This was the first episode in season 2 that I think the director, writing and editors actually nailed it! This was much more like season 1 for the first time. It was different than the book, but so well done! I miss the perspective in her out loud thinking that helps us to understand things and they brought it back to some degree with tremendous success this episode but they told it and really let us feel the tensions of the characters. This was refreshing. They were so caught up in first 4 episodes with all the boring details of Paris they lost the interesting part of the story. I had to buy to book so I could make sense of it all until this episode. Great job!
I'm curious as to how Claire believes she is supposed to interfere in the march of history with regard to Frank's destiny: if she wasn't in the 18th century to begin with, how would history have marched on to properly turn into Jack Randall marrying the (unlikely for him I think) Mary Hawkins? Why does she, as an interloper, believe she should get involved with that story line? I've just started reading Dragonfly in Amber so I can figure all this out. Also I noticed that when Claire showed up back in the 20th her baby bump was much smaller than it's looking like right now in Ep. 5.
That is the usual conundrum with time travel stories. It seems like the initial time travel is necessary to make the future possible, but also interferes with it.
1
Haha. Either read the book or wait til the end of this season. All will be revealed.
I wonder why Claire didn't really consider Frank's life when she thought Randall was killed when she was rescuing Jamie? Why was it okay then but suddenly isn't? She wasn't especially careful of Randall's life then.
1
That's a good point ! But then she wasn't at the rescue; she was waiting on the road as you may recall. I don't think there was probably any thought given to BlackJack per se - the mission was to rescue Jamie. The fact that the cattle pushed the door over on top of BlackJack was an unintended consequence.
The one that bothers me more is when Jamie comes thru the window in Episode 109 to rescue Claire from BlackJack. When she sees Jamie with the gun she tells him to "shoot the bastard" or words to that effect. In that case, I guess she wasn't thinking of Frank but of her own dire situation - and I can't say I blame her. Oh well, it's fiction and the author's prerogative to write it as she wants. And for the most part I am very appreciative of Diana Gabaldon's Outlander books :)
The one that bothers me more is when Jamie comes thru the window in Episode 109 to rescue Claire from BlackJack. When she sees Jamie with the gun she tells him to "shoot the bastard" or words to that effect. In that case, I guess she wasn't thinking of Frank but of her own dire situation - and I can't say I blame her. Oh well, it's fiction and the author's prerogative to write it as she wants. And for the most part I am very appreciative of Diana Gabaldon's Outlander books :)
3
At the point in Episode 109 with Black Jack and in the prison rescue of Jamie, Claire's memory of the family history line had not been stirred. Only when she meets Mary in France and then recognizes her name from that family history does she start to panic about the future.
1
Once Claire gives birth, is that baby locked in the 18th c. or is it possible for it to time travel along w/ Claire to the 20th c.?
In the later books in the series, it is basically determined that this ability to time travel is genetic - i.e. inherited - so it would certainly be possible if not very likely that a child of Claire's would have this ability.
I won't write a spoiler and address the baby Claire is currently carrying specifically :)
I won't write a spoiler and address the baby Claire is currently carrying specifically :)
So disappointed that the portrayal has shifted from the book. Jamie has become a vengeful murderer and Claire is crying as she explains her thinking?! Pretty dresses a story doesn't make. I may be at a disadvantage because I have read the books three times and have not been in on the showrunner discussions.
But he does want to murder BJR. Remember, he only grants her request because he is giving Claire a chance to go back to Frank if he dies at Culloden. I don't remember him not wanting to kill him. I won't spoil it for readers of this blog, but Jamie redeems himself in later chapters.
I too was taken aback when Jamie told Claire he was happy that BRJ was alive so he could have the pleasure of killing him, but after last night's last scene, I think the change brought more depth to Jamie that was missing in DIA. He is, after all, a warrior and I believed him when he said he needed to revenge the abuse he suffered at the hands of BRJ. I am half way into reading Voyager, and feel that Diana's writing matures as one would expect. DIA was too complicated and tedious compared to Outlander and Voyager.
