selenak: (La Famiglia by Jadeblood)
selenak ([personal profile] selenak) wrote2007-06-04 11:51 am
Entry tags:

Heroes Rewatch: episode 1.07, Nothing to Hide

Or, the one with the brunch scenes. But I promise not to squeal just about those.*g*




Nothing to Hide opens with a dream sequence that spawned endless theories and after the finale will spawn some more. In it we start with Peter reading and talking to his patient Charles Deveaux. Given that the audience knows Peter has quit his job as a nurse and that Charles Deveaux when last seen was not in a state to talk, this clues us in pretty quickly we’re either watching a memory or a dream. Or a dreamed memory that changes into a a vision. In any case, Peter is doing what he says he does for Charles in the pilot of the show – reading the stock market section. In a neat bit of continuity, he reads out loud the following: “M-Core's holding steady, but Yamagato -- Yamagato is down to 215 and an eighth. I think that's a good bargain.” Yamagato is the company Hiro works for, which is owned, as we later found out, by Kaito Nakamura, his father, and according to Kimiko, Hiro’s sister, somewhat in trouble.

But of course the stock market isn’t the point of the conversation. Charles Deveaux plays pretty much the ideal father in Peter’s dream, teasing, affectionate, full of confidence in Peter and praise. Given this is a dream, we don’t know whether it is an accurate rendition or Peter’s image of Charles. It could be either, or both. (The implication of Charles’ behaviour are not nearly as benevolent as they appear, but that’s a rant I’ve already written.) In retrospect, you can spot the switch of the dream going from what is likely a memory to a vision here:

CHARLES DEVEAUX: In the end, all that matters is love. I love you, Peter.

PETER: I love you too, Charles.

CHARLES DEVEAUX: You speak your mind. You know who you are. You know what you want. That's your power. That's your strength.

Foreshadowing both the dream sequence in the finale and a certain exchange between spoken between Petrellis. Peter then tells Charles he can fly and does in fact fly over New York, at which point he hears the buzz at his door and is woken up by the news of Charles’ death. Simone, showing up distraught, tells him Charles became coherent shortly before dying and spoke of a dream shared with Peter. Now, this more than anything caused the Peter-picked-up-his-visionary-dreams-from-Charles theory (the only downside of which is that Peter has true dream in “Six Months Ago”, directly after graduating from nursing school and definitely before meeting either Deveaux for the first time), but it’s worth noting that the dream Simone describes is not the same dream we just saw Peter having.

Here’s Simone’s description: “He said he'd been flying all over the world. But that it was a world he didn't recognize. There was so many people filled with pain. Nobody looking out for each other. He worried for them. And for me. Until you told him everything would be okay.
(…) he said that you were flying with him. And you told him it was all gonna be okay. That there were people who cared, who would make a difference. That you would save the world. After that, he just put his head down and ... he was gone. Like he was falling asleep.”

In Peter’s dream, Charles is the one reassuring him, and Peter then flies alone – something which at this point he can’t do yet. There is nothing in Peter’s dream about saving the world. In the dream Simone narrates, not only is there shared flight with Charles, but Peter is put in the reassuring, confident role, and making a pledge to saving the world to boot. But of course, Simone is only repeating what Charles told her.

So, if you want my current theory? Dying!Charles, whether or not he shared Peter’s dream, knew exactly what he was saying. He knew Simone would repeat it to Peter. It was the Charles Deveaux version of the Linderman speech in .07%, of the Angela speech in The Hard Part. The world is sick; it is your task, young Petrelli, to save it, and you’d better. You are my champion.

(The older generation is such a bunch of manipulative pullstringers. Charles actually scares me more than the other two in this regard.)

As Simone from this point onwards supports Peter’s efforts in superheroism, the speech worked on her, too. There is a great irony in Peter promising to be there for her in this scene, to “not go anywhere”, because of course the next scene they’ll have is the “off to Texas now, bye” one, and then they will never talk again. He’s be literary and figuratively gone. We have three marital or boyfriend-girlfriend relationships in this episode, Nathan and Heidi, Matt and Janice, and Peter and Simone. Two of these couples are depicted under strain by extramarital affairs, hidden superpowers and a lot of guilt; Peter and Simone, on the other hand, get the young-lovers-becoming closer via shared grief scene. But in the end, their relationship turns out to be the flimsiest, most unreal of the three; it’s questionable whether either Peter or Simone ever really knew each other at all.

Speaking of Matt and Janice: this time, Matt’s subplot improves from Hiros, not because his marriage problems become more interesting but because Audrey is back, and drafts him into her Sylar investigation again, which means Matt is back with the main plot. (Not to mention having great partner interaction with Audrey.) One thing about Matt’s marriage problems, though, i.e. the telepathic discovery that his wife had an affair with one of his collegues: he reacts by decking the guy. Matt is usually much with the nice guy everman persona, but he does have a temper, and if you like, you can see one of the potential seeds for 5YG!Matt here, as it takes physical form.

The tracking of Sylar leads Matt and Audrey to Ted, who gets introduced with this episode. The aftermath of adultery isn’t the only parallel between Matt’s subplot and Nathan’s; Nathan’s power – specifically, its first manifestation – is responsible for the crippled state of his wife Heidi, while Ted Sprague’s power not only crippled but slowly killed his wife Karen. Matt is able to help Ted via translating Karen’s thoughts for him; defusing Ted on various occasions will become something of an ongoing task for Matt later in the season. The way Ted’s power is directly tied to emotional control, or lack of same, is important to the overall plot, too. Given that this is before Fallout, the first time viewer knows only that there will be an explosion in New York, and Ted at this point becomes a prime suspect.

