"Marriage is Hard"
Sep. 16th, 2014 11:22 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakMore The Americans observations and meta, I'm afraid. The above sentiment is a statement voiced in both seasons, both times by a Jennings in conversation with a Beeman, but the context is quite different. (And the differences say something about the characters in question at their respective points in time.) Still, it occured to me that if Buffy the Vampire Slayer in its first three seasons did the "High School is Hell" concept literally, i.e. teenagedom with literal demons, you could say The Americans by marrying, sorry about the pun, the spy show/cold war concept to an ongoing exploration of marriage, partnerships and family (if marriage is hard, family is harder - "nothing prepares you for them growing up", one mother tells another in the s2 opener) uses the spy tropes like BTVS does the demons. In this world, lies and secrets between partners can have lethal consequences, and teenagers growing up who see their parents as hypocrites because they insist on truthfulness while being liars themselves are having an avarage teenage experience written flamboyantly large because of the context of the lies in question.
What makes and breaks a partnership, what makes and breaks a marriage (not always the same thing): love actually isn't the deciding factor (though it's certainly important). Stan and Sandra Beeman certainly love each other as the show starts, but their marriage erodes over the course of the first season and in the second is barely existing anymore, seemingly getting the death knell in later s2. Now you could argue that it's Stan's job as an FBI agent working in counter intelligence that comes between them, but in this show, not really. Sandra at a still hopeful point mid s1 asks Stan to share at least some emotions with her because she understands he can't share confidential details, and he tries that once or twice. Then he stops, not so coincidentally when he has started having an affair. But Stan chooses to stop sharing, chooses to have that affair. In s2, when he tells Philip about said affair, he insists he's doing his wife Sandra a favour by keeping his horrible professional life away from her, that consequently he has nothing to talk about with her, whereas his mistress (who is a Russian spy, like the man in front of him, though Stan doesn't know the later) sees him "differently", since she's a part of his work, that he can talk to her about his work. It's male self delusion written large, not just because the audience is aware that Sandra wanted to share, and that Nina is in fact playing Stan. Stan, while insisting he can't share with Sandra, shares with Philip (and not for the first time), who as far as Stan knows is as far removed from the counterintelligence world as Sandra is. There is some good old gender divide at work here for Stan as well, but on this show, if someone listens to you understandingly and patiently and is the confidant of your dreams, never arguing, you're definitely talking to a spy.
(Though even arguments can be faked, see Philip-as-Clark fabricating one with Martha when he needs to be elsewhere.)
When Elizabeth and Sandra have their "marriage is hard" conversation in s1, Sandra expresses her envy that Elizabeth and Philip are partners, working together. (Their cover is running a travel agency together, which is what Sandra refers to, though the audience and Elizabeth are aware of a different meaning.) Now, at this point marital relations between Philip and Elizabeth are severely strained and about to snap, so Sandra thinking her neighbours have it better isn't without obvious irony. And yet the partnership survives the temporary breakup, just as it predates any romantic involvement. Possibly because the rules aren't (always) the same. Philip and Elizabeth during their breakup time can go from classic separated couple bitching ("I don't need permission to see my kids") to backing each other up during a mission with hardly a minute of screentime in between. But there is bleedover. Is there ever. The show gives this relationship several layers of different types of trust - and betrayal, and the betrayals are directly connected to the partnership and the reason they work together to begin with.
In retrospect, Trust Me in s1 was such a turning point. Not just for the Philip/Elizabeth relationship but also for the one between Claudia and them. Until then, Philip might have been less than keen on Claudia, but took orders, and Elizabeth actually got along with her very well. When they realise that the capture/torture set up wasn't courtesy of the US government but a test by their own people (and btw, that entire sequence was also a mini illustration of why they work together so well in the field, from Elizabeth taking up Philip's cue when they're still being interrogated from Philip backing up Elizabeth the second she makes her move against Claudia), the long term fallout for the agents/handler relationship is catastrophic. During my rewatch, it occured to me that the show in subsequent episodes draws a parallel between Paige, blaming her mother and not her father for their split up, and Elizabeth, blaming Claudia and not the Center back home in Moscow. It's typical that Elizabeth asks Claudia immediately "did Zukhov authorize this" upon learning the truth. Not Daddy; it's mean Mom, even when its evident that Claudia was following orders. (For second time watchers especially. First time, you could assume like Elizabeth or at least wonder whether personal spite came also into it, but subsequent events make it clear that Claudia actually is protective of her agents, whether or not they like her. Doesn't change the fact she put them through an ordeal, of course. You could argue that while Zukhov in Elizabeth's flashbacks, dealing out soppy paternal advice, is doing the manipulative side of handling and embodying the Russia she needs to believe in, while Claudia embodies the harsher reality of Russia (Mother Russia?) - but also, ironic given her profession, the truth you can rely on. (Paige also will find her idea of the Mom and Dad division radically shaken in s2 when, once Philip is the one dealing out discipline, she recasts them as a united front of hypocritical liars.)
