S04.E12: Providence

[Cdh20]

36 minutes ago, cardigirl said:

Perhaps it's this forum, which developed soon after Television Without Pity, which was full of snark, but since the beginning of season 2 I read a lot of complaining against the showrunners about how they are not doing this show correctly.  Not enough sex, too much sex, not enough naked Jamie, too much Frank, on and on and on.  Every season has had much to recommend it, in my view. This is one of the most beautiful shows on television, the way it is filmed, lighted and costumed. It's like watching a movie every week. I enjoy it as such.

I miss the recaps they used to write for the episodes. The writer of recaps for this site for the first season was excellent and always pointed out things that made me laugh (or smirk) about the logic (or lack thereof) of the story line.  I have a couple of friends I discuss the show with who have not read the books, and they are always disappointed that Jamie and Claire are not in the episodes more.  I don't know what to tell them other than that the books cover a lot of time and many characters, and that we're probably going to be following those stories as much as Jamie and Claire in the future.

Perhaps the show should have ended with the reunion in the print shop.

After falling in love with this show about 14 months ago, & looking up everything possible regarding it, I decided it would be fun to watch along & discuss it, but I wonder sometimes if reading  all the complaining & snark do diminish my enjoyment a bit. Maybe next season I will stay off the internet & see if I love it more? (That probably won't happen, but let's face it -it's like a year away)

[Nidratime]

I just wanted to add. I think Roger was a real hero in the last episode. He's been a victim for a while now, so it was uplifting to see him put himself on the line again, sacrifice, and be a hero. Jamie and Claire have been heroes time and time again. Jamie is a walking personification of hero, but as the books and show progresses the focus broadens and these additional characters have to be worthy of our love or hate too.

Edited January 21, 2019 by Nidratime

[CABINET]

21 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

I honestly can't remember what happened in the book, but of course, I've just watched the episode. It's fresh in my mind, and I think it would've been a shame if we watered down the impact of Roger, the Priest, and the Native American woman by interjecting the whole gang and took the focus off of him, robbing him of his moment. To me, it really highlighted the kind of man Roger is and the struggle he's been going through since the 20th Century. And, I thought his closing line was perfect. In a sense -- although he didn't literally allow himself to be burned in a fire based on his faith or throw himself into the pyre with his lover -- he symbolically did the same thing. He followed the woman he loved into the abyss,and off and on he's been struggling with that decision. He advises the priest to just take the easy way out. Baptize the kid or run off with the woman and give up his calling. But Roger didn't take his own advice. He followed Brianna to the past, he hesitated to touch the stones and leave the 18th Century after his horrendous experiences, and he went back to give the priest a faster death despite knowing he was condemning himself to continued servitude. Based upon his own estimation, *he* is as big an idiot as the Father.

Idiot hut, indeed.

Well if the show hadn't spent so long assassinating Roger's character then he wouldn't have needed his 'moment' of redemption.

The 'whole gang' being there worked well enough in the books. 

[Ziggy]

58 minutes ago, cardigirl said:

I read a lot of complaining ... This is one of the most beautiful shows on television, the way it is filmed, lighted and costumed. It's like watching a movie every week. I enjoy it as such.

I agree that there are often lots of complaints.  I know I complained a bit this episode, and I honestly felt bad about it.  I think a bit of it is just human nature.  We have this weird tendency to notice the negative.  But, it does kind of take away from the awe.  Every episode I am amazed that these books have been brought to life!

22 minutes ago, Cdh20 said:

After falling in love with this show about 14 months ago, & looking up everything possible regarding it, I decided it would be fun to watch along & discuss it, but I wonder sometimes if reading  all the complaining & snark do diminish my enjoyment a bit. Maybe next season I will stay off the internet & see if I love it more? (That probably won't happen, but let's face it -it's like a year away)

I do catch myself getting a little too wrapped up in the negative, but I still love coming here are reading things.  People notice so many details that I don't see, and it really enriches my experience!

[Nidratime]

Quote

The 'whole gang' being there worked well enough in the books.

I've been re-reading Drums of Autumn. I hoped that I'd be done by now, but the holidays (and a bad cold) kicked me in the butt. In any event, I'm at the point where Brianna is explaining what happened with Bonnet so I haven't gotten to Roger in the Mohawk village yet. Maybe when I get there (again) I'll agree with you, but it struck me, when hearing you all explain what happened in the book, that it's Jamie and Claire coming to the rescue again. That it robs Roger of his agency. Up to this point, everyone's been seeing Roger as either a victim, a stubborn fool, or both. Last night, I think he did something very noble and, it's interesting, he did it after "confessing" to a priest, so it almost seemed like an action taken after an enumeration of his sins. 

In the show -- and I can't remember how it happens in the books -- Roger manages to escape. He rescues himself. He doesn't need Jamie and Claire to save "poor Roger". It was his *choice* to return to the Mohawk Village and put his life on the line doing something for someone else he barely knew, really. And, that's heroic, and in my opinion, it makes him worthy of Jamie and Claire's child (no matter what you think of her).

Edited January 21, 2019 by Nidratime

[shelen]

1 hour ago, Nidratime said:

Over time, the books build a community around Jamie and Claire of people connected to them and the show is following suit. In order to care about those people you have to spend time on them, tell their stories.  Jamie and Claire are still the glue that binds everyone together. But they can't possibly be everywhere, in every scene. At this stage of the story, as it's being adapted, Jamie, Claire, and Ian are hunting for Roger. Nothing important happens until they get to him, so why spend TV time just showing them trekking towards New York? And, why would they bother doing so if Roger was so unimportant we didn't see what he was going through?  Besides, after over four years of being in every episode, I'm guessing Caitriona and Sam are grateful for some time off.

I'm glad I can't remember every detail of the books because I'm not looking for every plot detail and making myself unhappy when every box isn't checked.

Exactly.  As time passes in the coming books, the story becomes more of an ensemble piece.  It would take  24 episodes per season to follow the books chapter by chapter.  The comments about the show being boring would increase ten fold.  Ever read James Michener's Centennial?  Five pages on rock formation alone.

You do have to spend some time with a character to care about them.  That's why people care so much about Jamie and Claire since they were the main focus in seasons 1-3 

And Ian figures prominently in the rest of the books.

[Cdh20]

36 minutes ago, Ziggy said:

 

I do catch myself getting a little too wrapped up in the negative, but I still love coming here are reading things.  People notice so many details that I don't see, and it really enriches my experience!

