Episode 10, “Only You:” Sam Lim and I discuss The Americans‘ continued character purge

Screen Shot 2013-04-11 at 1.23.34 PM

Sam: After last week’s action-packed (we’re speaking relatively here) episode, this week’s episode dragged on through a whole bunch of relationship crap. From the get-go, we’d see Phil and Elizabeth give each tired looks of annoyance or sarcastic comments about their living situation.

Am I surprised? Nope. I didn’t really expect one decent episode to make things all better to begin with. One of the few positives of the show, though, is that Stan is solidifying his place as the best actor/character on the show. The way he hunts down people (including Phil, even in a sort of drunken stupor) leads him eventually to what the KGB hopes is the end of the Amador trail.

I thought his scene with Nina was particularly telling of where his priorities lie. She asked him who killed Vlad, and he responded multiple times with “I don’t know.” He even added, “If I find out something, I will let you know.”

Now, contrast that with Elizabeth’s closing scene with Gregory before she (and Phil) let him walk out the door, even while both hold guns ready to take him down. For someone who’s supposed to be steely and unforgiving, she seems to hesitate whenever she has a personal connection (i.e. Timoshev in Episode 1).Screen Shot 2013-04-11 at 1.24.41 PM

Which leads me to the part where Gregory ends up doing what he says and gets into a shoot out with police. Doesn’t the KGB/Granny know now that Phil went against their orders to do what he knows he’s “supposed to do”? Or did they just not care?

What did you think of this episode?

Jay: I’m actually excited this week because, for the first time in quite awhile, we have substantively different opinions on an episode of The Americans! It’s nice to actually have something to discuss for a change, instead of our usual wholehearted agreement on how subpar each episode generally is.

Speaking of things that are subpar, I want to briefly touch on something we’d discussed after Episode 9. In that review, I said, “As for what comes next, I’m most curious about Stan’s relationship to the FBI. What scares me most is that his extrajudicial execution of Vlad will be summarily dispensed with in the next episode’s first two minutes, and all will continue as usual as if it were a simple tantrum that everyone will get over. I hope that doesn’t happen — because if it does, that’s hopelessly unrealistic.”

To which you presciently responded: “Unfortunately, I fear what we do not want to see is exactly what will happen. We’ve seen it happen before (that I can’t remember exactly when speaks to the fact that they did not make what seemed like a huge moment very memorable).”

So…yeah. That happened. Are we just too young to understand the brutality of Cold War counterintelligence, or (as seems to me) it’s just unrealistic to assume that a high-ranking FBI officer such as Agent Gadd would be unperturbed by the extrajudicial execution of an innocent person? Again, it’s not as if this were the CIA: it’s the FBI, an ostensibly domestically-focused organization. I just have a hard time believing events would have transpired as they did.

Like you, some of this episode’s moments felt contrived to me as well. I eye-rolled a little to myself after Stan came knocking on Phil’s hotel room door, and even more so after the conversation switched immediately to the death of Amador. There is just no logical reason to believe that a seasoned FBI agent would be so free-wheeling in his discussions of intra-agency topics with outsiders, even if they didn’t happen to be Soviet agents.

Nevertheless, carrying over from last episode, which noticeably sped up the pace of action, I felt that this one did a decently good job of driving the story forward. Particularly interesting to me was the standoff with Elizabeth, Phil, and Gregory in the hotel room, in which each character was conflicted between competing interests in one way or another. Phil would have been glad to be the one to kill Gregory, but ironically was still too in love with Elizabeth to do it in front of her. Elizabeth was torn between her loyalty to her country and her loyalty to Gregory. Gregory himself seemed to agonize the least of the three: he knew what he had lived for, and he knew his time had come. Going to Moscow was never really an option for him.

Screen Shot 2013-04-11 at 1.25.47 PMTwo final points: First, as you did, I enjoyed virtually every aspect of Stan’s character in this episode. Even when he’s given bad lines or unrealistic situations to work with, the character is played almost flawlessly, and this episode was no exception. Secondly, I hadn’t even thought about the element of disloyalty to their handlers exhibited by Phil and Elizabeth by letting Gregory walk. (Speaking of which, I’m pretty sure Gregory’s shootout with the police was filmed on West 122nd Street in Morningside Heights.) Given what happened in these past two episodes with regards to Stan’s assassination of Vlad, though, I doubt we’ll see much in the way of repercussions for the Jennings.

Where do you see The Americans going from here, for the final few episodes of Season 1? Perhaps a better question — and one we asked each other towards the end of Homeland‘s second season — is who do you think will be dead at the conclusion of Season 1 here?

Sam: I just chuckled out loud at your last question. Let me respond to other parts first, and then I’ll give you my morbid prediction(s).

