotting against him today -- career government functionaries using the machinery of their offices in illegal ways to manipulate the political figures who are supposed to have authority over them. And that's the exact opposite of what happened in the 1991 coup, in which a group of high-ranking political figures used their authority in illegal ways to manipulate the machinery of the government.

Indeed, the sort of people who perpetrated the real-life coup would've been the earlier plotters' primary victims -- like I said, their whole plan was to approach anti-Gorbachev members of the Party and lie to them in order to get them to remove Gorbachev from power. Even if you agree with the plotters politically, you're not going to let them keep their jobs after they tried to trick you into overthrowing your own government on false pretenses!

[burghgal]

On rewatch of S1 now - I still love the show.   Throughout the series, my biggest issue (as with many people)  was with the Paige storyline begun in S2.  In S1 you get a peak that the kids were meant to chart their own course, separate from their parents (which came full circle in S6).   In a sense, the kids represented P and E's American lives and by betraying America -- P/E were, in fact, betraying them.  The children were their conscience in a way.  I wish they had explored that more without the Paige/Pastor Tim/spy in training storyline - which just seemed unrealistic.    It seems in S1 that Paige is ready to call out/fight with her parents (like teens did/do) rather than blindly let them manipulate her.   When she finds out the truth in S3, she doesn't put up much anger - just defeat and depression.  I just think as a teen who was pretty much raising herself, I would've been so much angrier and more distrustful than Paige was, especially  if I found out my parents were literally "the enemy".  I don't know -- it still seems like the "big miss" to me in the series, in that we could have Paige doing more digging on her folks, having issues at school (hello volleyball team !), eliciting Henry's help, and in a sense worked in a way for the kids to be "The Americans".

 

I know this is a rehash of what many have complained about -- but I guess on rewatch, S1 Paige doesn't annoy me at all, in fact I liked her - by S4 I was done with it and will fast forward her parts.  I think it was just a missed opportunity to make the kids, not bratty per se, - but realistically oppositional in that kid versus adult conflict that exists in all families, let alone one with diametrically different viewpoints.

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, burghgal said:

I just think as a teen who was pretty much raising herself, I would've been so much angrier and more distrustful than Paige was, especially  if I found out my parents were literally "the enemy".  I don't know -- it still seems like the "big miss" to me in the series, in that we could have Paige doing more digging on her folks, having issues at school (hello volleyball team !), eliciting Henry's help, and in a sense worked in a way for the kids to be "The Americans".

I'm rewatching S1 as well and I get the same impression that you do. Paige starts out with a much healthier relationship to her parents and is defining herself against them when necessary, especially her mother. It is very odd that the show decided to just make Paige completely detached from the Cold War, which was pretty impossible at the time. This wasn't like her parents doing some strange thing she couldn't quite understand, this was like learning her parents were vampires. Russian spies were just that familiar. (We even see Paige watching a storyline about a Directorate S agent on General Hospital.)  Even though we don't see as much of Henry I think it would be far harder to buy him not representing that pov to his parents if he found out the truth.

One place I would disagree is the idea that Paige was ever raising herself. Even in season 1 when she's much more her own person (imo) she's finding her way by herself, as most kids do, but her parents are still highly involved in her life and even as a child Henry doesn't see her as much of a leader or protector. (I've been watching Trust Me and will probably saying something more about that soon!)  The only place Paige is ever put into an adult role is wrt her parents' secret--and she instinctively looks to adults to help her through it. (And continues to do that right through S6.)

She really does feel to me to regress or get derailed in terms of maturity, but I guess looking at the whole show this is more in keeping with the themes. It's never been about USSR vs. USA. It's more interested in faith and what people get from it etc. The seeds for Paige's future really start sprouting in S2 before her parents' revelation. That's when she becomes a follower in the church and stops interacting with life the same way. Even so, she doesn't use her church teaching to oppose her parents when she learns the truth. She never felt to me any more invested in her spirituality than she did later about the Communist doctrine. Neither thing, imo, is really giving her what she's looking for and I think that's intentional.

[Umbelina]

4 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

5 hours ago, burghgal said:

I just think as a teen who was pretty much raising herself, I would've been so much angrier and more distrustful than Paige was, especially  if I found out my parents were literally "the enemy".  I don't know -- it still seems like the "big miss" to me in the series, in that we could have Paige doing more digging on her folks, having issues at school (hello volleyball team !), eliciting Henry's help, and in a sense worked in a way for the kids to be "The Americans".

I'm rewatching S1 as well and I get the same impression that you do. Paige starts out with a much healthier relationship to her parents and is defining herself against them when necessary, especially her mother. It is very odd that the show decided to just make Paige completely detached from the Cold War, which was pretty impossible at the time. This wasn't like her parents doing some strange thing she couldn't quite understand, this was like learning her parents were vampires. Russian spies were just that familiar. (We even see Paige watching a storyline about a Directorate S agent on General Hospital.)  Even though we don't see as much of Henry I think it would be far harder to buy him not representing that pov to his parents if he found out the truth.

I agree with both of you on this.  I think the problem is that the writers decided their ending at the end of season one, and had to kind of force unbelievable story and a very young actress into something that just wasn't working in a "that makes sense" kind of way, just so the ending could happen (Paige deserting them as they escape.)