That is why I come too, I love to see how others interpret a person's motivations, or a scene, & how they catch little bits of importance. When I do a second watch it amazes me how much more I see!

Edited January 21, 2019 by Cdh20
spelling

[Biggie B]

I felt awful for the little now-orphaned half-Mohawk baby. He'll never know his parents, although it seems as if he'll be raised with love by the rest of the tribe. If the baby's mother had accepted Christianity, then perhaps she thought she would be united in the afterlife with her lover, although leaving her child behind just to be with the priest is a pretty awful choice, in my opinion. I wonder, too, how much of the tribe has accepted Christianity, and if those who have will have an issue with this unbaptized baby in their midst. 

Not specific to this episode, but I do enjoy the aesthetic beauty of this show. I watch it on a large screen hi def TV with the lights down or off, and it's truly gorgeous. The scenery, the clothing, the richness of detail - it's all stunning to me, and helps outweigh parts of any episode that I find less than captivating. I don't even care about Jamie's hair - I assume that in that time period, everyone was basically pretty dirty. They're exposed to the elements almost 24/7 and the concept of bathing daily in hot water was probably a bit odd, if not downright impossible for most people. In this episode, when Roger was shown tying another knot in his string, you could see how dirty his fingernails were. The cloth that most of the men wear wrapped around their necks is usually stained or dirty. I really appreciate those little details, even if Jamie and Claire's cabin in North Carolina looks a bit too nice inside at times! The outdoor shots are breathtaking - even when the Mohawk were dragging Roger all the way back to NY, I had to admire the beauty of the woods and the water. 

I never cared for Marsali in the books for some reason but have grown to admire her on the show. She's strong mentally and physically and I think the actress does an excellent job of portraying those attributes. She never wavered while participating in the jail scheme - even with her baby balanced in his bassinet in the back of the wagon! You go, girl! 

I didn't mind that Jamie and Claire weren't in this episode. I was invested enough in what was happening to Roger. I do wonder how things will be left by the end of next week's finale but since I read the books so long ago, and since the show doesn't follow the books word for word, I'm content to wait and see. However they leave it is however it will be left, and I will pick the show up again whenever it returns, whether that's in late 2019 or some time in 2020. 

Edited January 21, 2019 by Biggie B
grammar correction

[caws 727]

Well said Nidratime - I'm interested how they will portray Rogers reluctance to stay and be with Brie (if it will take a long time or if he'll just disappear for the most of the episode only to show up at the end) - how he will react to Jamie and how Ian's sacrifice will play out - I'm sure we will have echoes of these decisions play out in more detail next season - I feel like we needed Rogers moment to get us into his head that we got this week, so whatever happens next week, we are in full awareness of what Rogers motivations are.   Without that - if he does disappear only to show up later to confirm he wants to stay - we're not like "wait, why??"....just my opinion....

There is a lot of feelings and emotions and talking in ones head in the books - hard to express that on film - and I think the time/episode constraints make it a challenge.  I've read all the books and not recently, so exact details are not in the forefront of my memory - the basic plot points that I can recall have all been done this season (save the meeting with Jenny, which couldn't be helped) - I'm not 100% behind all the casting choices, but I feel like the actors have all risen to the challenge (and I just don't understand all the Sophie hate - I think she's doing a great job and getting better with time).  I agree that some of the episodes in the beginning could have moved the plot a bit better, but I'm not a writer or director or show runner and the little I do know about film and editing, its not as easy as it appears - sometimes what you have in your head just doesn't translate in the end the way you want it to....I'm enjoying the season, can't wait for next week, and am dreading the Droughtlander.

[WatchrTina]

I finally saw it and I'm posting a response without reading anything here.

Damn. That was brutal. I've read the books but it's been awhile.  I forgot how dark Roger's story became. To quote Roger, "Fucking hell!"

Oh yeah, I forgot how bloody STUPID Brianna's story became.  DO NOT GO VISIT HIM YOU IDIOT!  Alas.  She did not listen.

The dialog in this episode was particularly clunky and since I watched the first time with closed captions off, I missed a lot because the variety of accents in this episode (English, Scottish, French, Mohawk) were fairly challenging.  I'm off to watch a second time with the captions on.  Maybe the dialog will improve.  But I doubt it.

BTW, Richard Rankin is amazing.  Roger's anguish while telling his story to the priest was a tour de force of acting -- as was his internal struggle with the decision to turn around after he got away.  This was difficult to watch and I'm kind of dreading turning it on again, but getting to watch Richard's performance will make it worthwhile.

[AD55]

Just a note to say I'm really enjoying the conversation about this episode. Even when I am not in complete agreement with a post, it almost always contains an insight that deepens my appreciation of the episode.

I'm nodding with those who say we needed an episode that focuses on Roger's inner conflict in order for us to invest in his character and his decision to stay and also to set up his future story line. I don't recall whether the framing here--that he was motivated to follow Bree in part to convince himself he didn't love her--was in the book, but I think it works. To quote John Grey, sometimes people do the right thing for the wrong reasons. That's apt, but Roger also sometimes does the wrong thing for the right reasons, as in his "rescue" of the priest. He and Jamie are opposites in many ways, which makes their gradual appreciation of and love for each other all-the-more poignant.

[LadyBrochTuarach]

5 hours ago, cardigirl said:

Do you not have access to on demand? You don’t have to ‘record’ the episodes, and can watch as soon after midnight as you want to, Sunday morning. 

No, unfortunately. Being in Canada I don’t have Starz access. 

[tennisgurl]

2 hours ago, Nidratime said:

I just wanted to add. I think Roger was a real hero in the last episode. He's been a victim for a while now, so it was uplifting to see him put himself on the line again, sacrifice, and be a hero.

Yeah, it was nice to see Roger get a big hero moment, when he has spent most of his time in the 1700s being the victim of fate so far. He has been kind of knocked around from one place to another, suffering horribly to continue the plot and affect the other characters, so it was good to see Roger actually make his own choices, and get to be a hero in his own right. Roger has some parts of his personality that get on my nerves, but he is basically good and honorable person, so I was glad that he got this heroic moment, even if the best he could do in this situation was end the priests suffering faster. I am also glad that they gave Ricahrd Rankin more to do, he really did amazing work. 

[iMonrey]

So from what I gather there's an awful lot of book material left to cover in just one episode. That being the case I could have done without the entire priest subplot altogether. I didn't find it the least bit engaging and thought the episode was very slow overall aside from the prison break. It's odd what the writers choose to utilize and what they choose to skip WRT the books. We're just really at the mercy of their whims, and what they happen to find personally interesting. 