Claire’s subplot is relatively light-hearted, for Claire’s overall storyline: brother Lyle finds the tape where she demonstrates her superpowers, and threatens to tell on her until Claire convinces him to give it back by saying: “Don't you get it? If they found out, Mom and Dad would think it was a mistake to ever adopt me. We wouldn't be a family anymore. Please.”

Lyle rarely shows up on this show, and notably is the child Mr. Bennet doesn’t angst over, and has no problem mindwiping. Their mother seems to treat him and Claire equally, but it wouldn’t be surprising if Lyle felt completely overshadowed by Claire when it comes to their father. Here, as soon as Claire shows she’s genuinenly vulnerable and afraid, he stops with the fraternal taunting and delivers the tape. I spy another parallel, this time between the Bennet and Petrelli subplots.

Hiro and Ando have another on the road adventure, and their second meeting with another superpowered person (first one was Hiro & Nathan), though DL doesn’t notice. (Micah does.) It’s an early instance of two heroes combining their powers (inadvertendly) – DL getting the woman out of the car, Hiro by freezing time getting both the woman and DL to safety – and a great example of Hiro-Ando dynamics as Ando beams proudly at Hiro afterwards, and Hiro bows in return. It’s definitely the highlight of Micah’s day, as his father displays heroics, when the rest of his roadtrip is spent by Micah worrying about his mother. At which point we get another continuity glitch – Micah being able to tell Niki and Jessica apart on the phone. Micah is supposed to be super intelligent, but this is more insight he displays for the rest of the season. Though one can fanwank that later on when Jessica is around he has decided he’ll take his mother either as Niki or Jessica, and this in turn causes initial confusion when Candice gets into the act as well.

Meanwhile, Niki’s life gets from bad to worse as she is faced with a husband-abducted child, the realization DL got framed by her alter ego, and no idea what to do about it. Her friend Tina can’t provide more than sympathetic words. She calls Nathan (and btw, I want to know how she got the phone number, because I can’t see him giving it to her), which isn’t the best idea given not just the married situation but the fact when last he saw her, she told him their night together got taped and she knew it was a blackmail set-up, but a) I suppose she’s desperate and b) the fact Nathan had been decent to her the morning after could have impressed her. Either way, he tells her he can’t help her and hangs up. Which leads to Niki smashing the mirror and surrendering control to Jessica. Niki’s storyline is shakily written at times, but I do love the symmetry of it, as the turning point for Niki will be when Jessica surrenders control to her. Niki gives Jessica control because she feels unable to get Micah back otherwise, because she can’t face using power and violence against DL herself; Jessica will give control back to Niki during a mission to get Micah back because she knows she’s very able to use power and violence against DL, but she also knows what it would do to Niki. And when Niki makes the step to integrating both her halfs, it’s via a broken mirror again.

But the heart, the core of this episode? Are the Petrelli scenes. This is where the Petrelli family dynamic fully clicks into place. We’ve seen Angela at Nathan’s campaign speech before, but this is the first time we see that despite her cool personal relationship with him, she is majorly invested in getting him elected.

(Also, Jesse Alexander, the scriptwriter, is great with the exchanges between mother and son:
NATHAN: You're kidding.

ANGELA: No, I never kid about family brunch.

NATHAN: That's because we never have family brunch.)

Nathan’s wife Heidi has been referred to before, but this is where we actually meet her, and both the script and Rena Sofer and Adrian Pasdar manage to suggest a great deal about the marriage in a very limited time. Heidi comes across as smart, very able to tell Nathan to cut the crap:

NATHAN: I am not gonna use my family for political gain.


HEIDI: Tell that to Peter. Nathan, you've been trying to protect me since this happened. It's sweet in theory, but in practice, it's insulting. I'm not made of glass.

But also as very much in love with him. When she asks him in their last scene in this episode together whether he stil loves her, there is an undertone of desperation in her voice, and her ensuing words:

“I know what this chair means to us as a couple. But I need you to know that I'm going to walk again. The doctors say it's a long shot. But I can do it if I have a reason. We just need some hope, Nathan, that our life can be like it was. What Peter said about you checking out a clinic for him with a doctor. Tell me that's what happened. If you say it is ... I'll believe you. Just give me some hope.”

Are very ambiguous. Is she asking him to tell her the truth, or to lie to her? I’m tending to believe the later right now, if only because Heidi’s earlier “Tell that to Peter” remark indicates she’s well aware Nathan’s “my-brother-tried-to-commit-suicide” stunt with the press was for politics, not truth. But I could be wrong. At any rate, the close up of Heidi’s face after Nathan has given her the reassurance she asked for and has taken position behind her wheelchair, when he can’t see her face anymore, is such a great expression, somewhere between joy and pain, and a great contrast to her composure throughout the actual brunch scene, where she has a much better poker face than Nathan once the reporter starts with his attacks.

As for Nathan’s attitude towards his wife, again, script and writing manage to suggest a lot in brief time, such as when Heidi says, after Angela has announced the reporter will be here in an hour, “then I’d better get ready” and pushes her wheelchair out of the room, the first time the audience sees it. After she left, Nathan says “yes; good idea”, and the expression on his face and his tone suggest he feels guilty for her state long before the reporter makes his “your husband was driving, wasn’t he?” question. (Though we won’t find out the full truth until the flashback in Six Months Ago, which will provide us with a crucial information regarding Nathan’s attitude towards the entire superpowers gig, especially his own.) It’s typical that he delivers his explanation for the one night stand in Vegas to Peter, not Heidi; you get the impression he does love his wife, but he takes the easy way out, via lying, rather than risking losing her via telling her the truth about either the one night stand or the super powers. “Heidi doesn’t need the truth, she needs hope” is using the justification for lying she gave him, but it’s still his choice to use it. And it’s a contrast to his relationship with Peter, which is in no ways lacking of arguments but also based on a security that said arguments never mean the end of the relationship.

