Episode discussion post: "The Deal"

[jae]

Aired:
26 March 2014 in the U.S. and Canada
30 March 2014 in Israel
12 April 2014 in the UK

This is a discussion post for episode 205 of The Americans, intended for viewers who are watching the show on the U.S./Canadian schedule. (Feel free to dive in to the discussion even if you're coming in late--and you should also feel free to start a new thread if it seems too daunting to read through what's already been posted first. If you're reading this at a point where you've already seen subsequent episodes, though, please take care to keep comments spoiler-free of anything that comes after season two, episode five.)

Original promo trailers

"Next On: The Deal" (Watch on YouTube)

"The Americans: Exclusive Scene from Episode 5" (Watch on YouTube)

Episode recaps

From Grantland
From The New York Times
From Time
From Vulture
From The Washington Post
From Rolling Stone
From The AV Club
From Hitfix
From the Huffington Post
From Collider
From Sound on Sight
From IGN
From Television Without Pity
From TV Ate My Wardrobe
From Geekbinge
From showratings.tv
From screenrant.com
From GAMbIT Magazine
From Crave Online
From spoilertv.com
From tv.com
From Unreality Primetime
From Newsmanone

Comments

Re: First thoughts

[wendelah1]

I'm not as excited about this episode as everybody else.. I guess this goes back to the fact that the Anton story doesn't make sense to me, going back to the previous episode.

It didn't make sense to me either. The deal wasn't much of a deal at all--nearly the same number of Jews were permitted to leave in 1981.

7. Elizabeth and Martha - just wow. Martha is becoming much more human now. But to repeat a question already asked: who starts talking to somebody about her brother's sexual prowess? And which sister would actually want to know? Was Elizabeth asking because she wanted to know, or because she thought she should in-character? Anyway, the scene was done very well, and didn't seem as awkward as it could have been. "He just makes me his" - doesn't he?

I thought that was way awkward myself. No one I know starts talking about their sex life with their in-laws--no matter how drunk they are. Actually, no one I know talks about their sex life period. I wasn't really buying that scene at all, unless Elizabeth slipped a little something extra into the wine.

Re: First thoughts

[katiac]

No one I know starts talking about their sex life with their in-laws--no matter how drunk they are. Actually, no one I know talks about their sex life period. I wasn't really buying that scene at all, unless Elizabeth slipped a little something extra into the wine.

I found it to be something of a stretch too--especially considering Martha seems to be from a fairly conservative family and she and "Jennifer" have only met the one time. But, I can forgive the stretch in credibility if it brings up interesting things in the P/E relationship. And it was one of the first scenes where I was rather okay with Martha.

Re: First thoughts

[treonb]

it was one of the first scenes where I was rather okay with Martha.

Yeah, me too :-) Either "Jennifer" brings out the more human side in her, or she's more natural without "Clark" around.

Re: First thoughts

[sistermagpie]

I think it's just that in her Clark relationship she's always kind of playing the same scene. And also, interestingly, she was kind of right in the way Clark's personality worked--which works really well for what Philip is trying to do here. Clark's always on guard controlling the information and it rules his whole personality--because Clark is supposed to be this very officious pencil pusher who has nonetheless broken a big rule. Like in a way Clark is like a regular person being a spy like Philip, but he's not good at it so he's stiff and careful about everything. And there's a formality that also seems to go alone with Clark trying really hard to be the best government hall monitor he can be.

Where as in this scene Elizabeth presented Jennifer as being the normal member of the family who doesn't have those constraints because she's just a girl visiting her sister in law, so Martha could speak from a different pov.

Refusenik visas

[treonb]

nearly the same number of Jews were permitted to leave in 1981.

According to wiki - over 9,000 Jews were allowed to leave in 1981. But as was mentioned earlier here, most preferred the West over Israel.

But it's also interesting that in those years, the number of Jews allowed to leave was dropping. That group didn't show any 'Russian change of heart' at all.

Re: Refusenik visas

[wendelah1]

Yes, sorry. I keep forgetting we're already in 1982 since the leaves are still on the trees and it looks like autumn rather than winter. I think I spotted a pumpkin at the amusement park in the season opener. This was a terrible time to be Jewish and trying to leave the USSR. 1982 was a bad year and it wasn't even the worst. (Everyone else may already be familiar with the politics. At least I won't lose the article if I add it here.) From a UCLA study:

The early 1980s marked a drastic decrease in the level of Jewish emigration, stemming from the break in Soviet-American relations after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. The Carter administration strongly disapproved of the invasion due to perceived Soviet expansionism in the so-called ‘arc of crises’, a “region stretching from Angola and the Horn of Africa to Afghanistan.”