The triggers for Philip's and Elizabeth's mid s1 marital split: for Philip, finding out that Elizabeth informed on him in the past. (BTW, this also one of the ways in which the show despite its American setting finds a way to include one of the most insidious aspects of life in the Eastern block.) For Elizabeth, finding out he point blank lied to her in the present when she asked him about Irina. In both cases, you understand their outrage even while seeing the irony. Of course Elizabeth, 100% committed KGB agent "in a strange country with a strange man", would not only inform on everyone else but also on him. Of course Philip, who lies by default as a profession and is still somewhat angry because of just this informing, would use the safety net of lying instead of risking the truth in the critical moment when Elizabeth asks him for it as a basis for a new relationship between them. "Do as I say, not as I do" is something of a motto for many a parental education and for Philip and Elizabeth re: Paige in s2 especially, but it also affects their dealings with each other. They lie and manipulate so much that they need each other as true touchstones, but risking to be this for each other also means tremendous emotional exposure - to someone whose manipulative skills they know intimately.
The show asks constantly how much we ever are able to know each other, and are willing to. Stan and Sandra's marriage breaks down over not just lack of knowledge but Stan's unwillingness to share it, while in his relationship with Nina he imagines he knows her but actually doesn't, not least because he ignores what could detract from the Nina he wants to see. "You don't know me", Elizabeth tells Claudia, who replies "I know you better than you know yourself, while you don't know me at all". (True in as much as Claudia has a clearer picture of Elizabeth than Elizabeth has of Claudia, but solely in s1; in s2, Elizabeth still isn't a Claudia fan but notices when something is off with her without, as she would have in s1, jumped to conclusions that this is because Claudia is lying to her.) Gregory thinks he knows who Elizabeth is far better than Philip does, which is true for the young Elizabeth of the 1960s, certainly, but in the present day Gregory's idea of her seems to include the assumption that not just her relationship with Philip, but her children are "just cover", which she could discard if she wanted to, which is catastrophically wrong.
Communication, though. Philip and Elizabeth, both as partners and as a couple, never stop talking to each other. There is a lot of argueing, and they often are incapable of expressing all that they want (and sometimes this leads to disaster, as in Behind the Red Door), but they do try, and the narrative they're in never lets only one of them be wrong or right all the time. Each is shown to make mistakes. And occasionally even learn from them. :) There is an early s1 episode in which Elizabeth comes home from an assignment where her target turned out to be into beating women. She got the intel she wanted, but has the marks on her back. Philip sees them and wants to rush of, to which Elizabeth says that if she wanted the guy to be dealt with, she would have done it herself. A lesser show would have let Philip rush off regardless or shown the target meet an early demise otherwise. This show never shows said target again, lets Philip apologize later on and admit Elizabeth was right. In s2, there are situations when Elizabeth wants to spare Philip something and takes over that side of an assignment, and situations where Philip wants to spare Elizabeth, but in both cases, while they do so inobstrusively, they give the other the chance to protest (and if the other does, which happens in one case, they respect that).
Shared quietness, too. Which is not the opposite of communication in their case, but a continuation. Some of the most poignant scenes involve Philip and Elizabeth just holding each other, which in a spy show with fast moving scenes also makes for rare visual rests so that the audience shares that moments of stillness with the characters. It also signals the high degree of intimacy they can (but don't always) achieve. There's also a layer of every day comfortableness which isn't intimacy but is familiarity that is there from the start of the show, the result of their years together; in 1.02 Philip can brush his teeth and walk around in his socks when talking to Elizabeth about the current mission because that's what people who have lived with each other for so many years do, and details like that help the audience sell on the two of them having that kind of history.
History: every couple, whether they end separated or together, have shared experiences no one else has witnessed, which can make for both bond and alienation. But they are uniquely theirs. Due to the premise of The Americans, their expatriate spy existence between worlds makes that written large for Philip and Elizabeth. In perhaps the only moment where "Clark" gives a genuine bit of Philip-truth to Martha, he tells her "we didn't know how to be married" about himself and his wife (Clark's imaginary first wife, to be precise, but there was no reason for Clark to have that kind of backstory other than Philip wanting to talk about Elizabeth). But nobody can ever know. You can only learn by doing, as you go along, making it up all the time. Which is what this show lets its characters do, and in tv world where marriage is all too often treated as narratively uninteresting and inferior to the courting and getting together stage, it keeps fascinating me.