1
OK, when Jamie walks up behind BJR my heart stopped. I thought it was masterful the way you see him out of focus in the back walking towards BJR. He controls himself because of the King, but he wants to run him through right there. This book, "Dragonfly in Amber", is so historically rich they couldn't have put everything into this sequence, but I think the viewer got enough of the background to go along with the plot. Claire -- she is trying to save Frank, her former husband, for the future, but it is clumsily set up here. Jamie wants revenge on the man who tortured and raped him so desperately but agrees to put it off until BJR fathers -- she thinks-- Frank's ancestor. I love this show, but the only thing I want is for Sam Heughan to stop with the flexing eyebrows already. There are other ways to express emotion, Sam. But with all the faults, I love it, I can't help myself. It is so lovely and innocent in it own way, I would watch this over The Affair any day, except, maybe, Peaky blinders.
2
Claire could have made a better argument to Jamie for sparing Black Jack. If Frank doesn't exist in the future, Claire will never take that fateful trip to Scotland that leads her to the mystical stones and Jamie.
Another point that Claire hasn't considered is the impact on future generations. Stopping the Jacobite rebellion will save many lives but also cause millions of others to not exist. Think. How many of us are descended from Scots who had to immigrate because of British vengeance against the Jacobites and Scotland as a whole?
Another point that Claire hasn't considered is the impact on future generations. Stopping the Jacobite rebellion will save many lives but also cause millions of others to not exist. Think. How many of us are descended from Scots who had to immigrate because of British vengeance against the Jacobites and Scotland as a whole?
9
But that's not the story that Gabaldon chose to write. Claire is written as a character with somewhat myopic faults. Jaime tends toward the larger picture, also to a fault. It is this difference between them that makes them spark off each other and sets the stage for so many "adventures".
1
It also seemed to me that by averting the duel she might be saving Jamie's life, although that was not an argument put forward during the back and forth bet. Claire and Jamie. Since we know that Jack Randall fathered a child (Frank being the descendant), then that would have meant he survived the duel--and possibly Jamie did not. Everyone's day of reckoning is postponed.
1
"More than almost any other show on television, 'Outlander' is ruled by the internal life of its female lead character." - PENNY DREADFUL begs to differ.
4
Good point. I watch PD but did not think of that.
1
Season two of Outlander is from Gabaldon's book "Dragonfly in Amber"
The symbolism of a dragonfly is:
"The dragonfly, in almost every part of the world symbolizes change and change in the perspective of self realization; and the kind of change that has its source in mental and emotional maturity and the understanding of the deeper meaning of life."
The symbolism of a dragonfly is:
"The dragonfly, in almost every part of the world symbolizes change and change in the perspective of self realization; and the kind of change that has its source in mental and emotional maturity and the understanding of the deeper meaning of life."
6
Claire's exquisite floral dress in the gardens of Versaille took my breath away!
11
The dress is exquisite, but those yellow gloves - exactly the color of Platex rubber gloves.
The intensity level increased geometrically when Black Jack appeared. Tobias Menzies is superb. All the other actors step up to his level when he is in the scene. I also applaud the actor playing King Louis. He captures the essence of a King perfectly. Perhaps it isn't clear, but Claire still feels a sense of loyalty to Frank, as well as a feeling of guilt for leaving him. This is why, in my opinion, she fights for him. Poor Jamie - caught between a rock and a hard place.
11
The overwhelming feeling here is guilt, in my view. If she were so loyal to Frank she would have gone back to him. And the other Afros do an amazing job without needing Tobias to elevate their performances. The acting in that final scene was perfect and, surprise!, Tobias was nowhere in sight.
3
Yes, superb acting at every level. I'd put this on par with other great series like Breaking Bad - everyone is doing an outstanding job. My critiques are that it should strive away from mere drama and relationship angst towards more about the issues of time travel.