Any spread of communism came as a threat to American interests during the Cold War, so the Soviet expansionism in such a critical area frightened the Carter administration. In response to the Soviet invasion, the U.S. imposed trade sanctions against the USSR, upsetting Brezhnev. Only 2,688 Jewish emigrants left the Soviet Union in 1982, while a sixteen-year low figure of 896 Jews left the country in 1984.

Similar to Carter’s approach toward the Soviet Union’s treatment of Jewish emigrants, President Ronald Reagan took a strong and vocal stance against the Soviet Union in terms of human rights. In regard to Reagan’s plan toward Soviet Jewish emigration, Goldman writes, “in part his goal was to embarrass and undermine the Soviet regime in the international community.” Reagan had vocally expressed his strong disagreement with communism, so the issue of Jewish emigration allowed him to maintain his critical approach toward the Soviet Union. Although Reagan put much focus on the Jewish emigration problem, including on the continuous struggle of the refuseniks, the turning point in the effort for increased Jewish emigration came when Mikhail Gorbachev rose to power in the Soviet Union.

Source: [x] The footnotes are in the article.

Maybe I'm getting this wrong, but reading between the lines, it sounds like the issue of Jewish emigration was being used by Reagan for his own political agenda.

Re: Refusenik visas

[treonb]

reading between the lines, it sounds like the issue of Jewish emigration was being used by Reagan for his own political agenda.

On the one hand, it's not that surprising.

On the other, it was a real issue. American Jews spent more than a decade promoting the right of Jewish emigration before US politicians took up the cause. And it took another decade before Jews were allowed out.

Re: Refusenik visas

[wendelah1]

It was an important issue. Whatever his political rhetoric might have been, I don't see President Reagan's policies as having a positive impact; quite the contrary from the statistics I can find.

Current time

[treonb]

I keep forgetting we're already in 1982

I think we're in the fall of 1981.

Re: Current time

[jae]

There have been some specifics named in terms of timing, though, and if I remember correctly, it seems to be January 1982 (just a very warm January 1982 :).

-J

Re: Current time

[treonb]

OK, I started digging. They're playing around with real-life events.

Feb. 1981 - Russia started reissuing exit visas.
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/02/14/world/moscow-abruptly-resumes-issuing-exit-visas-to-jews.html

While in 1982, only 862 visas were granted during the first quarter
http://www.jta.org/1982/04/06/jewish-holidays/passover/soviet-jewish-emigration-suffers-as-passover-and-easter-approaches

That group of 1,500 could not have been in January 1982.

So in my head-cannon, I'm still assuming end of 1981 ;-)

Re: Current time and the Refusenik visas

[jae]

Ooh, good catch! Thanks for digging that up.

-J

Re: Current time and the Refusenik visas

[treonb]

Ack, forgot to mention: not that this fits at the end of 1981, either. But show wise we're obviously not at the beginning of the year.

Re: Current time

[wendelah1]

It definitely looks like Fall 1981, because of the fall foliage, but I thought someone during the discussion for the second season opener confirmed that it was January 1982. Something about the sitcom episode the kids were watching with the sitter airing in January 1982?

But I like your head canon much better. It fits together with everything else.

Re: Current time

[sistermagpie]

Also Arkady gave a January 1982 date on his report on The Walk In in Cardinal.

Re: Current time

[treonb]

And.. there goes my head-canon. It was nice while it lasted.

Re: Current time

[katiac]

I think they put the date in the subtitles in a scene at the Rezidentura. It was late January, 1982. It seems like with any actual historical events or how the trees look or how many months have passed, we're just expected to not think about it too hard. The first season supposedly ended in May or April, 1981, yet it's 2 months later and January, 1982. They have to keep moving the timeline forward to get through the cold war and keep up with the kids aging, but it would've been weird if Elizabeth had been gone for 8 months, or if we skipped all the important aftermath of her return.

I just have to keep looking past the beautiful fall foliage. :)