What makes and breaks a partnership, what makes and breaks a marriage (not always the same thing): love actually isn't the deciding factor (though it's certainly important). Stan and Sandra Beeman certainly love each other as the show starts, but their marriage erodes over the course of the first season and in the second is barely existing anymore, seemingly getting the death knell in later s2. Now you could argue that it's Stan's job as an FBI agent working in counter intelligence that comes between them, but in this show, not really. Sandra at a still hopeful point mid s1 asks Stan to share at least some emotions with her because she understands he can't share confidential details, and he tries that once or twice. Then he stops, not so coincidentally when he has started having an affair. But Stan chooses to stop sharing, chooses to have that affair. In s2, when he tells Philip about said affair, he insists he's doing his wife Sandra a favour by keeping his horrible professional life away from her, that consequently he has nothing to talk about with her, whereas his mistress (who is a Russian spy, like the man in front of him, though Stan doesn't know the later) sees him "differently", since she's a part of his work, that he can talk to her about his work. It's male self delusion written large, not just because the audience is aware that Sandra wanted to share, and that Nina is in fact playing Stan. Stan, while insisting he can't share with Sandra, shares with Philip (and not for the first time), who as far as Stan knows is as far removed from the counterintelligence world as Sandra is. There is some good old gender divide at work here for Stan as well, but on this show, if someone listens to you understandingly and patiently and is the confidant of your dreams, never arguing, you're definitely talking to a spy.
(Though even arguments can be faked, see Philip-as-Clark fabricating one with Martha when he needs to be elsewhere.)
When Elizabeth and Sandra have their "marriage is hard" conversation in s1, Sandra expresses her envy that Elizabeth and Philip are partners, working together. (Their cover is running a travel agency together, which is what Sandra refers to, though the audience and Elizabeth are aware of a different meaning.) Now, at this point marital relations between Philip and Elizabeth are severely strained and about to snap, so Sandra thinking her neighbours have it better isn't without obvious irony. And yet the partnership survives the temporary breakup, just as it predates any romantic involvement. Possibly because the rules aren't (always) the same. Philip and Elizabeth during their breakup time can go from classic separated couple bitching ("I don't need permission to see my kids") to backing each other up during a mission with hardly a minute of screentime in between. But there is bleedover. Is there ever. The show gives this relationship several layers of different types of trust - and betrayal, and the betrayals are directly connected to the partnership and the reason they work together to begin with.
In retrospect, Trust Me in s1 was such a turning point. Not just for the Philip/Elizabeth relationship but also for the one between Claudia and them. Until then, Philip might have been less than keen on Claudia, but took orders, and Elizabeth actually got along with her very well. When they realise that the capture/torture set up wasn't courtesy of the US government but a test by their own people (and btw, that entire sequence was also a mini illustration of why they work together so well in the field, from Elizabeth taking up Philip's cue when they're still being interrogated from Philip backing up Elizabeth the second she makes her move against Claudia), the long term fallout for the agents/handler relationship is catastrophic. During my rewatch, it occured to me that the show in subsequent episodes draws a parallel between Paige, blaming her mother and not her father for their split up, and Elizabeth, blaming Claudia and not the Center back home in Moscow. It's typical that Elizabeth asks Claudia immediately "did Zukhov authorize this" upon learning the truth. Not Daddy; it's mean Mom, even when its evident that Claudia was following orders. (For second time watchers especially. First time, you could assume like Elizabeth or at least wonder whether personal spite came also into it, but subsequent events make it clear that Claudia actually is protective of her agents, whether or not they like her. Doesn't change the fact she put them through an ordeal, of course. You could argue that while Zukhov in Elizabeth's flashbacks, dealing out soppy paternal advice, is doing the manipulative side of handling and embodying the Russia she needs to believe in, while Claudia embodies the harsher reality of Russia (Mother Russia?) - but also, ironic given her profession, the truth you can rely on. (Paige also will find her idea of the Mom and Dad division radically shaken in s2 when, once Philip is the one dealing out discipline, she recasts them as a united front of hypocritical liars.)
The triggers for Philip's and Elizabeth's mid s1 marital split: for Philip, finding out that Elizabeth informed on him in the past. (BTW, this also one of the ways in which the show despite its American setting finds a way to include one of the most insidious aspects of life in the Eastern block.) For Elizabeth, finding out he point blank lied to her in the present when she asked him about Irina. In both cases, you understand their outrage even while seeing the irony. Of course Elizabeth, 100% committed KGB agent "in a strange country with a strange man", would not only inform on everyone else but also on him. Of course Philip, who lies by default as a profession and is still somewhat angry because of just this informing, would use the safety net of lying instead of risking the truth in the critical moment when Elizabeth asks him for it as a basis for a new relationship between them. "Do as I say, not as I do" is something of a motto for many a parental education and for Philip and Elizabeth re: Paige in s2 especially, but it also affects their dealings with each other. They lie and manipulate so much that they need each other as true touchstones, but risking to be this for each other also means tremendous emotional exposure - to someone whose manipulative skills they know intimately.