It would have been far more believable, and probably more in the actress's range as well to have a story as you suggest, and God knows we might have been spared Pastor Tim, or at least had him and wifey be killed, which again, would make sense for the story of EXTREMELY valuable undercover spies.

It wasn't until the final season and a huge time jump that the writers finally gave up the ghost on Paige being brilliant and super capable mini me Elizabeth, and made the story slightly more interesting by having Paige fail (as we all knew she realistically would, for many reasons.)  Having Elizabeth hide that fact was, at the very least, more interesting than Pastor Tim and packing food sacks.

Skipping over Chernobyl and the KAL flight, and so many things that were big news, including the food lines in the USSR getting worse, just so Paige not questioning ANYTHING about the glorious country's cause she'd willingly and enthusiastically joined was BS, and having this supposedly extremely bright college student in DC never talk politics or news with friends, professors, her brother, her parents, Claudia was bizarre to say the least, since you know, all of that was to become her LIFE.

It's rare that young and mid teen girls suddenly bond with their mommies too, that is a breakaway time that prepares humans to leave the nest, if anything, they pull away, their friends/teachers/other adults perhaps nearer their ages opinions seem much more valid than "the parents" and complaining about "the parents" or disliking their choices, is much more likely, even if they love them very much.  Again, natural, part of growing up, becoming their own individual selves. 

Maybe we are supposed to think that Paige is now SO isolated that mom is all she's got, so mom pulls away from dad, and finally Paige has her all to herself?  This lonely girl then essentially dismisses her father, the one who always got her, and supported her, and had the patience to talk with her as honestly as he could?  I mean, I know Claudia is a pro and was grooming her, and part of that was making her feel valuable and loved, but COME ON!  Claudia? 

Also, she's taking political classes in the most political city in the USA, and yet, none of what's happening sinks in?  People are dying all around her, in places and at times when she knows her mom is there, but this kid never reads a newspaper?

It slipped into wildly unbelievable long ago, making her useless helped, but not enough to compensate for the fan wank it takes to believe Paige as a character.

Actually the only thing that made Paige believable AT ALL was, as many of us commented on, she was just "one of those."  She was essentially cult bait in personality.  Had she met Manson, or Jim Jones, Scientology, the Moonies, or the Krishnas?  She'd be right there, starry eyed and dedicated, believing whatever they said, doing no independent research, and having not a thought of her OWN about what she had joined, just as she did when she joined the KGB.

Edited September 25, 2018 by Umbelina

[burghgal]

I think agree maybe a little more @sistermagpie with what you are saying than originally came across in my post.  I am only on S1 and in this season, she seems slightly more independent and less reliant on her folks.... in later seasons she seems more reliant and more seeking of their approval (esp. Elizabeth/Mom).  I guess that is my problem, and when it lost me - they could have gone a different arc with her that I wish they had- showing things through her eyes/going to school as an American Teenager (in all their *cough -lol*  independent glory)  rather than as the blind follower/spy in training.  In that way, they could've contrasted and provided a mirror to hold P & E up too,  as a big source of conflict.  

I should add that I teach high school students and while I am by no means an expert, I agree @Umbelina that these years are when students at least try to "find themselves".   In what I hear from the chatter - they seem to want to either "break away" from their parents way (even if they love them) and live the life they were meant/want to live - or they live their parents life and sadly regret their parents/choices (aka be "one of those" as Umbelina pointed out).  For this series, I wish they went the former route rather than later -- as it would've meant a stronger (maybe more likeable) Paige, and (even with less scenes with the actress) an insight to P and E on why Americans are the way we well, are.   I think it would've been an interesting perspective --- life at school, life at home, life in the neighborhood, life watching news events unfold  - through an 80s American teen girl.  I should add I was an American 80s teen girl so hence the bias :-).

[sistermagpie]

So I just watched Trust Me, the ep where all the major characters have a very eventful Sunday. The ep breaks down into 3 basic storylines that I looked at individually.

To start with some stray thoughts, Martha is really adorable in this ep on the phone with Clark, painting her toe nails and feeling all pursued. Their whole relationship is really wonderfully plotted out as its own story.

Gaad and Stan are still very chummy at this point. Gaad was really primed to like him for his record just as Claudia was Elizabeth.

Nick talks about needing a higher power to keep us from being animals. That seems like it echoes Elizabeth needing her “higher power” of the Centre to believe in—when she feels betrayed she does become something of a wild animal.

In the last ep Vasily was all flirty and condescending lecturing “Ninochka” how to make tea. When the plant at the tea shop tries to share similar advice tea-lover to tea-lover Vasily’s just irritated and says he knows how to make tea. Wasn’t cute when you did it either, Vasily.

Stan and Nina

Gaad’s actions in Comint have tipped the KGB off about the mole. Nina’s terrified and Stan wants to protect her. In Comint it seemed like Noah Emmerich was playing Stan starting to fall for Nina. Here we get what I think is another signpost for Stan. Meeting with Nina in a museum he tells her how much he understands how she feels. He knows what it’s like to be undercover, living every minute in fear. He’s saying this to handle her, but I think the sentiment is true. Later, when Sandra presses him to tell her *something* about his job Stan say how sometimes his job gets scary—not for him, but for others, and today was very scary.

Btw, from what Sandra says it appears that Stan really doesn’t talk to her *at all*. She knows nothing about the dynamic at the office, which has nothing to do with secrecy. Again I think about Elizabeth in S6. Both the Jennings, I guess. They’re keeping things from each other, but they don’t like it. It’s not natural for them; it is natural for Stan now. Sandra must feel really humiliated all the time.

