Now the new General Up To No Good had explicitly ordered Elizabeth not to tell her husband about the whole summit mission, but the fact that Elizabeth goes out of her way not to talk to Philip in general and during their one and only conversation in this episode when having the chance invents a worry with Paige instead of talking about the actual worrisome Paige-related event last episode (i.e. the security guard) does not augur well. Now it could be that Elizabeth simply does not want to worry Philip - Paige slipping up with a name sounds more harmless than "security guard confiscated fake ID with Paige's photo on it, hit on her, then I killed him", an action which Philip more likely than not would have undertaken as well (see: past record). But in these two keeping secrets from each other in this show never ends well, especially when it's not even necessary by plot. Mind you, I buy it completely as part of their psychological make-up, given their chosen profession for decades. Keeping secrets and lying is their default. Note that Philip also doesn't insist on another conversation or tries to bring up that interesting encounter he had again. Which would indicate he's already at least considering what Oleg suggested.
At a guess, this is also the point of the whole losing-a-client mini subplot which otherwise seems a bit random. Philip at first blames losing his client of 15 years on Stavros, but as both Stavros and Henry point out, Philp is the one who had formed the relationship, and just handing the man over to Stavros already is a step to enstrangement. Now it had been Elizabeth who suggested to Philip he should quit and let her carry on the spying alone, but still, they both know in that profession, you're in or you're out, and their relationship, long before it became romantic, started as a professional partnership first and foremost. Take that element away, on which all others were built, and can the remainder survive?
Meanwhile, back at the FBI: Aderholt tells Stan Oleg is back in town, and not on a diplomatic via, but alas the show is making us wait for that extremely interesting reunion for another episode. Instead, we get treated to Stan Beeman, worst marriage guidance counsellor ever, and seriously, who thought Stan could work with this part of being a handler? (Actually, I don't think Stan is good at being a handler in general, and not just because of Nina; he's not capable of adjusting parts of his personality to what the asset needs, the way we've seen both Elizabeth and Philip do over the course of the series.) Lastly, did I mishear or did Stan address Aderholt as "Gus"? I thought Aderholt's first name was Dennis?
Speaking of handlers: I note that Claudia is careful to make it clear she's "not supposed to be curious" about what the orders for Elizabeth she's handing over from the Centre are about, i.e. that she does not know anything of the matter. Could be significant on either a Doylist (the show's writers want to make this clear) or Watsonian (Claudia points this out, whether or not it's actually true, in order to have cover and plausible deniability when things go sideways) level. That she plays the Tchaikovsky record for Elizabeth and Paige (who is not into classics) is one of the few times we've seen Claudia share something personally important to her and would indicate she's made Elizabeth and Paige a replacement family, but of course as with anything, it could be manipulation as well.
Elizabeth continues to run herself ragged, working (and smoking) nonstop and slipping in and out of different roles, which is perhaps why she makes a catastrophic mistake at the end by bringing Paige as back-up. Seriously: meeting a jumpy high level official whom you're attempting to blackmail alone in a park is not something you bring a rookie like Paige to as back-up. Even the late Hans early on would have been a questionable choice. That's the kind of mission you need a complete professional as backup for, and even if Philip is no longer available, there's the woman we saw Elizabeth with last episode. With the end result being Paige as an almost-witness to the gory death of an US admiral and definitely liable for the resulting clean-up. Never mind Paige's shock and the sight of her mother covered in brains, she's due to a lengthy prison sentence too now.
Incidentally, how old is Paige by now? Because I'm not sure I'm buying the naivete of her "is there sex involved?" question about spying. I mean, not having an idea of just how completely both of her parents were sexually used by the state is one thing, but the basic concept of a honey trap is really not something that you need books to read for in 1987.
Let's see, what else: Reagan's senility as a factor, which is interesting, since I did buy Claudia's complete surprise in this regard, and also her having no idea of what that means for the USSR - good or bad? The guide's little speech at the Lafayette bust about how sympbolism matters more than the truth - how Lafayette actually looked like is besides the point, only what he symbolizes for US history. Could be read as meta; Reagan's image not just in conservative US circles versus the reality?