The show asks constantly how much we ever are able to know each other, and are willing to. Stan and Sandra's marriage breaks down over not just lack of knowledge but Stan's unwillingness to share it, while in his relationship with Nina he imagines he knows her but actually doesn't, not least because he ignores what could detract from the Nina he wants to see. "You don't know me", Elizabeth tells Claudia, who replies "I know you better than you know yourself, while you don't know me at all". (True in as much as Claudia has a clearer picture of Elizabeth than Elizabeth has of Claudia, but solely in s1; in s2, Elizabeth still isn't a Claudia fan but notices when something is off with her without, as she would have in s1, jumped to conclusions that this is because Claudia is lying to her.) Gregory thinks he knows who Elizabeth is far better than Philip does, which is true for the young Elizabeth of the 1960s, certainly, but in the present day Gregory's idea of her seems to include the assumption that not just her relationship with Philip, but her children are "just cover", which she could discard if she wanted to, which is catastrophically wrong.
Communication, though. Philip and Elizabeth, both as partners and as a couple, never stop talking to each other. There is a lot of argueing, and they often are incapable of expressing all that they want (and sometimes this leads to disaster, as in Behind the Red Door), but they do try, and the narrative they're in never lets only one of them be wrong or right all the time. Each is shown to make mistakes. And occasionally even learn from them. :) There is an early s1 episode in which Elizabeth comes home from an assignment where her target turned out to be into beating women. She got the intel she wanted, but has the marks on her back. Philip sees them and wants to rush of, to which Elizabeth says that if she wanted the guy to be dealt with, she would have done it herself. A lesser show would have let Philip rush off regardless or shown the target meet an early demise otherwise. This show never shows said target again, lets Philip apologize later on and admit Elizabeth was right. In s2, there are situations when Elizabeth wants to spare Philip something and takes over that side of an assignment, and situations where Philip wants to spare Elizabeth, but in both cases, while they do so inobstrusively, they give the other the chance to protest (and if the other does, which happens in one case, they respect that).
Shared quietness, too. Which is not the opposite of communication in their case, but a continuation. Some of the most poignant scenes involve Philip and Elizabeth just holding each other, which in a spy show with fast moving scenes also makes for rare visual rests so that the audience shares that moments of stillness with the characters. It also signals the high degree of intimacy they can (but don't always) achieve. There's also a layer of every day comfortableness which isn't intimacy but is familiarity that is there from the start of the show, the result of their years together; in 1.02 Philip can brush his teeth and walk around in his socks when talking to Elizabeth about the current mission because that's what people who have lived with each other for so many years do, and details like that help the audience sell on the two of them having that kind of history.
History: every couple, whether they end separated or together, have shared experiences no one else has witnessed, which can make for both bond and alienation. But they are uniquely theirs. Due to the premise of The Americans, their expatriate spy existence between worlds makes that written large for Philip and Elizabeth. In perhaps the only moment where "Clark" gives a genuine bit of Philip-truth to Martha, he tells her "we didn't know how to be married" about himself and his wife (Clark's imaginary first wife, to be precise, but there was no reason for Clark to have that kind of backstory other than Philip wanting to talk about Elizabeth). But nobody can ever know. You can only learn by doing, as you go along, making it up all the time. Which is what this show lets its characters do, and in tv world where marriage is all too often treated as narratively uninteresting and inferior to the courting and getting together stage, it keeps fascinating me.
no subject
Date: 2014-09-16 09:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-09-16 11:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-09-16 06:18 pm (UTC)We know Stan came back from his own undercover assignment and I think there's a subtext of him feeling like he's not quite "this guy" anymore. But Sandra seems very willing to adjust to who he is now. He just won't let her. There's a scene after she's told him she's leaving where they're in the kitchen and she notices that something's up with him, and that feels like a little hint that for all the distance between them Sandra is still organically connected to him in ways that Nina really never is for different reasons. Sandra's concern about his mood doesn't have a big ulterior motive.
It reminds me of what you said in one of your earlier posts how Stan seems to really be fundamentally a cop and he really treats Nina mostly like a cop would. We never see him delving into her personality at all beyond being a damsel in distress who's in fear of her life, while I think you can see her listening to everything he says to understand what makes him tick. Like early on when a colleague gives him French Lieutenant's Woman because "women like it" and Stan sees it with both Nina and Sandra, with the two women having totally opposite reactions to it based on their different circumstances/personalities. He doesn't relate at all to Nina's reference to Anna Karenina. After the first season, iirc, they drop his attempts to speak to her in Russian, which I think can subtly reinforce him drawing her into his story instead of trying to understand her. (He is, of course, also lying to her even more egregiously than to Sandra by not telling her he killed Vlad when she asks him.)
By contrast Oleg and Nina, whatever Oleg might want from her, talk about her childhood, who she is, what things matter to her. It's not a case of the two of them just getting each other more because they're Russian. With Stan what Nina says, whether it's true or not, is usually flattering to him (like telling him that he's single-handedly erased decades of Soviet propaganda about Americans). He seems to mostly like their relationship for the role he sees himself having in it.