So Nina’s a beautiful woman who Stan can also see embodying the fears and anxiety he lived with undercover. Perhaps that he still carries. Stan’s now on the other side as the protector. The scene now also makes me think of the garage in START where Philip, too, describes a life undercover and being “terrified” upon meeting Stan.

I’ve said before that Stan’s undercover life never really seems real to me, but I have no problem seeing Stan as a person who’s been on an assignment where he lived with fear that has left him with PTSD. This is a big thing he might have in common with Philip, who on this rewatch I’m really seeing as also living with fear very well. I do think Philip awakened all of those feelings in Stan in that scene, and I don’t think he ever completely worked through them during the show.

Paige and Henry

This is an important episode for the kids as a pair. It’s really the only episode with the kids as a pair, at least with an actual story together. I’ve often heard people reference it as an example of how the kids grew up with absent parents and relied on each other, making them very close with Paige as a caretaker etc. and not only have I never seen that as a pattern in their relationship, I don’t even see it in this episode.

When the ep starts Paige is impatient and demanding because Elizabeth isn’t quick enough to give them a ride to the mall. When they’re later stranded there because their parents have been kidnapped the kids aren’t so freaked out by mom not showing up that they think something’s terribly wrong—they seem to just assume something came up—that would reflect their parents’ crazy job. But they don’t have a Plan B to fall back on as if they’re used to doing things for themselves. Henry doesn’t turn to Paige for leadership. On the contrary, he disapproves of pretty much all her decisions.

Paige, too, doesn’t wearily takeover as if she does it all the time so much as seize an opportunity to play act at being a teenager. Her interactions with Nick the creep are pretty standard for a 13-year-old with her life. What’s interesting about them now is how completely they parallel her interactions with the sailor in S6 seven years later when she’s allegedly a trained spy. Paige never has any control over either situation.

With Nick, as with the sailor, Paige is meeting a guy with his own agenda that she doesn’t anticipate and can't derail. When Nick offers them a ride Henry originally refuses to get in the car and Paige almost agrees to walk home. Then Nick says hey, it’s a 10 mile walk and it’s totally on his way but no problem... and Paige begs him to stop, ordering Henry inside. Iow, the guy easily plays her. Once in the car and at the pond Paige just continues to vaguely and politely agrees with whatever Nick says or does. But when she politely says they have to get home, Nick says no and Paige has really got nothing. It’s Henry who gets them out. Her behavior makes perfect sense here, but it’s funny to see how it hasn’t changed at all at the end of the show. (The one thing she’s gained by then is self-defense training that makes her overreact and draw attention to herself first with Matthew and then with the guys in the bar.)

What really ties the kids together here isn’t being in danger together (they’re never really in sync during the actual incident) it’s having a secret to protect Paige. Henry’s the person who’s probably most traumatized by this incident which eerily parallels one from his father’s childhood. Philip might have been uniquely good at helping him deal with it, but he never knows about it because Paige tells Henry they have to keep it a secret. Henry proves adept at doing that—when their parents arrive it’s Henry who offers a cover story for how they got home, even though it’s Paige who’s asked. Even if they came up with the cover story together or Paige did, Henry’s more ready with the lie and Paige is the one the lie protects. (She is the one who knows how to run a washing machine, though)

 

Philip and Elizabeth

This ep really made me feel Elizabeth is the primary protagonist. Philip is tortured and gets the devastating news that Elizabeth was informing on him, but we don’t have the same kind of context for him to understand his reactions. With Elizabeth it’s been made very clear just how important her loyalty to the Centre is. We already knew she’d informed on Philip and why. What we don’t specifically know, really, is why this is such a blow to Philip who grew up in the same society she did next to a camp full of prisoners, many of whom would have been similarly denounced. Why, exactly, did he think this was out of the question and why is it so repulsive to him? We don’t know.

Elizabeth doesn’t really know either. She does seem struck by Philip accusing her of being untrustworthy, but quickly becomes angry herself at him. She’ll later admit to blaming him for the Centre’s betrayal of her (she already hints at it here) and maybe that explains what she does next. When Philip sulkily asks for some jewelry to take to Martha Elizabeth gives him a necklace that’s obviously got some meaning—presumably he gave it to her. In giving it to Martha she’s rejecting him again (If seems like Philip’s genuinely surprised at this gesture, as if Elizabeth has just escalated their fight to new levels) and then she goes to see Gregory.

Ostensibly she goes to see Gregory to ask him to “watch over” her kids and Philip (and herself because that’s the person he cares about and says so) because there’s a mole so she thinks she’s being watched, so on one level she’s showing she values her family and maybe doesn’t trust the Centre. But to me it really seems like an excuse to revive some form of secret alliance with Gregory because what she’s asking just doesn’t seem that important as the fact that she’s asking and he’s promising. Both men are loyal to her personally, but expect or demand different things in return.

This is the scene where Elizabeth asks for a cigarette. Gregory says he thought she quit and she says old habits are hard to break. If this *isn’t* a conversation about their affair Gregory has good reason to mistakenly think it is. Her smoking will eventually become one of the most explicit symbols in the series for Elizabeth. It’s something she does when she’s more distant than Philip, true, but to me it seems more associated with the Elizabeth who’s the girl she defined herself to Gregory, someone who’s all about the Cause and would sacrifice anything in a second for it and doesn’t care about being hurt herself. She doesn’t tell Gregory how hurt she was by the Centre. She also doesn’t tell Philip she’s got Gregory watching their family.