I did wonder how they accomplished the effect of the woman basically climbing onto the fire - figured it was some kind of CGI. Turns out a stunt woman in protective gear actually did just climb right into the fire. Yikes. I hope she gets paid a lot.

[areca]

My biggest problem is that the audience did not fall in love with Ian.  So his dramatic adoption into the Mohawk tribe is not going to be as poignant as it should be.  He should have been a much, much bigger player this season so we could love him.

[LadyBrochTuarach]

22 minutes ago, areca said:

My biggest problem is that the audience did not fall in love with Ian.  So his dramatic adoption into the Mohawk tribe is not going to be as poignant as it should be.  He should have been a much, much bigger player this season so we could love him.

I agree. I think that’s one of my biggest qualms this season. Most people will think oh well, he’s been off hunting with them most of the time anyways. I am happy that he has a much larger storyline later, but it would have been nice to have the foundation laid a bit now. 

 

41 minutes ago, tennisgurl said:

Yeah, it was nice to see Roger get a big hero moment, when he has spent most of his time in the 1700s being the victim of fate so far. He has been kind of knocked around from one place to another, suffering horribly to continue the plot and affect the other characters, so it was good to see Roger actually make his own choices, and get to be a hero in his own right. Roger has some parts of his personality that get on my nerves, but he is basically good and honorable person, so I was glad that he got this heroic moment, even if the best he could do in this situation was end the priests suffering faster. I am also glad that they gave Ricahrd Rankin more to do, he really did amazing work. 

Richard was amazing in this episode. It’s unfortunate they made him a bit unlikeable earlier in the season, because I feel it’s bad situation after another for him in this season, and from here on out. 

 

 

I’m not taking away from the importance of Rogers captivity, the Mohawk, the Priest story line and the baby. That’s all well and good. I’m happy to see if fleshed out in an episode. My issue remains that our two main characters have been lacking in screen time significantly this season, and things like Rogers trek to New York could have been summed up a bit quicker, giving us some more time to focus on important plot points. 

3 hours ago, CABINET said:

Well if the show hadn't spent so long assassinating Roger's character then he wouldn't have needed his 'moment' of redemption.

The 'whole gang' being there worked well enough in the books. 

Yes. I think sometimes the show runners do things better, and sometimes Diana’s version is better. It’s hit and miss, and for me I just find the season lacking a bit in comparison to the others. I guess I’ve just been a bit irked by the waste of time throughout the front half of the season, to rush through significant parts (like this episode) in the last portion of it. 

 

It IS a beautiful show, whoever commented, I can’t scroll that far up on my mobile to quote you exactly. I agree, and I’ll always be in awe of the beautiful costumes, scenery, locations, and for the most part excellent acting. Overall it’s one of the best tv shows I’ve seen, hence I power read through all 8 books in about 2 weeks after watching season 1 and 2. In a 1 week time frame. It’s a wonderful series. I’m obsessed, I love Outalnder. I have tons of fan fictions stories I follow and write them myself. Some things just irritate me though, and having a background in film, certain things irritate me more. 

If this had been 2 or even 1 episode previous, I probably wouldn’t have complained as much, due to plot amount still left. This WAS an important and necessary episode in my opinion. 

 

Also, the Idiot Hut looked super gorgeous with all those leaves. I’d like one in my backyard. 

[Cdh20]

39 minutes ago, areca said:

My biggest problem is that the audience did not fall in love with Ian.  So his dramatic adoption into the Mohawk tribe is not going to be as poignant as it should be.  He should have been a much, much bigger player this season so we could love him.

I love Ian! Everytime he was on screen he made me smile or laugh! 

[WatchrTina]

GENERAL

Okay let’s just all agree now that henceforth and forever afterward this episode should be referred to as “The Idiot Hut.” 

 

THE GOOD

Richard Rankin. Mon Dieu! (Oops, sorry Father Ferigault.) But Richard is so !@#$%^&ing good in this episode.

When Roger failed to make it all the way through the gauntlet at the very beginning one of the Indians says, “You remain a captive.”  So that’s a hint that if he had not failed there was a possibility of a different outcome, right?  As a reader, I think I know where THAT hint is going and I like it.

I liked Roger’s verbal stumble when he first meets the priest.  The priest asks if he is British and Roger says yes and then corrects himself, saying “Scottish”.  In that time (just after the rising) it’s not likely that a Scot would describe himself as British, even if it is technically correct.

Then I loved the way Richard played the scene in the hut, beginning with mild hysteria at his situation.  When he tells the priest his story – well, that has to be Richard Rankin’s best work on the show. Bravo!  That work is mirrored in the agonizing decision Roger has to make after his escape. Bravo again!  I know there are some viewers who were not best pleased with Roger after his reaction to Brianna’s refusal of his proposal and then later, his behavior on their wedding night.  I sure hope Roger has earned some love after this episode.

I also love that they are making Marsali such an active player – one with agency who chooses to be a part of the jail-break plot. You go girl!

The scene of the regulators assembling on the street was some good old-fashioned action hero imagery – complete with our boy Fergus at the center.

I loved the moment in the jail-break when both Lord John and Murtagh are trying to protect Brianna.  Both of them see themselves as her guardian, acting on behalf of her father, whom each loves in his own way.  Neither wants to yield that duty to the other. 

 

THE BAD

I hate with the white-hot passion of a thousand suns the fact that Brianna fails to tell Bonnet that he only MIGHT be the father.  I know it’s in the book.  I know that lapse of full disclosure is essential to the plot that follows.  I know it might even be more realistic than Brianna telling the whole, deeply personal, truth of Bonnet’s having raped her literally minutes after she lost her virginity on her wedding night.  But I still hate it.  

And this just has to be said.  The priest is an IDIOT.  I was raised Catholic and I know that, in dire circumstances, ANYONE can perform a baptism. I can do it. The point is to save the infant’s immortal soul.  The baptizER does not have to be in a state of grace. But it seems clear that this priest has converted a bunch of these people – teaching them that the only way to salvation is via Christianity and that the only door into Christianity is via baptism by HIM, and then he refuses to perform the ceremony on a blameless infant. IDIOT.  The hut is well-named.

Brianna: “If I sit down I won’t be able to get back up.” Ugh.  That clunky dialog was clearly thrown in to let us know that Brianna is fairly advanced in her pregnancy (since the costume hides it.)  But ugh.  