Nothing To Hide is evidence A against the perception of Peter as a naïve babe in the woods among the Petrellis. At this point of the show, only a few days have passed since the earlier mentioned press stunt, and he’s still understandably pissed off about it, but when Simone mentions the painting of Isaac Peter wants was bought by her client, Mr. Linderman, Peter does not choose to ask Simone to get it back from Linderman. Or, say, to give him Linderman’s phone number. He doesn’t tell her he knows exactly who Linderman is, either. Instead, he shows up at Nathan’s and asks Nathan to get the painting from Linderman for him, and a great mixture of fraternal powerplay, needling and unexpected solidarity ensues. Coupled with lots of shoulder kneading, since we’re talking Petrellis here. It’s typical for them that early in the conversation they have alone, when Peter says “Charles Deveaux died this morning”, Nathan takes a time out from brushing him off because of the reporter to say quietly “I’m sorry. Were you there?”, and that later on during the brunch of glorious double talk and dysfunctionality, the moment it’s apparent the reporter goes after a genuine weak spot of Nathan’s, the mysterious blonde in Vegas, Peter helps him out by providing him with an alibi.

But back to Peter as an active player in Petrelli power issues. This will always be one of my favourite exchanges between them:

NATHAN: Peter, I'm sorry. But you're gonna have to go, okay?

PETER: Hey, you know what? I'm just gonna fly off the terrace, yeah? No? Hey, I can fly. Nathan, so can you.

(Peter puts his hands on Nathan’s shoulders. Of course he does.)

PETER: I'll tell you what. Why don't we just race around the Statue of Liberty real quick, huh? Give this tweedy guy something to write about.

NATHAN: You wouldn't.

PETER: Ah?

(Peter gives Nathan a look and heads for the terrace.)

And the ensuing “sure I’m going to vote for Nathan” speech while Nathan looks daggers and Peter looks back like he’s having the time of his life is just fun, fun, fun. (Incidentally, Angela looks as if she’s impressed by Peter. Heidi looks like she wonders when they’ll grow up.) The best thing about Peter coming to the rescue regarding Vegas, though? It’s not completely altruistic and closing ranks in front of an outsider. He knows damm well Nathan will get the painting for him now.

Which Nathan does, but Nathan being Nathan, he finds away to fulfill Peter’s request and yet not. Because all things special and superpowers genuinenly freak him out, and presumably he has a suspicion about that painting, he asks Linderman to send it not to either Peter or himself, but directly back to Simone’s gallery. (Where, as we’ll see, he’ll be able to take a look at it first.) And then he shows up at Peter’s apartment, and we get more dysfunctional Petrelli fun. Because Nathan – looking casually dressed more than at any other point in this show when he’s not being kidnapped in his pjs – manages to simultanously confess one thing, explain another, share an important truth about another, and lie about a fourth. Now you’d think he’d tell the truth about the painting, but no. That’s what he lies about. (I.e. Linderman’s willingness to part with same.) Instead, Peter gets the why-I-committed-adultery explanation, and you’ve got to love Peter responding to “I just needed to be with someone who didn’t make me feel guilty every time I looked at her” with “So, did you talk to Linderman?” (Ah, priorities.)

In regards to future events, their most important exchange is probably:

PETER: With this thing, we can make a difference.

NATHAN: I'm trying to make a difference, Peter, the best way I know how. Flying around, how is that going to help anybody? What is that gonna -- What am I gonna do when I get there? I don't have a gun. I don't have a badge. I don't know karate. I guess I could put on a costume and fly around and pull cats out of trees. How's that gonna make a difference?

PETER: You're not gonna know until you try.

Indeed. *gets misty-eyed at the thought of finale again*

It present time, it says something about their constant push and pull – I once joked that the dynamic between Peter and Nathan exchanges can be shortened to:

Peter: I want.
Nathan: You can’t.
Argument: *ensues*
Peter: *does dangerous stuff*
Nathan: *ends up doing what Peter wanted in the first place*

But it’s equally viable to read the dynamic as:

Peter: You can.
Nathan: No, I don’t.
Argument: *ensues* etc.

Nathan feels challenged to justify himself and to look at those other possibilities by Peter in a way he doesn’t by anyone else (at this point; Claire later becomes a second challenger).

Telling Peter about the aborted kidnapping in Vegas is another priceless Petrelli moment, because you can tell that Peter’s “son of a bitch. You expect me to believe that?” reaction isn’t because he actually disbelieves Nathan but because helping out with the reporter or not, he’s still a bit in payback mode, and Peter’s way for paying Nathan back for being a dick is by being bratty.

But note: all this is done with the absolute certainty that no matter how much they irritate each other at times, they won’t lose each other. So “you’re still a bastard; now, get that painting for me!” and “will you shut up about the special crap? Let me tell you all about my marital crisis!” is absoutely compatible. They are so awesomely co-dependent, and I love them to bits.

[identity profile] linaerys.livejournal.com 2007-06-04 12:23 pm (UTC)(link)
Peter: I want.
Nathan: You can’t.
Argument: *ensues*
Peter: *does dangerous stuff*
Nathan: *ends up doing what Peter wanted in the first pace*


Totally. Anyone who thinks that Nathan has the power in their relationship, whatever you choose to believe the nature of that relationship is, is missing something huge.

I love the brunch scene so much. The only problem I have with it is that it does seem incredibly naive of their family not to think that the reporter is there for dirt, and for Nathan to think that he's not going to use his family for political gain. All politicians do, or try to.

Great meta!

too many thoughts? on the petrellis? impossible!

[identity profile] cadesama.livejournal.com 2007-06-04 12:30 pm (UTC)(link)
CHARLES DEVEAUX: You speak your mind. You know who you are. You know what you want. That's your power. That's your strength.