Throughout the first season Elizabeth seems to be struggling with the idea of going all in on a relationship with Philip, which would be nothing like a relationship with Gregory, and this one of those moments where she's having second thoughts.

I don’t know what exactly to make of her conversation with Gregory here exactly. His being “her eyes” doesn’t go anywhere. Philip never finds out she had Gregory watching them (obviously he wouldn’t be happy about it if he did). Gregory has good reason to think this Philip thing is a fad—he reminds her that he’s always there when “the lady calls” (yuck) and would of course welcome having a secret with Elizabeth again. The main thing, like I said, is it made it feel like this was Elizabeth’s story. She’s the one with all these pieces in place to play out feelings. We might not know every single thing she’s thinking, but we have enough to start to interpret her actions. We can already get a sense of what each guy represents in her.

Philip, by contrast, is much more a cipher. But not completely. As impatient as I got with EST it seemed like a big point of it on the show was about decisions defining us. Like it encouraged people to make choices based on their true selves rather than what their roles or duties or who they thought they should be—instinctively move forward in the dark room etc. Stan’s choice in the garage is foreshadowed a bit in this ep in the way he responds to Nina, imo. Philip, it felt to me on first watch and feels even more so now, has his own Decisive Moment here and it seems like MR really plays it that way.

Philip talked about defecting earlier, but then didn’t. In The Clock Elizabeth starts carrying a gun because she’d rather die than get captured. Here in this ep Philip’s kidnapped by what seems to be the FBI. There’s nothing to suggest that Philip suspects at all that this is the KGB. So here he is, faced with FBI agents telling him they already know who he is. They taunt him about his children and he doesn’t try to deal. Then they bring in Elizabeth. Gabriel would have made it clear  to the Centre that he loves Elizabeth. So they use her against him, telling him if he talks he can spare her being tortured. Elizabeth herself has a moment of fear there—they play the moment out as if he’s going to turn them in. Instead he calmly tells them they’ll get nothing from him.

it’s the calm part that really strikes me, actually. It really seems played like this is an EST moment. I mean, this is it: the FBI is there, they know his kids, they have Elizabeth, they already know everything. Philip’s already been tortured. And it seems like he discovers then that he’s not going to do it. He puts his country first there too. (If he's waiting for Elizabeth to want to defect, that's the same as not defecting.)

To me, that always seemed like a character-defining moment and it did stay consistent. It just didn’t have the context and specifics we have with Elizabeth. We just have what he does. Mostly in this ep he just takes it. He gets beaten up by the people he’s worked for. Finds out his partner was informing on him. When they get home and tell the kids they got in a car accident Philip makes himself the one at fault for their fictional car crash. Elizabeth’s even the one who gets sympathy for her black eye even though Philip’s wincing and gingerly holding his bruised torso throughout. (He even has to put on a seat belt and crash his car into a tree with it—ouch.) The one place he makes his stand happens to be one of the things that distinguish him from Gregory.

[JZL]

On 8/11/2018 at 1:56 PM, Umbelina said:

Philip was deeply honorable, and he didn't buy the KGB bullshit, or the USSR's or the USA's.  He allowed it as long as he was the one suffering, but protected others at critical times.

Good point.  Philip seemed to learn, while Elizabeth never did, that America wasn't the cauldron of evil all good young Soviets were taught.

Was the difference between them that Philip's developed a real friendship with Stan?

[Umbelina]

I think it was more that Philip had a brain, and a heart, and was much less brainwashed or a good soldier (depending on how you choose to look at it) than Elizabeth.

If I were in command of the KGB, I'd want Elizabeth.  In any other situation, I'd want Philip.

Elizabeth and Paige did share fanaticism bent, and an unwillingness to examine themselves or their motivations.

[sistermagpie]

41 minutes ago, JZL said:

Good point.  Philip seemed to learn, while Elizabeth never did, that America wasn't the cauldron of evil all good young Soviets were taught.

Was the difference between them that Philip's developed a real friendship with Stan?

 

10 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

I think it was more that Philip had a brain, and a heart, and was much less brainwashed or a good soldier (depending on how you choose to look at it) than Elizabeth.

If I were in command of the KGB, I'd want Elizabeth.  In any other situation, I'd want Philip.

Elizabeth and Paige did share fanaticism bent, and an unwillingness to examine themselves or their motivations.

Yeah, it seems more like the other way around to me, that Philip developed a real friendship with Stan because he was a free thinker. With Elizabeth they told us straight out that even the KGB picked her because she was terrified of not being fanatically loyal. For Philip the most of a hint we get is that he was academically gifted like Henry.

In the end it did kind of seem like the final divide between Paige and Elizabeth was that Paige had the outlook of a somewhat pampered middle class American white girl who was not going to do anything gross.

[Umbelina]

Then again...someone gave me a Christmas present I haven't watched until last night.  It's the complete DVD set called  The Untold History of the United States.

While some of this has been refuted, I think quite a bit about the US relationship with the USSR, and most of the rather dastardly deeds of the CIA toppling democratic governments that leaned to the left, jives pretty well with other, more scholarly articles I've read.