Marsali: “I’ll find us a wagon and start packing.”  Using WHAT for money?  A wagon and a pair of horses are very valuable things and Fergus has been unable to find work.  That’s a fairly glaring plot hole there.

It took them all night to dig that inadequate hole?  Really?  And the guard sitting right outside the front door of the hut never heard a thing? REALLY?

The Indians strip the priest naked for one round of torture, but they leave him clothed for a torture that involves slowly burning him to death.  This makes no sense.  I presume that’s a wool cassock he is wearing. Doesn’t wool burn? Wouldn’t it quickly catch fire and defeat the whole purpose of their planned prolonged torture?  I understand why the show-runners chose to ignore that rather than have prolonged full-frontal nudity of a priest but in that case they should not have stripped him for the first round of torture and established the precedent.

Speaking of costumes, I find it odd that Brianna would wear those dangly earrings to visit Bonnet in prison.  Those sure look like evening-wear to me.  The only fan-wank I can come up with is that she wanted to look as “impressive” as possible when she faced him but still – those earrings were an odd choice.  (And wouldn't her having precious gems dangling from her ears rather diminish the poignancy of Bonnet's giving her HIS gem?)

And speaking of jewels – WTF is up with Bonnet having a ruby hidden in his mouth? What is he, some kind of Bond villain with a secret compartment in a false tooth?  Did that happen in the book?

Can someone explain to me how Lord John and Fergus recognize one another?  I don’t recall their paths ever crossing in Jamaica and Fergus was not at the cabin when Lord John came to visit.  I guess I can fan-wank that Lord John was pointed out to Fergus while they were at the party in the Bahamas.  But how would Lord John recognize Fergus?

 

THE UGLY

Wow.  I have read the book but apparently I had blocked this particular episode – the fiery death of the priest and his lover – from my mind.  What a brutal image.

 

OTHER

As much as I love Marsai’s role in this episode (see above) she says that she’s inspired to take part in the jail-break because of Claire and the role Claire played in rescuing Jamie from Wentworth Prison.  When, exactly, would she have learned about that?  It happened before she was born.  It’s not an episode that Jamie was likely to EVER talk about – even when he lived with Marsali and her mother.  In fact, anything involving Claire was probably a taboo topic at Chez Laoghaire.  That rescue happened before Jamie met Fergus.  So where would she have learned the story?  The ONLY thing I can figure is that Murtagh told Fergus.  Okay – this is starting to make sense.  Fergus loves Claire and he wants there to be peace between her and his beloved so, on that first sea-voyage to Jamaica, as a means of trying to build bridges, he told Marsali the story of Claire’s bravery in rescuing Jamie – a story he heard from Murtagh.  Okay, it could work.

Did you notice that after Roger gets thrown in the “Idiot Hut” for pointing and interrupting someone he interrupts Father Ferigault?  Old habits die hard.

Edited January 21, 2019 by WatchrTina

[aemom]

3 hours ago, LadyBrochTuarach said:

No, unfortunately. Being in Canada I don’t have Starz access. 

Yeah, I hate having to wait until 10 pm on Sunday nights to watch.  Always a lack of sleep to start a Monday morning.  :-(

[AD55]

1 hour ago, WatchrTina said:

THE BAD

I hate with the white-hot passion of a thousand suns the fact that Brianna fails to tell Bonnet that he only MIGHT be the father.  I know it’s in the book.  I know that lapse of full disclosure is essential to the plot that follows.  I know it might even be more realistic than Brianna telling the whole, deeply personal, truth of Bonnet’s having raped her literally minutes after she lost her virginity on her wedding night.  But I still hate it.  

And this just has to be said.  The priest is an IDIOT.  I was raised Catholic and I know that, in dire circumstances, ANYONE can perform a baptism. I can do it. The point is to save the infant’s immortal soul.  The baptizER does not have to be in a state of grace. But it seems clear that this priest has converted a bunch of these people – teaching them that the only way to salvation is via Christianity and that the only door into Christianity is via baptism by HIM, and then he refuses to perform the ceremony on a blameless infant. IDIOT.  The hut is well-named.

 

 

So much yes to these. Over in the no book talk thread, IrishPirate wrote, "The priest's insistence that he couldn't baptize because of his own sin? That heresy was dealt with centuries earlier. The sacraments are about God's action and do not depend on the goodness of the one who performs the ritual." The priest was guilty of the sin of pride in thinking he was the one bestowing grace.

Supposedly, a layperson can baptize only when death is imminent, though one could argue that infant death was imminent every day in eighteenth-century America.

DG is Catholic and often tweets about Catholicism. These are weird details for her to get wrong, which leads me to believe this was a poorly conceived plot contrivance. (ETA: assuming the baptism plot was the same in the book. If not, it's on the show writers.)

Edited January 21, 2019 by AD55

[toolazy]

12 minutes ago, AD55 said:

So much yes to these. Over in the no book talk thread, IrishPirate wrote, "The priest's insistence that he couldn't baptize because of his own sin? That heresy was dealt with centuries earlier. The sacraments are about God's action and do not depend on the goodness of the one who performs the ritual." The priest was guilty of the sin of pride in thinking he was the one bestowing grace.

Supposedly, a layperson can baptize only when death is imminent, though one could argue that infant death was imminent every day in eighteenth-century America.

DG is Catholic and often tweets about Catholicism. These are weird details for her to get wrong, which leads me to believe this was a poorly conceived plot contrivance. (ETA: assuming the baptism plot was the same in the book. If not, it's on the show writers.)

 

I learned that anyone can do a baptism in an emergency from reading the Outlander series. I always skip this part of the book, though, so I don't know if the show was true to the book or not.  If it's in the book, then it's not a mistake. It's to illustrate that the priest is putting his honor and principles above other people.  It doesn't matter who suffers, what matters is that the priest believes, wrongly, that's he's doing what he must. And because of his actions, tragedy ensues.  

 

I hope that Roger learns a lesson here.  More than once he hurt Brianna by being a sexist pig and putting his religious principles - pre-marital sex is wrong - ahead of kindness and love.  I sincerely hope that the show knew what it was doing.  I hope that they gave us Judgemental Asshole Roger in order to set up a redemption arc.  I guess we'll see next week. 

[Noneofyourbusiness]

12 minutes ago, toolazy said:

I learned that anyone can do a baptism in an emergency from reading the Outlander series. I always skip this part of the book, though, so I don't know if the show was true to the book or not.  If it's in the book, then it's not a mistake. It's to illustrate that the priest is putting his honor and principles above other people.  It doesn't matter who suffers, what matters is that the priest believes, wrongly, that's he's doing what he must. And because of his actions, tragedy ensues. 