He's so hilariously, deeply wrong. Peter doesn't know any of those things. That's so much of Peter's character arc right there -- trying to find who he is, figure out what he really wants from life. But, yes, that definitely casts Charles as the Good Daddy. Even if we don't believe these things, even if they aren't true, they are exactly what we want our parents to tell us.

So, if you want my current theory? Dying!Charles, whether or not he shared Peter’s dream, knew exactly what he was saying. He knew Simone would repeat it to Peter. It was the Charles Deveaux version of the Linderman speech in .07%, of the Angela speech in The Hard Part. The world is sick; it is your task, young Petrelli, to save it, and you’d better. You are my champion.

Ohhh, I like that. I'd always just assumed that we only got the first part of the dream, and that what Simone described was the second half. I figured that Peter wasn't woken from that exact moment of the dream, it was just a good place to have a cut.

There is a great irony in Peter promising to be there for her in this scene, to “not go anywhere”, because of course the next scene they’ll have is the “off to Texas now, bye” one, and then they will never talk again. He’s be literary and figuratively gone.

And he does the exact same thing to Niki in 5YG. I get the feeling it's a pattern for him. He doesn't mean he'll physically be there. Just emotionally. (This ties in a bit with some new personal fanon of mine. I don't think Peter's ever honestly been in love. Thought he was in love, sure. But I don't think he'd ever get over it if he was in love. He's just so much that guy who answers every drunk dial and keeps running back to exs who burned him when they need help.) So wandering off to save the world doesn't make him a liar. Well, except for the part where he thinks he'll die. He's a bit flaky about that.

And when Niki makes the step to integrating both her halfs, it’s via a broken mirror again.

I do really love that. And I love how they use the mirrors throughout the season. Really, it's not that Niki's story isn't good. It's just that it should have been half as long. It meandered, and it needed to get more depth instead of length.

Are very ambiguous. Is she asking him to tell her the truth, or to lie to her? I’m tending to believe the later right now, if only because Heidi’s earlier “Tell that to Peter” remark indicates she’s well aware Nathan’s “my-brother-tried-to-commit-suicide” stunt with the press was for politics, not truth.

Ah, but what she says is that Peter was used for political gain. She could easily mean that outing his suicide attempt was the trick, not saying there was an attempt at all. Given that she doesn't know about the powers, she probably does believe Peter honestly has mental health issues. So, weirdly, I think I might be leaning toward her asking him to confirm Peter's story as true. But it's still definitely desperate. It''s proof of his love to her even if he's lying. Either he's telling the truth and didn't cheat, or he's lying because he still wants to work things out with her and doesn't want to hurt her. Win win for Heidi, because she has to know he'd never own up to an affair under these circumstances.

Peter does not choose to ask Simone to get it back from Linderman. Or, say, to give him Linderman’s phone number

Or give any hint that he knows who this Linderman character is. I would hate to play poker with him.

part 2

[identity profile] cadesama.livejournal.com 2007-06-04 12:31 pm (UTC)(link)
(Incidentally, Angela looks as if she’s impressed by Peter. Heidi looks like she wonders when they’ll grow up.)

Aww, I thought Heidi looked amused. I think she likes seeing someone take on Nathan and win, especially his baby brother.

And I've got to say that my absolute favorite line in the whole brunch-manipulation scene is when Peter says, "That's Nathan. Even in the middle of an election year, he still takes time out to help his messed up little brother." It's a dig at Nathan to get him to do what Peter wants, but it's still absolutely honest. Peter believes every word he's saying and knows how to use them against others at the same time, because he knows how they'll react. That's what makes him a scary, scary manipulator.

PETER: You're not gonna know until you try.

Indeed. *gets misty-eyed at the thought of finale again*


I know! And it's not just the words, or the finale connection for me. It's Peter's steeling-himself-against-disappointment-again, strong!puppy expression. If their father was Nathan's hero, Nathan is Peter's, and that's always getting stomped on for him.

[identity profile] selenak.livejournal.com 2007-06-04 12:46 pm (UTC)(link)
Anyone who thinks that Nathan has the power in their relationship, whatever you choose to believe the nature of that relationship is, is missing something huge.

I remember reading a finale review where the reviewer (Otto from www.herosite, I think) complained re: Peter's statement to Claire that Nathan always comes through for him that this wasn't the relationship we were shown and that Nathan might have saved him at the end of the pilot but otherwise always was shown belittling him and ignoring him, and I thought, pal, what show were you watching?

The only problem I have with it is that it does seem incredibly naive of their family not to think that the reporter is there for dirt, and for Nathan to think that he's not going to use his family for political gain. All politicians do, or try to.

As for the later, I didn't think we were to assume Nathan actually believes that - espsecially given One Giant Leap happened not so long ago, and as Heidi says, "tell that to Peter" - but it's the excuse he uses so he doesn't have to say directly "I don't want to use my crippled wife". And Heidi takes it that way, too; they're not arguing about whether or not the adorable kids should be shown to the press afterwards, are they?

The former: clearly, all that embedded journalism of the Bush era has clouded their minds...





Re: too many thoughts? on the petrellis? impossible!

[identity profile] selenak.livejournal.com 2007-06-04 01:03 pm (UTC)(link)
But, yes, that definitely casts Charles as the Good Daddy. Even if we don't believe these things, even if they aren't true, they are exactly what we want our parents to tell us.

Indeed. Nobody wants to hear their failings listed or getting told to get their act together... but again, it's Peter's dream. Did Charles ever say that, or does Peter think Charles would because Peter really wants to hear it? Or both?

He doesn't mean he'll physically be there. Just emotionally. (This ties in a bit with some new personal fanon of mine. I don't think Peter's ever honestly been in love. Thought he was in love, sure.