It would be pretty easy to factually convince young KGB recruits that toppling the USA was essential for world peace, and for the good of humanity. 

It's on netflix now, and might be worth watching, specially for the Soviet side of things and for a few (perhaps overstated in places) reality checks about how the cold war really began, how it could have been avoided, and how absolutely devastating to world relationships atomic bombs dropped in Japan were to US/world relationships.  Watching that, made me sympathize with Elizabeth, and reevaluate her "fanaticism" a bit.

Again, I'm not implying in any way that the series is 100% accurate, but I do think there was a lot of truth there, certainly emotional truth.  Elizabeth's indoctrination would have been even more slanted, but much of it was based in reality, not just propaganda.

That completely leaves out the mess the USSR became economically and for the average citizen though, although maybe not completely.  Without the arms race, more money may have gone into the needs of the people.  It also paints a rather slanted picture of Stalin, while noting his atrocities, focusing more intently on the ways he was betrayed and used by the USA.  It, here and there, mentions the concerted efforts of the west to undermine the Russian revolution, but I've talked about that elsewhere in this forum.  If anything, the documentary doesn't really prioritize the goals of the rich in defeating worker's rights quite enough, culminating in the intention to cripple socialism, not just unions and workers rights in the west, but an all out need to defeat communism, the people's revolution in Russia, and sabotage it.

Elizabeth's reasons were not just cultish, there were plenty of facts to back up her hatred of the USA, and fear of the USA.

[sistermagpie]

11 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Elizabeth's reasons were not just cultish, there were plenty of facts to back up her hatred of the USA, and fear of the USA.

One of the main ways it seems Elizabeth and Philip part ways is that she's happy to believe anything bad about the US, or believe that anything they're doing is naturally the right thing while Philip's pov is more that yes, the US is capable of doing terrible things. This is really central in In Control where he's got a clearer view of how things will probably look on both sides and wants to do the thing that won't encourage anybody to be stupid.

[Umbelina]

7 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

One of the main ways it seems Elizabeth and Philip part ways is that she's happy to believe anything bad about the US, or believe that anything they're doing is naturally the right thing while Philip's pov is more that yes, the US is capable of doing terrible things. This is really central in In Control where he's got a clearer view of how things will probably look on both sides and wants to do the thing that won't encourage anybody to be stupid.

Yes, I've even said that myself, that Philip saw good and bad on both sides of the Cold War, and Elizabeth did not.

Still, while watching this, and by other reading I've done, but specifically while watching this, since it's all put together with an obvious goal, I realized that if I'd been recruited as a young, idealistic person, I would probably be much like Elizabeth.  As I said, there is more damning information about the USA, that is skimmed over or not mentioned in this documentary.  The KGB could have convinced her by using nothing but the truth, no lies needed, and no exaggerations.

It reminds me of something Elizabeth said (don't know the episode, but it was a powerful moment.)  Not a direct quote, "The USA is the only country on earth that has ever used atomic weapons.  They did it TWICE."  There is no arguing with that.

I need to do some additional research on Japan preparing to surrender, because of the slant of this series.  I, like most, was told that it was to spare an invasion and more lives lost.  Also, the absolute hatred and racism in the USA against the Japanese is beyond dispute, I heard it my entire childhood, especially because my mother knew several of the men killed in Pearl Harbor, and a few survivors were family friends.

Dropping the bomb(s) when the USSR was, as promised, finally able to attack Japan after defeating Hitler? 

Now I have a new project, just how many USA Generals knew Japan was ready to cave in, only wanting to keep their Emperor?  (Which they did anyway.)  Logically, now facing Russians as well as having lost much of their air power and sea power because of the USA?  It certainly seems they would logically surrender, and that there was probably no need for the USA to drop the bomb(s.)

That alone, forgetting about the toppled democratically elected governments around the world, could have been enough to convince me, at a young age, that defeating the USA was worth my life.  So, as I said, I'm having a bit more empathy and even a touch of admiration for Elizabeth now.

[sistermagpie]

9 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

It reminds me of something Elizabeth said (don't know the episode, but it was a powerful moment.)  Not a direct quote, "The USA is the only country on earth that has ever used atomic weapons.  They did it TWICE."  There is no arguing with that.

 

I remember! I think it's in The Day After. That's part of what convinces Philip to go through with getting the bio-weapon. Her arguments (and Gabriel's earlier) mean something to him too. He doesn't think all positions on the US are wrong. In the end the show doesn't need either of them to be wrong about their core beliefs. Elizabeth finds the right people (in her view) to fight for in the USSR and Philip does something to help the USSR that's not about an external threat from the US. 

[Erin9]

5 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Yes, I've even said that myself, that Philip saw good and bad on both sides of the Cold War, and Elizabeth did not.

Still, while watching this, and by other reading I've done, but specifically while watching this, since it's all put together with an obvious goal, I realized that if I'd been recruited as a young, idealistic person, I would probably be much like Elizabeth.  As I said, there is more damning information about the USA, that is skimmed over or not mentioned in this documentary.  The KGB could have convinced her by using nothing but the truth, no lies needed, and no exaggerations.

It reminds me of something Elizabeth said (don't know the episode, but it was a powerful moment.)  Not a direct quote, "The USA is the only country on earth that has ever used atomic weapons.  They did it TWICE."  There is no arguing with that.