From the wiki, "When he refused to baptize the child – given that he had always required for baptism that both parents were Christian and in a state of grace, the latter of which he himself failed to be – the Mohawk chief Kennyanisi-t'ago was offended and horrified. When Alexandre would not comply with the chief's insistence that the child be baptized, he ordered Alexandre to be tortured. The whole affair had caused a rift in the village, and it was decided that an impartial council would determine how to restore harmony.

Father Alexandre, upon clarifying a point to Roger, ends his confession, deciding that he cannot achieve absolution, in any case, because in order to do so, he must reject the sin he committed, and since he still loves the mother of his child, he cannot.

Late in the afternoon, the sachem of the village comes to the hut, escorted by several warriors, and paints Alexandre's face black. They leave, and around twilight, Alexandre makes his final request to Roger – that he pray, not for Alexandre's life or his soul, but that he might die well, without crying out. Some time later, the Mohawks return, and Alexandre strips off his clothes and leaves the hut.

Roger cannot see the execution, but becomes alert to the fact that some sort of commotion is erupting. Desperate to see what is going on, Roger widens a cracked panel in the wall of the hut, and upon hearing voices yelling in Gaelic, he frantically tears at the panels in order to escape. Failing this, he wrenches a piece of the bed frame free and, having armed himself with this makeshift spear, charges out of the hut. Chaos ensues, and a blow to the head takes Roger out for the count for a time, until he revives inside the hut once more and notices the presence of Jamie Fraser. Once Fraser is conscious and they establish their current situation, he explains to Roger what happened that caused the commotion: not that the priest, after being tortured, was bound to a long pole and burned alive; but that his lover, having handed her child to Claire, turned and walked straight into the flames, embracing the priest and being consumed herself."

[toolazy]

2 minutes ago, Noneofyourbusiness said:

From the wiki, "When he refused to baptize the child – given that he had always required for baptism that both parents were Christian and in a state of grace, the latter of which he himself failed to be – the Mohawk chief Kennyanisi-t'ago was offended and horrified. When Alexandre would not comply with the chief's insistence that the child be baptized, he ordered Alexandre to be tortured. The whole affair had caused a rift in the village, and it was decided that an impartial council would determine how to restore harmony.

Father Alexandre, upon clarifying a point to Roger, ends his confession, deciding that he cannot achieve absolution, in any case, because in order to do so, he must reject the sin he committed, and since he still loves the mother of his child, he cannot.

Late in the afternoon, the sachem of the village comes to the hut, escorted by several warriors, and paints Alexandre's face black. They leave, and around twilight, Alexandre makes his final request to Roger – that he pray, not for Alexandre's life or his soul, but that he might die well, without crying out. Some time later, the Mohawks return, and Alexandre strips off his clothes and leaves the hut.

Roger cannot see the execution, but becomes alert to the fact that some sort of commotion is erupting. Desperate to see what is going on, Roger widens a cracked panel in the wall of the hut, and upon hearing voices yelling in Gaelic, he frantically tears at the panels in order to escape. Failing this, he wrenches a piece of the bed frame free and, having armed himself with this makeshift spear, charges out of the hut. Chaos ensues, and a blow to the head takes Roger out for the count for a time, until he revives inside the hut once more and notices the presence of Jamie Fraser. Once Fraser is conscious and they establish their current situation, he explains to Roger what happened that caused the commotion: not that the priest, after being tortured, was bound to a long pole and burned alive; but that his lover, having handed her child to Claire, turned and walked straight into the flames, embracing the priest and being consumed herself."

Yeah, now I know why I skip that bit.  Cripes.

I still don't think that's a mistake on DG's part, but I've been wrong before. 

[Noneofyourbusiness]

1 minute ago, toolazy said:

Yeah, now I know why I skip that bit.  Cripes.

I still don't think that's a mistake on DG's part, but I've been wrong before. 

I don't think it's a mistake so much as the priest flagellating himself by cop for his "sin". Someone should have told him that all love is an image of God's own and that maybe God's plan for him wasn't what he always thought it was, and he'd done enough good as a priest and now it was time to be a husband and father. Not that I'm religious myself, mind, but I know that much.

[AD55]

26 minutes ago, Noneofyourbusiness said:

I don't think it's a mistake so much as the priest flagellating himself by cop for his "sin". Someone should have told him that all love is an image of God's own and that maybe God's plan for him wasn't what he always thought it was, and he'd done enough good as a priest and now it was time to be a husband and father. Not that I'm religious myself, mind, but I know that much.

I don't have an issue with his inflexibility, which I think is true to a more rigid era (and is I believe still doctrinally sound). But if only for the sake of the baby, a self-flagellating priest would have been unlikely to compound his sins by indulging in the sin of pride. I don't know how it was in the eighteenth century, but the priests who proselytized to the Mohawks in the seventeenth were Jesuits, who of all orders would have been familiar with the niceties of the sacraments. How do I know this? I regret to say my parents took my siblings and me on pilgrimages to Catholic shrines during summer vacations. And that's all I'll say about that.

This is another one of those absurd episodes that I can't believe I'm even bothering to quibble about. What a mess this book is! Count me in as another one who loaths, loaths Brianna's visiting Bonnet.

[WatchrTina]

50 minutes ago, Noneofyourbusiness said:

Roger out for the count for a time, until he revives inside the hut once more and notices the presence of Jamie Fraser.

Okay, I had totally forgotten that part of the story.  I may have to go and re-read that bit now.  Because the image of Roger waking up back inside the idiot hut and finding Jamie Fraser -- the guy who sold him to the Indians in the first place  -- silently watching him from the other side of the hut . . . well that just brings a smile to my face.

But no, I can't read it because they've already diverged from the book (Jamie & Claire aren't there when the priest is burned) and I'll just set myself up for disappointment if I reacquaint myself with the book version and start having expectations.

That being said, you have to give props to Diana for having Roger NOT see the main action but only hear the chaos from inside the idiot hut and then have to be told about the terrible events later.  As I recall, that made for some thrilling reading with me wondering WTF was going on.

Edited January 21, 2019 by WatchrTina

[nodorothyparker]

3 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

Because the image of Roger waking up back inside the idiot hut and finding Jamie Fraser -- the guy who sold him to the Indians in the first place  -- silently watching him from the other side of the hut . . . well that just brings a smile to my face.