Actually, I thought he was as cartoonish as Duverney and Sandringham
2
Claire is so lovely; I find myself admiring her classic beauty in every scene in which she appears. Be that as it may, the basic plot of playing fast and loose with the future by manipulating the past is a non-starter as far as I'm concerned. However I assume that the show follows the plot of the book (I have not read any of the series) so there is no point in pursuing this criticism. I guess my question is, unless Claire sees her marriage to Jamie as only temporary and her intention all along is to return to the 20th century, what does she care if Frank disappears from time? There is no telling what other future events have already been affected by the machinations of these two. There is always "the road not taken" in every decision any one makes.
2
This show had an excellent premise, but has become nothing more than a soap opera.
There was one glimmer of hope that it could have stayed more "scifi" when Claire is about to be executed as a witch, to find out the other woman she is on trial with declares she is from 1968.
The show could become much more interesting if there are numerous time travelers, coming and going thru the portal in Scotland, as well as in other places. Maybe more villagers in the region who share the same "secret". Some maybe be refugees from problems in other times. And on that same line, perhaps attempts to go forward and backward could have their own problems, arriving to early or too late ... the possibilities are much more interesting than the current evolution into serious costume design and drama that seems to drag on endlessly without resolution.
I'm a bit of a history buff, and love movies that accurately protray various periods, watching someone thrown into a place where they are out of their element, and have to adapt is always interesting. Now that Claire has adapted, shake it up more - add more time travel, attempt to go forward and wind up in the 1970's or present day. Then try to go back to 1745, and wind up in 200 BC.
There was one glimmer of hope that it could have stayed more "scifi" when Claire is about to be executed as a witch, to find out the other woman she is on trial with declares she is from 1968.
The show could become much more interesting if there are numerous time travelers, coming and going thru the portal in Scotland, as well as in other places. Maybe more villagers in the region who share the same "secret". Some maybe be refugees from problems in other times. And on that same line, perhaps attempts to go forward and backward could have their own problems, arriving to early or too late ... the possibilities are much more interesting than the current evolution into serious costume design and drama that seems to drag on endlessly without resolution.
I'm a bit of a history buff, and love movies that accurately protray various periods, watching someone thrown into a place where they are out of their element, and have to adapt is always interesting. Now that Claire has adapted, shake it up more - add more time travel, attempt to go forward and wind up in the 1970's or present day. Then try to go back to 1745, and wind up in 200 BC.
4
The story is fine as is and this was an excellent episode, particularly the scene with King Louis.
11
This series should get an Emmy for period costumes in every episode.
9
There will be more time travelers, from what I've read about season 2 they took a small part of book 3 to use this season, so it could possibly happen in a later episode. However it does happen with several other people throughout the books.
3
Chilling episode .
3
I found the scene in which King Louis humiliates Randall was great emotional relief for the audience. But further, it was an excellent portrayal of how vulnerable anyone less than aristocracy was in those times. This show has been a great exploration into the buildup of humanity's frustration at cruel and unusual punishment, that even the punisher (Randall) was not immune from an equal amount of abuse having been trampled and then found himself in the Bastille on a mere accusation without evidence. All of which led up to revolution in both France and the colonies in The New World (America).
8
But why did the king react so badly to Randall? I would have liked some reason.
1
he could tell that Randall was offensive and upsetting to Claire so he reacted. He was looking at Claire with compassion and visibly noticed she was upset.
I love the show. The cast and locations and costumes are incredible. However, the plot is a bit contrived. I understand it's mostly in the books, which I've only recently started to read. If they would just poison (or otherwise kill off) that Bonnie Prince, their problems would be solved without all these machinations. But then we wouldn't have a fun story to watch.
6
The idea of poisoning the Bonnie Prince does come up at one point later on in the book (Dragonfly in Amber), but to murder him is just a line that Jamie is not willing/able to cross. And, as you noted, to do so at this point in the story would pretty much change not only the remainder of this book but all the books in the series that follow :)
4
Unfortunately you'll find that, in a lot of ways, the books' events are very contrived, bent in such ways to accommodate events that wouldn't fit otherwise.