I need to do some additional research on Japan preparing to surrender, because of the slant of this series.  I, like most, was told that it was to spare an invasion and more lives lost.  Also, the absolute hatred and racism in the USA against the Japanese is beyond dispute, I heard it my entire childhood, especially because my mother knew several of the men killed in Pearl Harbor, and a few survivors were family friends.

Dropping the bomb(s) when the USSR was, as promised, finally able to attack Japan after defeating Hitler? 

Now I have a new project, just how many USA Generals knew Japan was ready to cave in, only wanting to keep their Emperor?  (Which they did anyway.)  Logically, now facing Russians as well as having lost much of their air power and sea power because of the USA?  It certainly seems they would logically surrender, and that there was probably no need for the USA to drop the bomb(s.)

I’m not an expert on the Japanese/WWII, but I will say the fighting in the Pacific War was BRUTAL. I’ve read a lot about it; it’s been awhile, but the Japanese were pretty fanatical fighters. And I do mean fanatical. I do not feel that’s an overstatement given the prevailing mindset at the time. 

And the treatment of our POWs by them.....well, having had a relative who was a POW in the Philippines and later escaped-  appalling and sick are the most restrained things I have to say on that subject. 

While America did drop two A bombs....so far, I’ve never had a problem with Truman’s call. But there’s certainly plenty of opinions on the subject. But again- I won’t claim to be any kind of expert. 

 The firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden were pretty devastating as well. I think more may have died in the firebombing, but don’t quote me. Not to mention Tokyo was largely wooden frame homes. It was catastrophic. I think Tokyo gets lost in the focus on the A bombs. 

Bringing that back around to the show, I do agree that Elizabeth wouldn’t have had to be fed lies about the US to find reasons to hate it. We’ve certainly done some bad things. 

Edited October 2, 2018 by Erin9

[Umbelina]

Yes, I knew many people who fought in the Pacific side of the war, more of them than in Europe certainly, some had movies they took aboard ships as well, I'm well aware.

So far, it does look like Japan WAS willing to surrender, and as you said, the USA was already effectively carpet bombing civilian targets in Japan very easily by then, most of their equipment was gone, planes, ships, etc. already destroyed.

It does SEEM that the nuclear attack(s) on Japan may not have been needed, and may indeed have been done more as a warning to the USSR, and a power play, and possibly even a "boys with toys" thing, they were damn proud of their nukes, so why not use them to show off USA weapons superiority?   I didn't realize they later considered, seriously, nuking North Korea though, since they by then had Hydrogen bombs.

The allies desperately needed the USSR to defeat Germany, once that was done?  Not so much.  They all hated the idea of workers of the world uniting, that is unquestioned in my mind.  Strategic areas and quickly placing nukes in Europe, close to the USSR's borders certainly sent a message, look how the USA reacted when some were put in Cuba!  Of course the USSR was worried, we had them everywhere.

It's why the USSR really detested NATO, and probably still does, they must be celebrating now.

For me though, watching this made me realize that Elizabeth wasn't so much brainwashed, as she was convinced, assuming whatever she was given was even less balanced than this particular series.  I don't think what she was told even HAD to be lies, the bare essentials, somewhat cherry picked, would be enough.

[Erin9]

I’m not sure I’d heard the theory that it may have been intended as a deterrent to the USSR. Interesting. I knew you’d be knowledgeable on the subject. :) Though I generally think of Truman as a pretty decent man. I have trouble believing that was his rationale for bombing Japan. 

I think Elizabeth was somewhat brainwashed as far as the USSR was concerned. She didn’t see reality anyway.  Certainly there’s plenty of US history that wasn’t exactly our finest hour- or depending on your POV-sounds pretty bad, depending on how you frame the story. But- one of her issues was how close minded she was. It made her easier to manipulate. She was taught a way of thinking about the USSR and the US- and that was it. 

A bit OT, but my knowledge on the Weimar Republic is fairly sparse. I’m trying to learn as I watch Babylon Berlin. 

[sistermagpie]

2 hours ago, Umbelina said:

For me though, watching this made me realize that Elizabeth wasn't so much brainwashed, as she was convinced, assuming whatever she was given was even less balanced than this particular series.  I don't think what she was told even HAD to be lies, the bare essentials, somewhat cherry picked, would be enough.

 

35 minutes ago, Erin9 said:

I think Elizabeth was somewhat brainwashed as far as the USSR was concerned. She didn’t see reality anyway.  Certainly there’s plenty of US history that wasn’t exactly our finest hour- or depending on your POV-sounds pretty bad, depending on how you frame the story. But- one of her issues was how close minded she was. It made her easier to manipulate. She was taught a way of thinking about the USSR and the US- and that was it. 

I guess it really comes down to what brainwashed is anyway. Brainwashed implies that a person's actual opinions and feelings and personality has been replaced by the outside. I think everything we've seen about Elizabeth says that these are her real opinions. Philip started out with basically the same opinions. The difference was that Philip was open to new information and wanted to think about things on his own while Elizabeth thought it was the highest virtue to not do that. She saw any positive feelings towards the US as a sign of weakness and corruption. Being in the US was like being exposed to some kind of poisonous gas that would weaken her through food and nice clothes etc. Philip saw it as an opportunity to see things close up. It's like the opposite--Elizabeth thought she could only see the reality if it was filtered through her leaders, preferably from far away. Philip saw being in the US as a better pov to actually understand it. As he puts it in In Control, I think, she can't see what's right in front of her face. He often agrees with her in the larger sense, but he can see how her vision on the micro-level is skewed.