That's not how it happens anyway so you'd still be disappointed.  Jamie's been into it with somebody as he's all bashed up and bloody and all but unconscious when Roger first notices him.  There's a bit of a mental struggle there - is he glad something bad also happened to Jamie, is he there to rescue him, just WTH is going on out there?  The only interaction they have is basically agreeing that they'll square things later as Jamie doesn't know where Claire or Ian is at the moment and now just isn't the time to get into Roger's grievance with him.

I have no quibble with the show changing at least that up as most of the action in the book is happening outside where they can't see anything and they're just sitting around waiting to hear what happened secondhand.  That wouldn't make for good TV.

[Moxie Cat]

Didn't Lord John get horribly injured during the Bonnet jailbreak sequence in the book? I was dreading that and that's one thing I'm glad they changed. I'm kind of in love with show LJG!

Sophie has improved. But I cringe every time she says "an-ih-thing," and she has said it a lot. It's "an-ee-thing," dialect coach. Always a bit tell for British actors doing an American accent for me. The guy who played Chuck Bass on Gossip Girl (Ed Westwick, a Brit) did it a few times too. I have never heard an American say "anything" with a short i vowel.

Edited January 22, 2019 by Moxie Cat

[WatchrTina]

I'm posting this here without comment for those who don't Twitter.  It addresses the scene in the jail between Brianna and Bonnet.

Edited January 22, 2019 by WatchrTina

[LadyBrochTuarach]

9 hours ago, AEMom said:

Yeah, I hate having to wait until 10 pm on Sunday nights to watch.  Always a lack of sleep to start a Monday morning.  :-(

Right? It airs at 8pm for me, but I have to wait until my toddler goes to bed so that I can watch. It always seems like he knows mom is busy on Sunday nights, and stays up past bedtime! So I’m stuck watching it so late regardless! 😂

9 hours ago, Noneofyourbusiness said:

Once Fraser is conscious and they establish their current situation, he explains to Roger what happened that caused the commotion: not that the priest, after being tortured, was bound to a long pole and burned alive; but that his lover, having handed her child to Claire, turned and walked straight into the flames, embracing the priest and being consumed herself."

Thanks for clarifying this. I forgot that she jumps into the flames too in the book. As well as handing the baby to Claire. Makes me curious as to why they didn’t include that scene. 

Edited January 22, 2019 by LadyBrochTuarach

[LadyBrochTuarach]

8 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

Okay, I had totally forgotten that part of the story.  I may have to go and re-read that bit now.  Because the image of Roger waking up back inside the idiot hut and finding Jamie Fraser -- the guy who sold him to the Indians in the first place  -- silently watching him from the other side of the hut . . . well that just brings a smile to my face.

But no, I can't read it because they've already diverged from the book (Jamie & Claire aren't there when the priest is burned) and I'll just set myself up for disappointment if I reacquaint myself with the book version and start having expectations.

That being said, you have to give props to Diana for having Roger NOT see the main action but only hear the chaos from inside the idiot hut and then have to be told about the terrible events later.  As I recall, that made for some thrilling reading with me wondering WTF was going on.

I’m with you on this. I was so tempted to reread the ending again, but now I’m second guessing myself since they’ve changed a large portion of it. I think I’ll wait a week, too. 

 

I would have loved loved to see the scene with Jamie and Roger! Maybe they’ll squeeze it in still. 

[Cloudberryjam]

Sometimes, when I get frustrated with the new season, i go back and watch wonderful season 1 instead. Does anyone know the difference in the way the show is shot season 1 vs now? it seems like they used a different kind of camera or maybe its just the lighting/tone of the cinematography.  The shots in Season one seems so cinematic, like a feature film.  The look of S3/4 to me is more soap opera. Does anyone know why this might be? Any cinematographers or photographers on here?  I wonder if it has to do with Ron leaving—though I didnt like all his choices, he seemed a bit more experienced than MR/TG/MD? 

[ruby24]

Has Ron left altogether?

[Cloudberryjam]

He seems to still be Exec Producer but in reality Im not sure he has much involvement anymore, at least thats what it seems to me. Maybe someone else knows for sure...

[LadyBrochTuarach]

1 hour ago, Cloudberryjam said:

Sometimes, when I get frustrated with the new season, i go back and watch wonderful season 1 instead. Does anyone know the difference in the way the show is shot season 1 vs now? it seems like they used a different kind of camera or maybe its just the lighting/tone of the cinematography.  The shots in Season one seems so cinematic, like a feature film.  The look of S3/4 to me is more soap opera. Does anyone know why this might be? Any cinematographers or photographers on here?  I wonder if it has to do with Ron leaving—though I didnt like all his choices, he seemed a bit more experienced than MR/TG/MD? 

Oh, yes. I’ve seen season 1 so many times. When I can’t find anything to put on Netflix while I cook/do things around the house, season 1 never fails me, and generally season 2 as well. Cinematic is a good description. The colours were so vibrant and the camera angles brilliant. I felt like I was a part of the show and it was so realistic. Like I could reach out and touch the details in each scene. 

It likely has to do with the director of each episode, camera and lens used, angles of shooting (you wouldn’t believe what changing the angle of a shot would do), and definitely lighting. Maybe they’re using different gear, but also could be Ron stepping back. One persons vision never comes out the same as another’s. 

 

Maybe be someone else has more insight? 

[CABINET]

18 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

And speaking of jewels – WTF is up with Bonnet having a ruby hidden in his mouth? What is he, some kind of Bond villain with a secret compartment in a false tooth?  Did that happen in the book?

Can someone explain to me how Lord John and Fergus recognize one another?  I don’t recall their paths ever crossing in Jamaica and Fergus was not at the cabin when Lord John came to visit.  I guess I can fan-wank that Lord John was pointed out to Fergus while they were at the party in the Bahamas.  But how would Lord John recognize Fergus?

 

I think that in the books Bonnet did have a gem in his mouth (the black diamond) but I can't be sure.  I have a choking phobia so the idea of carrying anything around in my mouth long term brings me out in hives.

I think that John and Fergus did meet in Jamaica.  They might have been introduced at the ball but, if not, I am fairly sure that Fergus and Marsali go and alert Lord John after Jamie is arrested.

[CABINET]

5 hours ago, LadyBrochTuarach said:

Oh, yes. I’ve seen season 1 so many times. When I can’t find anything to put on Netflix while I cook/do things around the house, season 1 never fails me, and generally season 2 as well. Cinematic is a good description. The colours were so vibrant and the camera angles brilliant. I felt like I was a part of the show and it was so realistic. Like I could reach out and touch the details in each scene. 