Agreed. I think Peter wanted to be in love so he had a few relationships where he cast a couple of likely candidates as the objects of adoration, but he didn't really know them that well.

So wandering off to save the world doesn't make him a liar. Well, except for the part where he thinks he'll die. He's a bit flaky about that.

Yes. And there's a good chance he thinks that in 5YG, too.

Really, it's not that Niki's story isn't good. It's just that it should have been half as long. It meandered, and it needed to get more depth instead of length.

True. Some editing would have done wonders for the criticism it received.

It''s proof of his love to her even if he's lying. Either he's telling the truth and didn't cheat, or he's lying because he still wants to work things out with her and doesn't want to hurt her. Win win for Heidi, because she has to know he'd never own up to an affair under these circumstances.

Okay, yes, that interpretation makes the most sense to me.

Peter does not choose to ask Simone to get it back from Linderman. Or, say, to give him Linderman’s phone number

Or give any hint that he knows who this Linderman character is. I would hate to play poker with him.


*nods* Especially since as opposed to Nathan, who as a lawyer and a politician is expected to lie and keep secrets, Peter has the emo reputation making people underestimate how good he is at keeping secrets when he really wants to. I bet the first time Simone realized Peter had known exactly who Linderman was and that was why Nathan had gotten the painting was when it showed up again in her gallery.

Re: part 2

[identity profile] selenak.livejournal.com 2007-06-04 01:10 pm (UTC)(link)
Incidentally, Angela looks as if she’s impressed by Peter. Heidi looks like she wonders when they’ll grow up.)

Aww, I thought Heidi looked amused.


That's not mutually exclusive.*g* And yes, I think she's definitely rooting for Peter there. Of course, she has no idea that Peter wants something other than a little revenge for being used, but meanwhile, she's enjoying the sight.

And I've got to say that my absolute favorite line in the whole brunch-manipulation scene is when Peter says, "That's Nathan. Even in the middle of an election year, he still takes time out to help his messed up little brother." It's a dig at Nathan to get him to do what Peter wants, but it's still absolutely honest. Peter believes every word he's saying and knows how to use them against others at the same time, because he knows how they'll react. That's what makes him a scary, scary manipulator.

Which is why the babe in the woods interpretation is so infuriating, of course. Re: that line, the magic of it is also that because Peter believes it's true and expects it to be true Nathan does behave accordingly, both before and after the brunch. He does take time to help Peter out throughout the show, etc. Which is why the later "I don't know who I would be without you" line from Nathan rings so true.

It's Peter's steeling-himself-against-disappointment-again, strong!puppy expression. If their father was Nathan's hero, Nathan is Peter's, and that's always getting stomped on for him.

The puppy look: yet another Petrelli superpower.

Re: too many thoughts? on the petrellis? impossible!

[identity profile] cadesama.livejournal.com 2007-06-04 01:35 pm (UTC)(link)
Did Charles ever say that, or does Peter think Charles would because Peter really wants to hear it? Or both?

I think Charles really said it. While Peter wants to hear it, because it's comforting, I think his subconscious would offer up actual guidance. Again, Peter has a pattern of seeking out domineering paternal figures (gah, they need to hook him up with Noah or Claude again so badly; except I know it won't happen until he's less codependent), and I think Peter would cast Charles into that role, telling him what to do instead of being cryptically ressuring.

I think Peter wanted to be in love so he had a few relationships where he cast a couple of likely candidates as the objects of adoration, but he didn't really know them that well.

Oh, definitely. He's had his share of Rosalines that he raves about for a month and then completely forgets about.

Yes. And there's a good chance he thinks that in 5YG, too.

He's aware the Haitian will be there, so he ought to. I find it really funny that the most emo of all the characters never remembers to have overdramatic goodbyes when he marches off to his doom.

*nods* Especially since as opposed to Nathan, who as a lawyer and a politician is expected to lie and keep secrets, Peter has the emo reputation making people underestimate how good he is at keeping secrets when he really wants to.

Nathan is actually kind of awful at lying. At least, in the brunch scenes his poker face is hilariously bad, and much of the time he has an obviously cagey look on his face. You don't know what he's thinking, but you know it doesn't match what he's saying.

Peter knows everyone thinks he's a innocent woobie and absolutely takes advantage of it. I'm sure it all clicked for him as a child that they somehow thought sensitive=dumb, and he's being playing them with that ever since. And not even in a calculated way, either. That's the beauty of it. Manipulation is the language Petrellis speak, so it's as natural as breathing to him (which again makes it that much more believable).

I bet the first time Simone realized Peter had known exactly who Linderman was and that was why Nathan had gotten the painting was when it showed up again in her gallery.

And, funnily enough, she wouldn't even have much excuse to be mad at him over it, if she'd had the opportunity. The Linderman-Petrelli connection is apparently front page news. Daddy Petrelli was in the DA's sights, he'd famously defended Linderman, and the reporter was doing a story on the campaign contributions. Peter could easily claim he thought she knew.

[identity profile] cadesama.livejournal.com 2007-06-04 01:43 pm (UTC)(link)
I remember reading a finale review where the reviewer (Otto from www.herosite, I think) complained re: Peter's statement to Claire that Nathan always comes through for him that this wasn't the relationship we were shown and that Nathan might have saved him at the end of the pilot but otherwise always was shown belittling him and ignoring him, and I thought, pal, what show were you watching?

What? No, seriously, what??

My friends and I may have burst into a round of spontaneous laughter at Peter's declaration ('cause, come on), but that review is completely tone deaf to their relationship to think Nathan a) doesn't love Peter b) ignores him or c) wouldn't come through in the end. Almost all of Nathan's actions regarding Peter have been protective.

[identity profile] linaerys.livejournal.com 2007-06-04 01:47 pm (UTC)(link)
pal, what show were you watching?