But lots of people are like that--it's not really brainwashing. Especially if they get the message growing up that if they challenge the beliefs of those around them they'll be cast out or just be a bad person. Although a lot of people just stick with the same pov they had when they became an adult because they just stop growing in that way.

This also, again, is really interesting to think about wrt Paige, because she's obviously got a lot of Elizabeth's impulses in terms of looking to an authority and faith that defines her life etc. She shows the same tendency to look to that as a way of not being alone. But she doesn't have the same kind of fearful attachment to any particular faith. She doesn't worry about being a bad person if she loses faith in the church or Communism.

Edited October 3, 2018 by sistermagpie

[Umbelina]

I certainly need to look more into Truman, because this portrayal of him is devastatingly negative, countering everything I was taught (brainwashed by?) ahem/ha

They just gave the number of nukes of the USA and USSR in Kennedy's time.  We had more, and more delivery systems, by over 10 to 1.  We also stated that we considered them to be like any other weapon of war and would use them according (Eisenhower years.)  We considered using them to make harbors deeper in Alaska, access oil, enlarge the Suez canal, cook hamburgers at home, they even showed the commercial for that last part.  Holy cow!  When the show portrayed Russian kids just as terrified of us as we were of them, it was interesting, but it's hard to think (until I investigate if there were similar USSR policy statements) that we should have been as frightened as they were.

Elizabeth would have been in training during some of the scariest times and statements, and probably heard it all about the USA (and more) and we know they had their own version of duck and cover when she was a schoolgirl.  Our fear was real, I'm sure her's was as well.  She would have also been well trained ab out WWII and the USA's failure to meet their promises of aid after the war, the encircling of the USSR with nukes, and that the USSR suffered so many more losses and so much more devastation, then voila, dumped in the USA, and Soviet contributions to the war being not much more than a footnote in her kid's history books could further fuel her distrust.

As Philip said, "she cares about the whole world."  The things Philip appreciated about the USA were mostly day to day life here for the average working person.  Both points of view have value and importance, but looking at WHY is also important, and there are certainly legitimate reasons for Elizabeth to consider much of what happened to the USSR was the USA's fault, from failure to enter or act in Europe in WWII for so long, to sending in troops to fight the Bolsheviks, to putting down legitimately elected, left leaning leaders and installing murdering dictators.  Hell, I'd be pissed too!  I'm realizing that, especially given her age, and the passion and dedication of youth, I would have probably been much more like Elizabeth than like Philip. 

Although, as Philip said, I think Elizabeth did appreciate the comforts of the USA more than she was willing to admit to herself, and she was unwilling to face the bad sides of her government, or to brush them away, while Philip was not.  He was much more devastated, for example, by the use of the bio-weapon he helped steal than she.

Anyway, this little series is adding depth to the show for me, and more understanding of Elizabeth (and I think I already had quite a bit of that.)  Part of me is watching this as if I'm Elizabeth watching propaganda films during training, while the larger part of me is examining the various slants, and also realizing, "oh hell, this isn't all untrue."  (from other reading)

As for Paige?  Blech.  Her story still bores me, her personality, as far as the show showed me?  Is that of any cult follower, she had exactly no connections to the USSR, none of Elizabeth's experiences to justify her bizarre decisions.  Had she?  At the very least she would not have laughed at Claudia when she told the story about having sex in order to eat during the battle of Stalingrad. 

[sistermagpie]

12 hours ago, Umbelina said:

As for Paige?  Blech.  Her story still bores me, her personality, as far as the show showed me?  Is that of any cult follower, she had exactly no connections to the USSR, none of Elizabeth's experiences to justify her bizarre decisions.  Had she?  At the very least she would not have laughed at Claudia when she told the story about having sex in order to eat during the battle of Stalingrad. 

I'll bet if you look at every time she asks them about themselves her questions are intentionally framed to show that her perspective is too different to begin to understand them--as both of them say to her, in fact. She assumes Claudia's making a joke about sleeping with someone for food, is probably meant to be *genuinely* asking Elizabeth if she didn't get sick of eating the same meal all the time. She thinks Elizabeth is dodging the question of whether she was afraid when Elizabeth tries to explain a pov where what you have to do is more important than how you feel about it.

Maybe it's never more obvious than in that one conversation with Philip. She asks what his father did for work, which is like the most basic American question people ask to define someone. Then she asks if his mom's a good cook when the one thing we know about his childhood is that they did not have enough food to cook well or not. Philip, though, adjusts his answers to her worldview. 

12 hours ago, Umbelina said:

She would have also been well trained ab out WWII and the USA's failure to meet their promises of aid after the war, the encircling of the USSR with nukes, and that the USSR suffered so many more losses and so much more devastation, then voila, dumped in the USA, and Soviet contributions to the war being not much more than a footnote in her kid's history books could further fuel her distrust.

Really, her problem on the show seems less about not seeing the US as good enough but not thinking about the nuances either way. The climax of her story was more about getting her to think about the nuances of the USSR--again, not to say that the USSR was bad, but that there was more going on than what the US was doing. Other people in the USSR were doing that.