It likely has to do with the director of each episode, camera and lens used, angles of shooting (you wouldn’t believe what changing the angle of a shot would do), and definitely lighting. Maybe they’re using different gear, but also could be Ron stepping back. One persons vision never comes out the same as another’s. 

 

Maybe be someone else has more insight? 

I have lost count of the number of times I have watched season one although not The Search because, even then, I was fuming at the time being wasted.   I was even more fed up when, as a result, there was no time for the 'ransoming' to play out properly and have Jamie and Claire back in tune before Dragonfly in Amber in season two.  Of course, it became apparent as that season went on, TPTB wanted to explore the idea of PTSD so we had Jamie and Claire at odds with each other for ages.

This season particularly seems to have entirely different production values.   Poor green screen and CGI are taking us out of the story whilst, in direct opposition, the cabin is far too beautiful and well appointed to be even remotely believable.  The lack of any visible tenants (bar the extremely accommodating Tom Burley) and stuff like feeding lovely fresh food to the animals is another anachronism too far.

Whether the drop in values is down to Ron Moore now taking a back seat, the difficulties of trying to pretend to be North Carolina when you are actually in Scotland, or just budgetary restraint I don't know.  I just know that I am sad about it because it was something so special and now is verging on the mediocre.

[WatchrTina]

55 minutes ago, CABINET said:

I think that John and Fergus did meet in Jamaica.  They might have been introduced at the ball but, if not, I am fairly sure that Fergus and Marsali go and alert Lord John after Jamie is arrested.

Ah! Thank you. That makes sense.  And as for how Lord John would remember Fergus in particular -- I can fan-wank that anything related to James Fraser is more-than-average memorable to Lord John. He's also in the company of Jamie's daughter (having just become engaged to her) so all things Fraser-related WOULD be top of mind for him.   And of course the false hand and a French accent (in the company of all those Scots) also makes Fergus distinctive.  As for Lord John -- he of course is VERY memorable and Fergus would have heard about his being in American and having visited Jamie.  So, yeah, it's all becoming more plausible to me that Lord John and Fergus recognize one another.  I hereby withdraw my complaint!  :)

[Cloudberryjam]

9 hours ago, LadyBrochTuarach said:

 

It likely has to do with the director of each episode, camera and lens used, angles of shooting (you wouldn’t believe what changing the angle of a shot would do), and definitely lighting. Maybe they’re using different gear, but also could be Ron stepping back. One persons vision never comes out the same as another’s. 

4 hours ago, CABINET said:

 

This season particularly seems to have entirely different production values.   Poor green screen and CGI are taking us out of the story whilst, in direct opposition, the cabin is far too beautiful and well appointed to be even remotely believable.  

 

Thank you, “production values” was the term I was searching for. Thats it. The production value seems to have gone down, overall. Its too bad because to me the acting (besides SS) the costumes and the set design have remained great—though I agree about the cabin and Jocastas interiors seem a bit more European than Colonial in design but still high quality work....

  I originally began watching the show in S2 with a professional interest, having never heard of the books (have read them now).  As a former film costumer (now full time mom) I still try to keep up with who is doing great work in costume/wardrobe and I had read that Outlander S2 costumes and sets were beautiful—they were and still are...

Then of course fell irrationally in love with JAMMF like everyone else:)

Even though I worked in film, I was so busy in my department that I never got into the technical aspects of cinematography/direction though I admire it.  Over Droughtlander Im gonna go back and look at camera angles and shot choices—thank you for mentioning how much of a difference those choices can make.  

I just turned on “Sassenach” this weekend to get a sense of that old magic, and the difference was so stark it got me wondering...

The majestic non green screen opening shot of the highlands—so transporting.   The sequence that flashes back to WW2 with Claire in the makeshift hospital and guzzling the celebratory champagne in her exhaustion—the sum total of the choices they made there were so wonderful—i can see now that its mainly the directors choices and maybe the editing that made that scene great. 

Thanks for a bit of remedial film education! Im off to read about cinematography in my spare time! 

[iMonrey]

Speaking of the "idiot hut" - every time the jailer replaced the door the entire structure shuddered from the impact. It made the hut look rather flimsy to be honest. Like Roger could have simply lifted the entire thing up and slipped away easily.

[Ziggy]

26 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

Speaking of the "idiot hut" - every time the jailer replaced the door the entire structure shuddered from the impact. It made the hut look rather flimsy to be honest. Like Roger could have simply lifted the entire thing up and slipped away easily.

Right?!?  I'm assuming that there was a "guard" posted in front of the hut who would notice if Roger tried that, but still!

[Nidratime]

I just was reminded that Brianna, after sharing Jamie's letter with Lord John, says, I didn't say goodbye to Jamie. I thought that was an odd comment at the time, but now I recall that, during her last interaction/argument with Frank, she also doesn't acknowledge him with an "love you" or any endearment, not knowing that it was the last time she would ever see him. So ... I just got why she said that about Jamie. Heh!

[Hannah Lee]

9 hours ago, Cloudberryjam said:

Thank you, “production values” was the term I was searching for. Thats it. The production value seems to have gone down, overall. Its too bad because to me the acting (besides SS) the costumes and the set design have remained great—though I agree about the cabin and Jocastas interiors seem a bit more European than Colonial in design but still high quality work....

 

I remember hearing somewhere...one of the after episode blurbs, or an article? ...that they originally were aiming for more authentic Colonial interiors for River Run, but that it didn't work well on screen.  Something about the colors being too dark or not enough contrast to show well, so they went with a lighter interior design, though still sumptuous with great attention to de.
 

Quote

 

I just turned on “Sassenach” this weekend to get a sense of that old magic, and the difference was so stark it got me wondering...

The majestic non green screen opening shot of the highlands—so transporting.   The sequence that flashes back to WW2 with Claire in the makeshift hospital and guzzling the celebratory champagne in her exhaustion—the sum total of the choices they made there were so wonderful—i can see now that its mainly the directors choices and maybe the editing that made that scene great. 

 

Oh you are so right about that.  "Transporting" is the perfect word for it.  There was such a fantastic sense of place and time that just sang from the screen, and really highlighted the difference in Claire's two worlds.   And the shots in the opening, especially the shot of them riding across the land, shot from above, are a great example of that.  When they changed the opening as the show moved out of the Scottish Highlands, that was the part I missed the most.   Brianna dipping a bucket in a stream or people walking up to River Run just are no comparison.