This is very different from Philip and Elizabeth who can share (and pick up on when they're not sharing) the indignities of their job. What Philip focuses on when he learns about Gregory is that that she shared things about their life and her doubts and fears with Gregory. Once he finds out he's been duped it's like every time he walks into the room with the two of them he's aware of being the outsider--and Gregory encourages that. Philip doesn't actually say that he would have liked to be able to trust Elizabeth with his fears but it's one of many implications, particularly when we learn that Elizabeth was informing on him. (His reaction is actually to isolate himself more, telling her to see Gregory if she wants. In their kitchen convo Elizabeth looks directly at him when she tells him the story, and Philip keeps his gaze pointed into the middle distance--she's vulnerable in the scene and despite tears, he's much less so.)
I also always love that moment, btw, where Stan asks Philip if he's ever had an affair. I feel like in the moment before he gives a non-answer ("You think about it...") he's wondering a) what answer would be the best to give Stan regardless of the truth, b) what answer is true for the fictional construct "Philip Jennings" (similar to how, when asked, it turns out Philip has tried caviar at some travel agent thing and Clark is Presbyterian) and c) wondering what answer is true for him really, given the professional liaisons and the tryst with Irina.
no subject
Date: 2014-09-17 09:29 am (UTC)In the Beeman house Matthew is more solidly with his mother, very different from what's going on at the Jennings where the family members might shift who they're angry at at different times but all have strong, individual bonds with each other.
Which makes sense if you consider Stan was barely present in Matthew's life for years (first during the undercover time, and now as well), and Matthew was practically raised by Sandra as a single mom. (Some barely there dads still get glorified by their offspring, of course, but they're usually charismatic types who make the short time they share feel like an adventurous whirlwind, and Stan isn't that type of father.) Whereas Philip and Elizabeth really co-raised their children. It occurs to me that when Stan first reaches out to Philip, he does so directly after watching Philip play with Henry. It wouldn't suprise me if, consciously or subconsciously, he thought: I wish I could have that with Matthew.
We never see him delving into her personality at all beyond being a damsel in distress who's in fear of her life, while I think you can see her listening to everything he says to understand what makes him tick.
Quite. The first episode that hints Stan is starting to get attached to Nina already tells you all about why he'll fall for her before he ever has sex with her, and why it's not really about Nina as Nina. When he asks how she got the intel from Vasili and she says "I sucked his cock, like you told me", Stan reacts horrified and protests that he'd never, ever, he never would, and immediately spins a fantasy future life for her once she's exfiltrated, where she'll have a new name she can bear like "proud woman". This isn't just Stan being a hypocrite (though really, what did he think when telling her to get closer to Vasili in this line of work?). This is more Stan already recasting his relationship with Nina, whom he coerced into becoming an asset, into him doing her a favour by rescueing her from the dire Soviet life. The idea of himself as a pimp is irreconcilable with this fantasy. This is also why, two episodes later, he summons her to his car and makes it clear he has no professional reason for doing so but waits until she kisses him. He wants her, but he needs to believe she wants him because his idea of himself does not include "blackmails women for sex". Trying to find out more about Nina, about her emotions and thoughts that aren't related to current day events at the Rezidentura, would also change her from a fantasy woman to someone who doesn't want to be "rescued" into an American life and has ideas and feelings directly opposed to that. And he can't tell her the truth about Vlad, or at least talk to her about it once it's clear she has figured it out, because then he'd have to admit to himself she has reason to hate him, and that, too, doesn't fit the fantasy of her as the damsel.
Now Stan isn't given to self glorification per se. When he gets the medal for shooting the wannabe World Banker assassin, he seems to be have distinctly Philipian attack of self loathing, if anything. And he is aware what he's doing right now doesn't fit what he dreamed of as a boy when reading those FBI comics. But he still wants to be a hero, and Nina is a way to fulfill that fantasy, until, of course, it comes crashing down at the end of s2 and he has to make a choice.
Good point about the Oleg and Nina conversations as a contrast, too.
I also always love that moment, btw, where Stan asks Philip if he's ever had an affair.
Me too, and I agree about the three different layers of Philip's reply. Whereas when Sandra and Elizabeth in s1 have that same exchange (where Elizabeth says something almost identical, i.e. "any woman who says she hasn't thought out it is lying") , you get the impression Elizabeth's moment of hesitation just means she's thinking "your life is so not my life".
Mind you: since Elizabeth tells Gregory immediately after she consciously started to redefine her relationship with Philip as more than professional that "we can't do this anymore", her idea of a "real" marriage seems to include emotional fidelity. (Sexual fidelity not being an option for either her or Philip, due to the nature of their profession.) And it is the emotional bond to Gregory which devastates Philip in retrospect (he must have assumed she had sex with Gregory, at the very least during the time when she was recruiting him). Just as it's not the sex with Irina so much that devastates Elizabeth but that Philip lied about it to her. So while they wouldn't define cheating in the same terms as the Beemans do, they do see some boundaries involving emotional truthfulness as not to be crossed.
no subject
Date: 2014-09-17 05:45 pm (UTC)Wow, I had never thought of that but I think you're right. Which fits right into a lot of things you're talking about with the role Stan wants to see himself playing--hero FBI agent, rescuer of Nina, etc. He may have started out with his family attempting to assume (or re-assume) the role of husband and father and just felt inadequate at it. So he may very well have been drawn to Philip when seeing him seeming to inhabit that role so easily. It probably isn't the first time Stan looks at Philip and sees a guy who has things that he wants. The times when Stan's attempted to connect with Matthew have been pretty painful and awkward. Yet interesting that he doesn't talk to Philip about that--that may be a more humiliating issue than his troubles with marriage. Really the only "ordinary suburban dad" relationship Stan's succeeded at is becoming friends with his neighbor--who's a special case...