[Umbelina]

2 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

I'll bet if you look at every time she asks them about themselves her questions are intentionally framed to show that her perspective is too different to begin to understand them--as both of them say to her, in fact. She assumes Claudia's making a joke about sleeping with someone for food, is probably meant to be *genuinely* asking Elizabeth if she didn't get sick of eating the same meal all the time. She thinks Elizabeth is dodging the question of whether she was afraid when Elizabeth tries to explain a pov where what you have to do is more important than how you feel about it.

Maybe it's never more obvious than in that one conversation with Philip. She asks what his father did for work, which is like the most basic American question people ask to define someone. Then she asks if his mom's a good cook when the one thing we know about his childhood is that they did not have enough food to cook well or not. Philip, though, adjusts his answers to her worldview. 

Really, her problem on the show seems less about not seeing the US as good enough but not thinking about the nuances either way. The climax of her story was more about getting her to think about the nuances of the USSR--again, not to say that the USSR was bad, but that there was more going on than what the US was doing. Other people in the USSR were doing that.

It's bizarre that Paige would have no idea about the world or the USSR, yet still join.  What the hell did they say to her in those missing 3 years?  Why didn't they start telling her the Soviet world views, and sufferings, and why they distrusted Americans soon after Paige learned they were KGB?  Frankly, totally unbelievable on all levels.  American "kids" are not that stupid.

My point is, I think Elizabeth DID know the "nuances" and more about US actions against her country.  At the very least, she would have been one of those frightened citizens about the USA not only using nukes as a child, the Soviet version of duck and cover, but she would also know about the USA repeatedly threatening, in word and deeds, to use them again during her training.  The show, for the most part, didn't go there, and in many ways, it left Elizabeth looking more fanatical and less justified.

One other thing was mentioned that I want to look into about the WWII stuff.  The decision was deliberately made to delay entry into the war in Europe, as stated in the documentary, so that the Russians and Germans would kill as many of each other as possible, thus eliminating both problems for the west.  Churchill especially hated the Russians, because of communism.  Reparations were promised by the USA specifically recognizing that the USSR was suffering FAR more losses, both lives, entire cities devastated, and that their sacrifices were helping the USA.  That promised aid never really came once the war was won, or a fraction of the aid was sent.  Although American aid did come to England and to West Germany.  The idea that Elizabeth wasn't aware of this betrayal, and others, in the middle east for example, is frankly, completely unbelievable to me. 

Bottom line, Elizabeth had concrete reasons for her distrust of the USA, but the show only touched on our atrocious actions in central America and that one brief statement about nukes.  "The only country on earth to use them.  They did it TWICE."  In some ways, even though the writers were obviously trying hard to show Elizabeth as the heroic patriot of the story, the strong one, they, by the end, made her look more like a blind nutcase.  ETA, the show also more than mentioned the USA's atrocious support of Apartheid in South Africa.

It is interesting though that they ended the story with the question of nuclear disarmament, which had to be one of both Philip and Elizabeth's primary reasons for their work.  It's a little bit odd that they never mentioned the USSR's previously shunned attempts to achieve the elimination of nukes.  Mostly though, even though this series THE UNTOLD HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES is most certainly biased, perhaps too far in the other direction, it's very difficult not to watch it with Elizabeth's eyes, and think of her training in the KGB, which if anything, would have leaned even closer to the Soviet side.  She had her reasons, reasons far beyond the rather blind patriotism we saw on The Americans.

That doesn't discount Philip's reactions in America though, he tended to take a much more personal view of it all, and while he undoubtedly had the same training and knowledge?  He was just the average Joe, who liked the trains running on time, food on the table, and at least most of the relative ease and freedoms the people enjoyed in the USA.  Elizabeth cared about the whole world, and justice, and right and wrong.  Philip may have as well, but it dissipated over time, and the day to day life became more of a motivator for him, the various sins, blind spots, and lies of the USSR were, in a way, used as justification for his decision to quit, or rather, to even WANT to quit.  Elizabeth's "we are not perfect, no country is, but we are better and we are trying" sentiments expressed with the Apartheid guy were, in retrospect, very important, and not simply a handy lie she told herself.

Edited October 3, 2018 by Umbelina
added apartheid

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

My point is, I think Elizabeth DID know the "nuances" and more about US actions against her country.  At the very least, she would have been one of those frightened citizens about the USA not only using nukes as a child, the Soviet version of duck and cover, but she would also know about the USA repeatedly threatening, in word and deeds, to use them again during her training.  The show, for the most part, didn't go there, and in many ways, it left Elizabeth looking more fanatical and less justified.

But that's not what I would consider nuances. Maybe I'm using the wrong word, though. We saw that she did not want to think things through too much. She's not lying to herself when she says they're not perfect but are trying, but she's also not thinking through what she means by that in any specific way that I ever saw. She was fighting for justice but didn't question what she was doing for that fight. Her criticisms of others were specific and damning, her criticisms of her own were general and optimistic. Some of her arguments with Philip weren't about justification for quitting but about whether what they were doing was actively going against their beliefs.

She has reasons for thinking the way she does that aren't any more brainwashing than an American housewife's feeling this way about the US--plus there's the added trauma of the War that would give her even more motivation for the way she sees things. But the show itself never implies that she's wrong for keeping her Soviet perspective about itself or the US, more that she's responsible for her own actions, not them.

Edited October 3, 2018 by sistermagpie