2
Your criticism of Claire as being myopic and sacrificing the recent progress made in her relationship with Jaime is understandable based on the episode. But as readers of the book will know, there is a rather moving scene which follows very soon afterwards where Jaime explains to Claire why he was really willing to agree to the year's delay in getting his revenge on BlackJack. And it is so sweet and rather foreshadowing. It is not because he feels he owes her a debt - he says he has saved her life at least twice - saving her from BlackJack (in episode 109) and then again saving her at the witch trials in Cranesmuir. Rather, he agrees to her terms because even though he feels they will be successful in their attempt to stop Culloden, or if not, he still doesn't expect anything to happen to him -- but if it should, he wants there to be a place for her to go where there is a man who loves her. He makes her promise that should he determine it best for her to ever go back thru the stones - that she will go back - go back to Frank. And as we all know from the first episode of this season - that time does actually come.
22
Great. Thanks for the spoiler.
3
It's not a spoiler. Episode 1 of Season 2 is of Claire at Craigh na Dun in the year 1948. Claire tells Frank everything and he agrees to raise another man's baby.
3
He didn't agree - he offered and insisted. she never asked him to raise her child or do anything else for her.
I don't think it's simply a question of loyalty - she also realizes that if Frank was never born, she would not be with Jamie.
15
Unfortunately Claire doesn't use that with Jamie. I wish she would...it would make more sense. But, alas, she doesn't.
5
That's the greatness of Outlander (the show and the novels)-that even the main characters screw up and don't communicate properly, just as in real life. Relationships often hit bumps due to misunderstandings or rash behavior. If Jamie and Claire were rational all the time it wouldn't be the portrayal of a marriage that it is. It's beyond frustrating but that's why I love it; it makes real life seem normal!
8
Excellent point. These characters are so compelling BECAUSE they are flawed-- just like real humans. Claire is strong, fearless, loyal, & committed to Jamie. She's also impulsive, emotional, & pregnant; none of which are conducive to rational thinking. (Hey, I'm a woman- I know whereof I speak!) I am familiar with the book storyline, but it has bothered me that Claire is so focused on saving Frank that she's willing to sacrifice the happiness of others. However, I have faith in the writers & show-runners of this series that it will all make sense as episodes unfold.
5
haven't seen latest episode yet. don't take so seriously. incongruity and conflicts of existing in two separate centuries aren't meant to be logically resolved. if treated like woman with a former husband for whom she still has genuine feelings and a new husband with she is passionately in love, makes some sense. after all, whole show, is a woman's fantasy about having two men desperately in love with her at same time. this season's production values compensate for any glitches in the plot and motivations. i am entranced.
5
The sudden appearance of Black Jack Randall was like a defibrillator for Season 2, which has become increasingly sclerotic and, frankly, deathly dull. I almost pulled the plug on the Starz network but I will hold on a bit longer to see if energy and passion returns to the series.
12
DIA is a very long, involved and complicated book. trying to put this on the screen in 13 episodes creates some issues. Book readers know the deails.and miss some of the scenes..hard to really capture all the undercurrents in this story...
7
I agree. Although I love the historical details in all the books, I found DIA was tedious at times in Paris because it was so complicated. SPOILER: I was very happy when they went back to Scotland. I fear that Starz made a mistake wanting this book to be condensed into 13 episodes - Paris alone could have been that long! However, kudos to the crew for the creative designs, the music, and the excellent cast. I could watch Tobias read a phone book, but Sam and Caitriona's last scene, which again is different than the book, brought chills down my spine. This episode had me spellbound. I was originally disappointed when they changed the story on how Claire and Jamie met BJR; but their encounter in the gardens at Versailles made up for it.
2
It is one thing to abandon Frank and quite another to kill him along with the branch of his family tree. How is that different than wanting to undo the Rising to save the McKenzies and the Frasers? What I like is seeing knock down married fighting that doesn't end in divorce court.
8
Annalise is playing the oldest game in the book: I don't want you until you belong to someone else.
4