He drops everything to go to Texas and get Peter out of jail, he's rushing around with Mohinder trying to find and help Peter, and that's just off the top of my head. Yeah, the ways Nathan tries to protect Peter are high-handed, but no one try to tell me that Peter isn't the most important person in Nathan's life. This is shown more and more in the last few episodes, but it's there from the beginning.

I like your explanation for Nathan's statement about not using his family. Maybe the indignation at the reporter trying to dig for dirt is a put-on; otherwise it smacks of dumb writing.

Re: part 2

[identity profile] cadesama.livejournal.com 2007-06-04 01:48 pm (UTC)(link)
Of course, she has no idea that Peter wants something other than a little revenge for being used, but meanwhile, she's enjoying the sight.

Plus, it either enjoy it or run away screaming, I think. ;)

He does take time to help Peter out throughout the show, etc. Which is why the later "I don't know who I would be without you" line from Nathan rings so true.

This is why I love those scenes so much. There are just so many layers to them. Peter is manipulating, protecting, and guiding Nathan all at the same time -- with different emotions motivating each things he's doing. And he's having fun with it. Again, a big strike against the innocent babe in the woods characterization. This is not Peter getting his hands dirty, or lowering himself. This is who he is and something he enjoys.

The puppy look: yet another Petrelli superpower.

It's certainly melted a lot of fangirls. And could easily cause an explosion.

Re: part 2

[identity profile] linaerys.livejournal.com 2007-06-04 01:52 pm (UTC)(link)
That's what makes him a scary, scary manipulator.

That's why when Peter tries, he is actually a better manipulator than Nathan. Nathan can lie and lie and lie, and a lot of people will believe him, but Peter seems to believe everything he says--even when he's lying, it's to get at what he perceives as a greater truth, and so he can sell his manipulation much better than Nathan.

Nathan is Peter's, and that's always getting stomped on for him

Wah! I know! Nathan must be a disappointing hero to have, and yet he comes through in the end and *loves*.

Re: too many thoughts? on the petrellis? impossible!

[identity profile] linaerys.livejournal.com 2007-06-04 02:00 pm (UTC)(link)
Agreed. I think Peter wanted to be in love so he had a few relationships where he cast a couple of likely candidates as the objects of adoration, but he didn't really know them that well.

Well, and this is where I say that Peter can't be in love until Nathan is no longer the center of his life. When Nathan and saving the world come first, any woman (or man if you believe fanon) is going to necessarily come second.

It''s proof of his love to her even if he's lying. Either he's telling the truth and didn't cheat, or he's lying because he still wants to work things out with her and doesn't want to hurt her. Win win for Heidi, because she has to know he'd never own up to an affair under these circumstances.

I buy this too--and they say when there is an affair that the one you're lying to is the one you love the most. It's when you stop lying that things are really over. I think Nathan has a fairly practical, adult view of love, whereas Peter's is still very childish. Peter thinks that you have to be completely honest with your SO, while Nathan realizes that this is impossible, and not even a helpful goal. I think that Peter's not really capable of lasting love with anyone the way he is because he's going to cling to his illusions about them, and never see the real person.

With Nathan he can only cling to some of his illusions, because while Nathan does lie to Peter, he doesn't lie to Peter nearly as much as he lies to everyone else in his life, and he forces Peter to try to see Nathan for who he is. I know I've been going to the slashy place in this comment, but I think that holds true for familial love and romantic love.

Re: part 2

[identity profile] cadesama.livejournal.com 2007-06-04 02:13 pm (UTC)(link)
but Peter seems to believe everything he says--even when he's lying, it's to get at what he perceives as a greater truth, and so he can sell his manipulation much better than Nathan.

Although some people might call that inspiration, rather than manipulation. ;)

But, yeah, I think that's the thing. The Petrellis in general don't lie much emotionally. They lie with facts all the time, but with emotions it's much more difficult. Nathan in particular seems to have a lot of trouble crafting a suitable emotional tone to his lie. Angela and Peter, however, don't bother. They use the emotion to sell the lie (for an example of Angela doing it, she's definitely manipulating Peter in the hospital, but I think her emotional reaction is 100% genuine).

Nathan must be a disappointing hero to have, and yet he comes through in the end and *loves*.

He comes through and completely crushes Peter in the process! ;_;

Re: too many thoughts? on the petrellis? impossible!

[identity profile] cadesama.livejournal.com 2007-06-04 02:33 pm (UTC)(link)
Well, and this is where I say that Peter can't be in love until Nathan is no longer the center of his life. When Nathan and saving the world come first, any woman (or man if you believe fanon) is going to necessarily come second.

As a kinda not Petrellicester, I completely agree. Peter is simply too codependent on Nathan to ever invest emotionally in another person as much as he should in a lover. And with Nathan simply removed from the equation, he runs the risk of simply falling into another codependent relationship, probably one that's even less healthy (see also, future!Peter/future!Niki). So, whenever they get around to giving Peter a love interest, it'll have to be after Peter stops being codependent on Nathan, but Nathan is back in his life. I mean, presuming they want him to have an at least moderately functional relationship.

I think that Peter's not really capable of lasting love with anyone the way he is because he's going to cling to his illusions about them, and never see the real person.

I mostly agree, but I think his own illusions about himself are a big factor too. I don't think he was very blind to Simone's lingering attachment to Isaac, or how emotionally unstable her father's death made her (not in a bad way, just in a not ready for a relationship way), but his ever so romantic view of himself and love made him believe that loving her would somehow cure these things. So he's playing out a fantasy for a fantasy woman, forgetting that he's a flaky doofus whose longest commitment thus far is to his hairstyle.

With Nathan he can only cling to some of his illusions, because while Nathan does lie to Peter, he doesn't lie to Peter nearly as much as he lies to everyone else in his life, and he forces Peter to try to see Nathan for who he is. I know I've been going to the slashy place in this comment, but I think that holds true for familial love and romantic love.