Now Stan isn't given to self glorification per se.
Yes, I think what makes Stan so vulnerable is that he isn't some guy who's always pushing conceited fantasies of himself. He genuinely wants to be the good guy and he's seized on the one way he thinks he can be--one that fits the standard narrative of his job, where the good American saves someone from evil Russia. (I wonder if he also feels "right" when he's a partner avenging Amador's death because the Russians can't think they can get away with that even while not seeming to be close to Amador himself until after the fact.) When he's going through the stress of considering betraying his country for Nina it doesn't seem to ever occur to him that he's asked the same sacrifice from her, perhaps because it's just difficult for him to wrap his mind around Russia as home. And he doesn't really want to--it's funny to think that we never see Stan asking Nina anything about herself, while the audience thrills at every little tidbit, like her full name and the place where she was born.
In fact, it stands in contrast with how precious all personal revelations tend to be on the show both for the audience and for the characters. Oleg often stresses to Nina how he knows truths about her and still cares about her--she, Oleg and Arkady are bound by her secret to an extent. Then Oleg and Nina share personal details of their lives. Obviously Elizabeth and Philip also see those forbidden bits of truth as important.
It's funny thinking of The Deal where the Mossad agent scores a hit by hammering on how Philip almost has nothing real because he has no past. That tactic wouldn't have worked on Elizabeth, who approaches her deception a different way, imo. He starts out praising Philip for his value as a spy and it takes an entire night for him to dig out Philip's admission about the cold, which leads to an even more personal memory about the icicles (the very thing that started the conversation about the cold). The closest Stan comes to that kind of thing is probably when he's telling Henry about his childhood comics--something Philip himself seems to avoid with both his kids unless he's using his cover story to make a point--unlike Elizabeth who tries to share the truth in edited form. I think part of the positive effect of P/E being together is Philip finally has a way of connecting to his past.
Elizabeth's moment of hesitation just means she's thinking "your life is so not my life".
LOL! It's just irrelevant to her life in ways she agreed to from the outset. The line I always think of is when Sandra asks her if she's ever slept with anyone "foreign." I don't think she's particularly sensitive about that one either, but I think she's aware of the irony of it. For most of her life the only guy she'd really slept with as herself was Gregory, who was technically "foreign" but she wouldn't have thought of him as primarily an American, and the only Russian she's ever had sexual encounters with is Timoshev who raped her and Philip, who was at first an order. She's got complicated feelings about how much his Russian-ness was a comfort since he was the "strange man" who came with the strange house. It's definitely another "your life is so not my life" moment. Elizabeth's not in a mindset to want to unburden herself to Sandra.
Just as it's not the sex with Irina so much that devastates Elizabeth but that Philip lied about it to her. So while they wouldn't define cheating in the same terms as the Beemans do, they do see some boundaries involving emotional truthfulness as not to be crossed.
Yes, which is so interesting because in Philip's case, imo, it's the lying that probably makes it seem more threatening. Because to a certain extent, probably in his head, there was truth to what he said. He didn't fall back in love with Irina. I think the actor said his sleeping with her was just a way to take a vacation from himself for a while (even if the "vacation" self was a version of Mischa and "himself" was Philip...). I think if anything he felt less sure of her than he had before. But from Elizabeth's pov, the lie probably makes Irina seem even more of a threat to her--and of course it makes Philip untrustworthy in general.
no subject
Date: 2014-09-18 09:32 am (UTC)Very likely. Mind you, the P/E separation in the second half of s1 makes him aware that Philip has problems, too, and I think in fact that's one key reason why he confesses having an affair to Philip in s2 - he knows Philip doesn't have an idyllic marriage where nothing ever went wrong, and thinks Philip won't judge him on the marital front - but generally, I wouldn't be suprised if Stan looks at Philip now and then and thinks wistfully "I wish I could be that guy". The first reaching out really comes literally after watching Philip with Henry - it's one sequence. Stan watches Philip and Henry play through his window, goes over, makes an awkward attempt to talk to Henry and then tells Philip that while Hockey isn't his game, he plays Raquet Ball, and will you play with me, too, Philip, I'm new in the neighbourhood! :) (Well, okay, not the last bit.)