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
My review
Date: 2018-04-05 08:11 am (UTC)Now the new General Up To No Good had explicitly ordered Elizabeth not to tell her husband about the whole summit mission, but the fact that Elizabeth goes out of her way not to talk to Philip in general and during their one and only conversation in this episode when having the chance invents a worry with Paige instead of talking about the actual worrisome Paige-related event last episode (i.e. the security guard) does not augur well. Now it could be that Elizabeth simply does not want to worry Philip - Paige slipping up with a name sounds more harmless than "security guard confiscated fake ID with Paige's photo on it, hit on her, then I killed him", an action which Philip more likely than not would have undertaken as well (see: past record). But in these two keeping secrets from each other in this show never ends well, especially when it's not even necessary by plot. Mind you, I buy it completely as part of their psychological make-up, given their chosen profession for decades. Keeping secrets and lying is their default. Note that Philip also doesn't insist on another conversation or tries to bring up that interesting encounter he had again. Which would indicate he's already at least considering what Oleg suggested.
At a guess, this is also the point of the whole losing-a-client mini subplot which otherwise seems a bit random. Philip at first blames losing his client of 15 years on Stavros, but as both Stavros and Henry point out, Philp is the one who had formed the relationship, and just handing the man over to Stavros already is a step to enstrangement. Now it had been Elizabeth who suggested to Philip he should quit and let her carry on the spying alone, but still, they both know in that profession, you're in or you're out, and their relationship, long before it became romantic, started as a professional partnership first and foremost. Take that element away, on which all others were built, and can the remainder survive?
Meanwhile, back at the FBI: Aderholt tells Stan Oleg is back in town, and not on a diplomatic via, but alas the show is making us wait for that extremely interesting reunion for another episode. Instead, we get treated to Stan Beeman, worst marriage guidance counsellor ever, and seriously, who thought Stan could work with this part of being a handler? (Actually, I don't think Stan is good at being a handler in general, and not just because of Nina; he's not capable of adjusting parts of his personality to what the asset needs, the way we've seen both Elizabeth and Philip do over the course of the series.) Lastly, did I mishear or did Stan address Aderholt as "Gus"? I thought Aderholt's first name was Dennis?
Speaking of handlers: I note that Claudia is careful to make it clear she's "not supposed to be curious" about what the orders for Elizabeth she's handing over from the Centre are about, i.e. that she does not know anything of the matter. Could be significant on either a Doylist (the show's writers want to make this clear) or Watsonian (Claudia points this out, whether or not it's actually true, in order to have cover and plausible deniability when things go sideways) level. That she plays the Tchaikovsky record for Elizabeth and Paige (who is not into classics) is one of the few times we've seen Claudia share something personally important to her and would indicate she's made Elizabeth and Paige a replacement family, but of course as with anything, it could be manipulation as well.
Elizabeth continues to run herself ragged, working (and smoking) nonstop and slipping in and out of different roles, which is perhaps why she makes a catastrophic mistake at the end by bringing Paige as back-up. Seriously: meeting a jumpy high level official whom you're attempting to blackmail alone in a park is not something you bring a rookie like Paige to as back-up. Even the late Hans early on would have been a questionable choice. That's the kind of mission you need a complete professional as backup for, and even if Philip is no longer available, there's the woman we saw Elizabeth with last episode. With the end result being Paige as an almost-witness to the gory death of an US admiral and definitely liable for the resulting clean-up. Never mind Paige's shock and the sight of her mother covered in brains, she's due to a lengthy prison sentence too now.
Incidentally, how old is Paige by now? Because I'm not sure I'm buying the naivete of her "is there sex involved?" question about spying. I mean, not having an idea of just how completely both of her parents were sexually used by the state is one thing, but the basic concept of a honey trap is really not something that you need books to read for in 1987.
Let's see, what else: Reagan's senility as a factor, which is interesting, since I did buy Claudia's complete surprise in this regard, and also her having no idea of what that means for the USSR - good or bad? The guide's little speech at the Lafayette bust about how sympbolism matters more than the truth - how Lafayette actually looked like is besides the point, only what he symbolizes for US history. Could be read as meta; Reagan's image not just in conservative US circles versus the reality?