Yep. This actually kinda ties back into what Nathan said to Niki about being two different people -- the person you really are, and the one you are for your children. I think Nathan played a semi-parental role for Peter (as much as he was able, given his age at the time and then the fact that he wouldn't be around), so Peter has gotten a weird hybrid of the person Nathan is to his sons (or a proto-version of that man) and the real Nathan.

[identity profile] wee-warrior.livejournal.com 2007-06-04 02:37 pm (UTC)(link)
I remember reading a finale review where the reviewer (Otto from www.herosite, I think) complained re: Peter's statement to Claire that Nathan always comes through for him that this wasn't the relationship we were shown and that Nathan might have saved him at the end of the pilot but otherwise always was shown belittling him and ignoring him, and I thought, pal, what show were you watching?

Otto generally has fascinating views on the show, and by fascinating I mean "what on earth was he smoking when he watched the show?" Needless to say I find myself disagreeing with him at every other sentence.

As for this particular topic: I managed to fix a few of my RL friends on Heroes, and I talked to one of them about Peter and Nathan at some point - it might have been around Parasite - and I told him that a rather typical view of Nathan in the media and parts of internet fandom has him being a complete ass to his brother. Friend - who, btw, likes neither Peter nor Nathan as characters all that much - just looked at me and said: "But he does nothing but run after him and clean up his messes. He never even campaigns anymore, all he does is look after Peter!" In conclusion: yeah.

[identity profile] grlnamedlucifer.livejournal.com 2007-06-04 03:13 pm (UTC)(link)
>Flying around, how is that going to help anybody? What is that gonna -- What am I gonna do when I get there? I don't have a gun. I don't have a badge. I don't know karate. I guess I could put on a costume and fly around and pull cats out of trees. How's that gonna make a difference?<

God, this reminds me why I love this whole rant from Nathan, for two reasons. One, like you say, it's foreshadowing of the finale. He doesn't have to do anything once he gets there, it's the actual doing it that makes the difference, that saves Peter and the world. Peter totally nails it with his "You're not gonna know until you try."

And two - because he is so full of shit in that rant and knows it. By this time his flying has saved Peter when he jumped, has saved himself from HRG and the Haitian, and (if you include comics canon) has saved a woman from a burning building. He knows that he *can* do something with his powers, but he's in the same possition Claire is at this point and it's an echo of her "I can climb through a woodchipper and live to tell about it" rant. They both are more focused on the huge potential for their powers to ruin their lives and their families (potential made actual in Nathan's case with the accident), that they can't focus on the benefits or world-saving-ness of it at this point like Peter and Hiro can.

I'm not entirely sure if that had anything to do with what you were saying, but the quote stuck out at me. :)

[identity profile] yahtzee63.livejournal.com 2007-06-04 03:24 pm (UTC)(link)
Ahhh, yummy delicious meta. So tasty. God, I want this DVD set yesterday -- right now I only have my memory to rely on, and I was not yet Petrelli-fixated at this point with the show. So key things slip by me. Already I sense the need for reworking the Heidi bit of the Nathanfic.

I love your take on the Nathan/Peter dynamic; Peter is the one who's holding all the cards, emotionally speaking. Nathan knows it, too. But I think he sees Peter's real character in a way that nobody else around them does. Both Charles and Angela have strong opinions about what kind of person Peter is -- and those opinions are both largely wrong. Nathan seems to be the only one who truly recognizes both Peter's weaknesses and his strengths. (Peter is not as clear-eyed about Nathan, although he comes close and certainly understands his brother more than Angela does, maybe more than Heidi, too.)

re: "I won't use my family for political gain" -- there's using your family, and using your family. Obviously Nathan has to parade them around a bit, but there's a difference between that and, say, really playing on Heidi's tragedy for sympathy (which it appears he did not do.) Nathan is trying to draw some line between politics and family here, and weirdly, he may be the first person to do so becaue politics is his safety zone and family is more dangerous!

Re: part 2

[identity profile] wee-warrior.livejournal.com 2007-06-04 03:30 pm (UTC)(link)
I find the idea of Peter as a skilled manipulator pretty fascinating; though not a "babe in the Poisonous Petrelli Woods" advocate, I never quite looked at him doing it with finesse, more subconsciously. Maybe I need to rewatch.

If their father was Nathan's hero, Nathan is Peter's, and that's always getting stomped on for him.

He's also not the only one; Claire, Hiro, Heidi and to a certain degree even Niki have all expectations that cast Nathan as someone who does the right thing, the decent and heroic thing (and they more or less all get disappointed by him one way or the other), and from his "I don't know who I am without you" to Peter he needs that, because he couldn't do what's right without their expectations.

Which is scary if you think about it, because it actually doesn't just mean he is morally flexible, it means that he is more or less unable to decide for himself when something is right or wrong; he needs someone to tell him in no unclear terms. Coming through for Peter in the finale wouldn't have been possible if Claire hadn't told him that Peter wouldn't be able to deal with killing millions of people, and I don't think that would have entirely gotten through to him if Hiro hadn't expressed his disappointment in him before and hadn't told him that he'll turn bad in the future.

Re: too many thoughts? on the petrellis? impossible!

[identity profile] wee-warrior.livejournal.com 2007-06-04 03:34 pm (UTC)(link)
I don't have anything to add, but I must tell you that I love this sentence:

So he's playing out a fantasy for a fantasy woman, forgetting that he's a flaky doofus whose longest commitment thus far is to his hairstyle.