As to why Stan doesn't ask for parenting advice (that we know of and heard): I do think it's because while he's seen Philip in the crappy hotel room and knows there were P/E troubles, and thus doesn't feel inferior for confessing about the affair, as far as he knows, Philip copes with the kids just swimmingly. (I doubt anyone told him about the Paige & church crisis.) And "I can't find a way to talk to my son" is a very wounding confession to make. Though I wouldn't exclude Stan making it in s3.
re: Philip not telling the kids anything about his real childhood while Elizabeth does in edited form: except for "my father died when I was six" to Paige, which I don't think was fake, but he had to be in extremis for that one to slip out. For a long while, he probably felt the need to keep American Philip entirely separate from Russian Mischa (perhaps he does have some sympathy for Stan's "I'm protecting Sandra by keeping all this from her" declaration since this is basically his attitude towards the kids), and I agree, the improved relations with Elizabeth now allow him to unite the two and connect the past to the present.
re: the Irina related lie: agreed on the difference on perspective there. With Elizabeth, I think the impact is heightened by the fact that she feels ambiguous about her recent discovery/realisation that Philip cares for her so deeply, that he's committed to her before the cause (or self interest). On the one hand, that's appealing (and in turn makes her ready to change her way of thinking about their relationship), but on the other, it's disturbing for her "the cause and the motherland above all" mindset. She knows she should not approve. Now I wouldn't say, as I've seen it argued, that Philip is the first person in Elizabeth's experience who puts her first, because for all his words about the cause I think it's clear Gregory puts her first, too. But with Gregory, Elizabeth could tell herself G. puts the cause first. With Philip, she knows this is not the case. And she has strong feelings for him, too. So she has to trust in an emotion whom she feels torn about. And then the Irina lie happens. Since Elizabeth never met Irina (that we know of), never saw her and Philip together either in the past or in the present, all she has to go on is that this is a woman whom Philip has claimed to love, too, in the past. She probably casts Irina as Philip's Gregory, and Philip's emotions for Irina like hers for Gregory. So for Philip to say "It has always been you" (and then to find out that came with a lie re: the sex) now looks exactly like the type of lie and manipulation they use towards their targets, that Clark would tell Martha. The very absolute nature of the statement makes it less believable, if you're Elizabeth who may not be in love with Gregory anymore in s1 but still has feelings for him. I wouldn't be surprised if a part of her was also thinking when Philip said that "either he's lying altogether, or he's saying he never loved Irina, and if that's the case, how can I trust he loves me now, especially when he lies to me as if I were a target?"
no subject
Date: 2014-09-18 04:54 pm (UTC)I agree--both Sandra and Stan are I think a little hopeful when they see the Jennings separate, if only because they both feel this other person might listen to their own concerns about their marriage. But the Matthew stuff is harder to say. The writers have even spoken about how in the early 80s there was less of a culture than there is now regarding a lot of self-help and connecting to your kids is I think a big part of that. Stan has a lot of language to talk about his marriage. Everyone understands problems like that--even Gaad, even if he brushes it off with "luck of the draw." But I think his feelings about Matthew are a lot more difficult for him to express and admit to. It's one of the things where he and Philip are really different because with him his kids seem to be one of the few areas in his life where he's very eloquent about how he feels and what he wants for them and from them.
That said, if Stan witnessed anything of the current troubles with Paige he would probably jump on it to offer some commiseration about how kids are hard as teenagers, thus opening a door for him to talk about that.
Philip not telling the kids anything about his real childhood while Elizabeth does in edited form: except for "my father died when I was six" to Paige, which I don't think was fake, but he had to be in extremis for that one to slip out.
I'm always torn on whether he's telling the truth of not in that moment. Because on one hand I don't think he'd accidentally stray from his official Philip Jennings backstory because that would be a big red flag. Paige would know what's allegedly happened to all her grandparents and if Philip said something different she'd jump on it. But his Philip backstory could be based on his real life on that note, and might have been the reason that was the one personal thing he chose to bring into it, because it's one of those moments where he really is amazed at the higher expectations Paige has, that she has both parents and a brother and feels like something's missing.
Also I do think he keeps his "selves" fairly compartmentalized and it's probably easier for him to think of Philip has having his own past. Though the fact that he doesn't seem much inclined to even talk about a fake past seems more like something in his personality that goes beyond his work. Especially because the show itself seems to mirror that by not telling us anything either.
Now I wouldn't say, as I've seen it argued, that Philip is the first person in Elizabeth's experience who puts her first, because for all his words about the cause I think it's clear Gregory puts her first, too.
And in her early life I think her mother seems to care about her above everything as a person as well. I always feel that with Elizabeth and Gregory whether or not put each other first (and I think Elizabeth ultimately did mean more to Gregory in the end than the cause), at the outset they kind of locked themselves into saying the cause was everything. That was the thing that bound them together--it's the thing Gregory brings up to Philip and to Elizabeth herself. Gregory fit perfectly into what she needed without causing any conflict. Philip was a much bigger and messier threat when she actually fell for him because he challenges so much of that. So it's really sad for Gregory when he suggests almost ruefully that he and Elizabeth run off together, because there's never been any foundation for that in their relationship. If he starts challenging the primary important of the cause now, he's not the same guy.