And there were many other sequences like that that really contributed to the whole aura of the show back in S1.   Though I guess it is a bit meta in a way - the 1700's Scottish highlands that were depicted  in S1 no longer existed after Culloden.   The Clearances and continued British rule changed all that, and the Highland culture was pretty much gone.  Even if the plot somehow brought Jamie and Claire across the ocean back to where they started, things would never be as they were back in S1, that way of life is gone., many of the homes, the people, the traditions, are gone or driven underground.    So our longing for it, nostalgia for it...maybe it puts us a bit in Jamie's frame of mind, and that of the other displaced Highlanders.  We all just have to enjoy what we've got now, even though it pales in comparison to what we had before.

Edited January 23, 2019 by Hannah Lee

[toolazy]

1 hour ago, Hannah Lee said:

 

I remember hearing somewhere...one of the after episode blurbs, or an article? ...that they originally were aiming for more authentic Colonial interiors for River Run, but that it didn't work well on screen.  Something about the colors being too dark or not enough contrast to show well, so they went with a lighter interior design, though still sumptuous with great attention to de.
 

Oh you are so right about that.  "Transporting" is the perfect word for it.  There was such a fantastic sense of place and time that just sang from the screen, and really highlighted the difference in Claire's two worlds.   And the shots in the opening, especially the shot of them riding across the land, shot from above, are a great example of that.  When they changed the opening as the show moved out of the Scottish Highlands, that was the part I missed the most.   Brianna dipping a bucket in a stream or people walking up to River Run just are no comparison.

And there were many other sequences like that that really contributed to the whole aura of the show back in S1.   Though I guess it is a bit meta in a way - the 1700's Scottish highlands that were depicted  in S1 no longer existed after Culloden.   The Clearances and continued British rule changed all that, and the Highland culture was pretty much gone.  Even if the plot somehow brought Jamie and Claire across the ocean back to where they started, things would never be as they were back in S1, that way of life is gone., many of the homes, the people, the traditions, are gone or driven underground.    So our longing for it, nostalgia for it...maybe it puts us a bit in Jamie's frame of mind, and that of the other displaced Highlanders.  We all just have to enjoy what we've got now, even though it pales in comparison to what we had before.

Except they did the exact opposite.  The interiors of River Run are way too dark. All of that wood paneling is not common in southern plantation houses. The only reason  I am not yelling from the rooftops is that I did turn up one example similar to the show. But I would expect to see more painted wood or plaster. I just thinks it's aesthetic of the set designer.

[FnkyChkn34]

An early comment in this thread wondered why there weren't more comments yet?  Answering for myself, I can say it's because I have nothing to say. That episode was - and this show has become - so boring, that I've just got nothing. I wish it wasn't true; I LOVED seasons 1, 2, and 3. But season 4? Wow... nope. Snoozefest. 

[iMonrey]

To each his own. I could barely get past the torture-porn that was the back half of Season 1 and almost didn't bother watching Season 2, which I considered only a slight improvement. The show didn't really hook me until Season 3 and I'm finding Season 4 just as engaging. 

People watch for different things I guess.

[Ziggy]

4 hours ago, iMonrey said:

To each his own. I could barely get past the torture-porn that was the back half of Season 1 and almost didn't bother watching Season 2, which I considered only a slight improvement. The show didn't really hook me until Season 3 and I'm finding Season 4 just as engaging. 

People watch for different things I guess.

I skimmed the "torture-porn" (totally agree with you on that) part of the first book.  I started reading Outlander after watching the first episode and managed to stay just ahead of the show.  But I skimmed the parts at Wentworth, and I refuse to watch those scenes in the last two episodes.  I'm not quite sure what made me keep reading the other books, but I'm glad I did.  So far there hasn't been anything as bad as that part. 

I'm really enjoying Season 4.  I'm really excited to see the season finale and see how they tie it all together.  But I'm not looking forward to droughtlander.

[Cloudberryjam]

Ok i have done a medium-deep dive into the camera work on Outlander, for any production nerds like me.  The first season was definitely filmed with a different camera, an “Alexa,” known for its filmic look.  Season 1 had the same DP for all episodes, Neville Kidd.  Then S2 they switched DPs.  Its hard to find info on season 4 equipment but it sounds like since 2014 lots of shows that require a period look where DP/camera crew preferred using the Alexa, including The Crown, are being moved to a camera that can handle 4K definition, which the Alexa cannot.  Plus the amount of CGI they used in S3 and now S4 bc of Scotland playing USA, they needed a different camera which seems to have a more digital look, plus the higher res is less filmic with less grain, etc.   

A camera dept fun fact: whenever there are candles lit, especially in castle scenes, the camera guys make sure the art dept lights only some, not all, to give a more authentic period look and less “we are on a set”....

[Pingaponga]

I assumed they were going to cut the whole story with the priest out, so that they had a decent chance of finishing up at the end of the season.  I don't know if the story with the priest has any influence in later books (I read DOA last summer, and I'll read the next book once this season ends), but from where I sit they could have left out the priest and had Jamie/Claire/Ian with the Mohawk this week, ending up back at the standing stones.  And then next week get Claire back in time to deliver Bree's baby and finish everything off with Roger. 

Because the way it looks now, we're going to end up with a cliffhanger - and does this show really need a cliffhanger to get people to watch when it returns?  I thought the term "Droughtlander" was created because people hate waiting between seasons.  Which strongly implies a cliffhanger isn't necessary.

[WatchrTina]

3 hours ago, Pingaponga said:

I don't know if the story with the priest has any influence in later books

I would guess that it was left in because it is a traumatic experience that has a lasting impact on Roger, and it showed us what kind of man Roger is. He couldn't abandon the priest to prolonged torture, even though "helping" him (by killing him and ending his suffering) cost Roger his chance at escape and probably earned him some yet-to-be-determined form of punishment.  We're readers so we know that Roger is going to be rescued, but the show has shown us that Roger has been marked by his experience in ways that will affect him for a very long time  -- much like how the ordeals that Jamie has been through (flogging, rape, war, living as a recluse in a cave, prison) still affect him. They both suffer from PTSD.  It's something they might one day bond over (once Roger forgives Jamie for putting him in that traumatic situation in the first place.)

I also think they wanted to show us how high the stakes are when dealing with this particular tribe.  Getting Roger out of his situation is not going to be easy. Jamie & Claire aren't going to be able to just swap some goods for him.  A larger sacrifice will be required (as we know.)

Edited January 25, 2019 by WatchrTina