*now has a vision of Peter throwing a tantrum at twelve because his mother tries to get him to agree to a hairstyle sans bangs*

[identity profile] selenak.livejournal.com 2007-06-04 03:44 pm (UTC)(link)
I know. But this is the reviewer who didn't notice Nathan left Linderman in Vegas saying "You're insane, you know what, right?" and didn't start being tempted by the scenario until Peter says he can't die. Somehow, Nathan using the phrase .07% directly after that slipped his attention, too, and in his review, Nathan immediately signs on the plan in Vegas when Linderman shows him the picture of himself as President, never mind Peter dying.

I'd say this is the exception but I actually read a lot of complaints about Nathan's decision in the finale not having been foreshadowed or prepared in the way the character was presented. The mind, it still boggles. What show were they watching?

[identity profile] selenak.livejournal.com 2007-06-04 03:48 pm (UTC)(link)
I know, I know. In the early episodes, it's perhaps open to interpretation whether or not Nathan loves Peter as a posession or as a person he wants to be happy, but not that he loves him (and you know, Peter never questions that throughout the season), and I'd say with Godsend at the very very latest, it's obvious that Peter outranks everyone else in his life.

I like your explanation for Nathan's statement about not using his family. Maybe the indignation at the reporter trying to dig for dirt is a put-on; otherwise it smacks of dumb writing.

Well, he's playing a part - Honest Politician, Out To Improve Everyone's Lives - and has to live up to the persona. He's not dealing with Linderman's henchwoman here, who doesn't get any indignation for the blackmail attempt but gets a cool outsharking, he's dealing with a member of the press who can quote him on everything he says.

Re: too many thoughts? on the petrellis? impossible!

[identity profile] selenak.livejournal.com 2007-06-04 03:57 pm (UTC)(link)
He's had his share of Rosalines that he raves about for a month and then completely forgets about.

Now you're making me cast Chris Eccleston as Brother Lorenzo...

I find it really funny that the most emo of all the characters never remembers to have overdramatic goodbyes when he marches off to his doom.

True, he really doesn't.*g*

Peter knows everyone thinks he's a innocent woobie and absolutely takes advantage of it. I'm sure it all clicked for him as a child that they somehow thought sensitive=dumb, and he's being playing them with that ever since. And not even in a calculated way, either. That's the beauty of it. Manipulation is the language Petrellis speak, so it's as natural as breathing to him (which again makes it that much more believable).

Quite. I'm sure if someone - say, Claire - pointed out to him he's doing it, he'd deny it. And would only realize he does, too a moment later.

Re: too many thoughts? on the petrellis? impossible!

[identity profile] selenak.livejournal.com 2007-06-04 04:07 pm (UTC)(link)
Well, and this is where I say that Peter can't be in love until Nathan is no longer the center of his life. When Nathan and saving the world come first, any woman (or man if you believe fanon) is going to necessarily come second.

Absoutely. I mean, it's not that I can't see Peter loving other people in addition to Nathan, but definitely not to the same degree or in fact in any degree that would be acceptable to a lover who still has some of her or his own self esteem. I can see him having some friends-with-benefits relationship with other people in the current state of affairs, but romance candidates would end up like Simone - adored for a brief while, not told anything important and then left to save the world.

With Nathan he can only cling to some of his illusions, because while Nathan does lie to Peter, he doesn't lie to Peter nearly as much as he lies to everyone else in his life, and he forces Peter to try to see Nathan for who he is. I know I've been going to the slashy place in this comment, but I think that holds true for familial love and romantic love.

Oh, agreed, and yes, it holds true whether one goes for the familial or romantic interpretation. There is also the mutuality aspect; Nathan sees Peter somewhat clear than the rest of the characters (we know of), and Peter does not create a persona for him.

[identity profile] selenak.livejournal.com 2007-06-04 04:14 pm (UTC)(link)
He knows that he *can* do something with his powers, but he's in the same possition Claire is at this point and it's an echo of her "I can climb through a woodchipper and live to tell about it" rant. They both are more focused on the huge potential for their powers to ruin their lives and their families (potential made actual in Nathan's case with the accident), that they can't focus on the benefits or world-saving-ness of it at this point like Peter and Hiro can.

It's another neat parallel between them. The other ones I notices is that Claire, no matter whether she thought Jackie was too mean about what's her name, was ambitious enough to not only genuinenly want to be a cheerleader but to dump Zach as a friend after they used to be close as kids. Her "I'll even talk with you in public" promise as a reward in the pilot is pure condescending Nathan in political mode. And of course both Claire and Nathan are convinced that discovery of superpowers would result in disaster.

[identity profile] selenak.livejournal.com 2007-06-04 04:22 pm (UTC)(link)
I mailed you my beta, and I did touch on the Heidi subject. I also mailed you a link for transcripts, which I found useful for stories in the past!

I love your take on the Nathan/Peter dynamic; Peter is the one who's holding all the cards, emotionally speaking. Nathan knows it, too.

Yes. And verbalizes it in .07%.

Both Charles and Angela have strong opinions about what kind of person Peter is -- and those opinions are both largely wrong. Nathan seems to be the only one who truly recognizes both Peter's weaknesses and his strengths. (Peter is not as clear-eyed about Nathan, although he comes close and certainly understands his brother more than Angela does, maybe more than Heidi, too.)

I think this is partly due to the age gap and the older/younger sibling dynamic, too; Peter, as [livejournal.com profile] cadesama noted above, probably has an amalgan of the persona Nathan later develops for his sons (calling back his conversation with Niki about needing to be two people when you have children, and Peter was the first child Nathan felt somewhat responsible for, even when being a child and adolescent himself, so he'd have gotten the prototype) and real Nathan.

Nathan is trying to draw some line between politics and family here, and weirdly, he may be the first person to do so becaue politics is his safety zone and family is more dangerous!

LOL. But with this family? YES! Also agreed that politics are Nathan's comfort zone.

Page 1 of 5