She probably casts Irina as Philip's Gregory, and Philip's emotions for Irina like hers for Gregory. So for Philip to say "It has always been you" (and then to find out that came with a lie re: the sex) now looks exactly like the type of lie and manipulation they use towards their targets, that Clark would tell Martha.
Absolutely. And not only does Elizabeth often have a hard time easily putting herself into somebody else's mindset if it's unfamiliar (she can analyze how to manipulate sources, obviously), but Philip doesn't give her anything to work with. We have no idea what he told her about Irina in the past--obviously she knows this is his ex. But he keeps whole weekend to himself except to admit to sex. Philip, I thought, had good reason to feel like he was treated like a target by Irina with her revision of their break-up, the insta-son (complete with photo), the voicing of the same concerns he has about the work and the offer to run away together. That coupled with the Centre's recent test and the revelations about Elizabeth informing on him probably left him even more defensive than usual.
Actually, that makes me think-unrelatedly-of the end of Trust Me when Philip passive-aggressively asks for jewelry to give to Martha and Elizabeth seems to give him a piece that's significant to them--so that Clark ultimately has to ask Martha to take it off during sex. That's almost a foreshadowing of BtRD where Elizabeth wants to blend Clark and Philip in ways Philip can't handle.
no subject
Date: 2014-09-19 09:38 am (UTC)Oh, absolutely, down to making me wonder whether she was the one who originally recruited him when I watched the episode for the first time. Plus the mighty coincidence of Irina being assigned the New York mission just after the big loyalty test was a bit too much. But he probably hoped it was a coincidence despite knowing better until she suggested running away together, with the instant!son and the consequences for same not even mentioned. But even if relations between him and Elizabeth had been better when he left, I don't think he'd been necessarily more truthful and forthcoming about what actually happened upon his return, at least not in s1, because the secrecy and separation of selves is so ingrained in him. During s2, with more closeness and confidence in each other's affections, he probably would have told Elizabeth the truth.
Actually, that makes me think-unrelatedly-of the end of Trust Me when Philip passive-aggressively asks for jewelry to give to Martha and Elizabeth seems to give him a piece that's significant to them--so that Clark ultimately has to ask Martha to take it off during sex. That's almost a foreshadowing of BtRD where Elizabeth wants to blend Clark and Philip in ways Philip can't handle.
Yes. The end of Trust Me struck me on one level as a classic spat where one partner strikes at the other while disguising this as being professional and reasonable, and as Elizabeth upping the ante without meaning to quite as much. Philip asks for "some jewelry" to annoy her, and her picking up a piece that he must have given to her and that must have had some meaning to them was a "so there, if you're being like this, I'm better at it!" on her part. But I don't think Elizabeth realises the tie in to identity issues and Philip's need for boundaries at all. It takes the disaster of BtRD to reveal this difference between her and Philip's approaches to their various masks for her to.
no subject
Date: 2014-09-23 03:44 pm (UTC)I agree. One of the things about their new relationship is a real readjustment for both of them about how they arrange the things they bring into their life with each other. Since they have such different ways of approaching these things, it's bound to cause conflict. Now, in this case Elizabeth was pretty clear about what she needed so it's not like Philip was really confused, but I think the shifts are sometimes more difficult for Philip since Elizabeth seems to be more clear about it. I think she justifies things to herself clearly beforehand so she can easily defend her thinking--if she didn't think it was okay she wouldn't have done it. Where as Philip is more likely to have a "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" mentality as a default. He's not prepared to explain or defend why Philip slept with Irina.
One of the cool things about their marriage, I think, is that they've lived together for so long yet until recently they also were quite separate in terms of their inner lives. So they've been left to develop in very different directions as long as they could come together as partners and parents.
But I don't think Elizabeth realises the tie in to identity issues and Philip's need for boundaries at all. It takes the disaster of BtRD to reveal this difference between her and Philip's approaches to their various masks for her to.
Exactly--which is so great because of course Elizabeth would never intentionally do something to interfere with his work with Martha. She probably isn't thinking about that at all. She's just showing how strong she is in the context of this argument.
And it's not the only way they probably have both bothered or hurt each other over the years. It's like when Elizabeth is talking about Gregory in that ep and she refers to Philip as the "strange man" she's living with. I think it's the one point in the discussion where his head actually snaps around to look at her. She's not saying it to be hurtful, but it's probably a huge thing to him because he was probably thinking of himself as the person that she *could* feel was familiar at her partner and someone she'd trained with for years already, yet she's just told him that he was a stranger to her, someone forced on her, someone who made things worse. Likewise Philip later tells Elizabeth that he's always felt like she feels he's disappointing her, but iirc that doesn't make as much of an impression on her because she's focused on staying on point regarding Irina. Though I think that's part of the subtext when Philip stonewalls her attempts to get him to come back home "for the children" later on.