I agree that it seemed pretty unrealistic that Agent Gadd had (seemingly) no problems with Stan’s extrajudicial killing of Vlad. But perhaps you’re right: we don’t feel the same way as perhaps others who really lived through and understood the Cold War. For this reason, I didn’t quite know how accurate Agent Gadd’s comment about an invisible war was. For the first time though, I wasn’t overly annoyed with his character, given that his lines now were, for the most part, from the heart (and not all cheesy lines).

I will say that I thought Granny was going to pull out a pistol and take care of Gregory herself. Perhaps just for a second. Did it strike you as strange that she and Phil decide to have a conversation about finishing Gregory off directly outside his door? It reminded me of Brody shouting “Nazir!” into his cell phone when CIA agents were right down the hall.

The character conflicts in this episode were certainly what made it intriguing; I guess I was just hoping for a faster-paced episode. Funny though, I had the same thought that Gregory’s shootout was right by SIPA, and I wondered when they filmed that, especially as I imagine it would’ve been a loud day of filming potentially.

Screen Shot 2013-04-11 at 1.25.20 PMAs for where things are going, I think the season will end with a scenario where Stan is on the verge of discovering Phil and Elizabeth’s true identities. It’s cliché, but how else will they make people excited over Season 2? I do think someone will be dead by the end, and I come back to Nina. I’d throw in Martha as well. I feel like they’re secondary characters who have been central enough to warrant lots of attention but still expendable in the grand scheme of things. If anyone is safe, it’s Stan, Phil, and Elizabeth. However, one of them may get shot or injured or something between now and the end of Season 1.

Your thoughts on who makes it and who doesn’t?

Jay: I had a very similar reaction to the scene between Granny and Gregory. However, I was more of the mind that Gregory was going to be the one to do something sudden: kill himself, or maybe even Granny. And yes, I also thought it was strange how Granny and Phil discussed Gregory’s fate just outside his door. In fact, that scene makes even less sense when you consider that, at some point later on, Elizabeth was in the apartment with Gregory too, having what was presumably a private moment on the couch. Was Phil waiting just outside the door that entire time? (It seems as if he was, since he comes in at the end as Elizabeth is preparing to leave.) And if so, I don’t understand what happened earlier, following Phil’s conversation with Granny, in which it appears that Phil is about to enter the apartment himself. What happened immediately after that? There’s never any indication that Phil and Gregory had spoken to each other in this episode, prior to the point at which Phil enters with a gun.

Anyway, I agree that Nina is an obvious candidate to get knocked off. In some ways, it seems almost too obvious — as in perhaps the show’s creators want us to believe she’s doomed in order to pull off a different surprise? Almost from the moment she first appeared, Nina has had a huge bullseye on her back: it would be understandable if, for that reason alone, The Americans was hesitant to actually do what everyone expects and kill her off. I can imagine Martha being killed, but I’m actually going to go with Arkady and/or Granny as my top two candidates for early termination.

Obama FY2014 Budget Proposal: Implications for Higher Ed

The Obama administration just released its budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2014, and the Twittersphere tweeted and retweeted all over itself, highlighting budget details and how they might affect certain programs. This blog post won’t look at the overall budget (or even all education issues) but instead will focus on its impact on higher education. Although not every one of these proposals will actually come to be, it’s still worth fleshing out the juiciest higher education highlights (details on pages 82-84 of that link).

Provide $1 Billion for Race to the Top Focused on Curbing College Tuition

Proposing a higher ed Race to the Top (RTTT) competition isn’t entirely new. The Obama Administration also included it in its budget proposal last year; however, it failed to make the final cut. With college affordability in arguably no better shape a year later, there is hope that a higher ed RTTT may actually happen this year.

Create a First in the World Fund to Spur Innovation to Boost College Affordability

The proposal sets aside $260 million to incentivize new ways of delivering higher education and increasing postsecondary access and affordability. This seems to be geared toward exploring more ways to build on massive open online courses (MOOCs) and community organizations focusing on college access issues. The idea here has also been proposed before, but it has likewise not been funded.

Boosting Campus-Based Aid Programs Based on Enrollment and Graduation Rates Among Low-Income Students

This proposal directs more than $10 billion toward Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOG), Federal Work Study, and Perkins Loans. Part of this boost includes a $150 million increase for the Federal Work Study program to double the number of participants over five years. Perhaps most interestingly, this idea proposes reforms that would tie the amount of campus-based aid to institutions’ efforts to enroll and graduate low-income students.

Lock In Student Loan Interest Rates at Market-Based Rates

Current student loan interest ranges from 3.4% to 6.8%, depending on the program. The proposal suggests tying interest rates to the government’s cost of borrowing, which means interest rates would likely be tied to 10-year Treasury notes and include additional rates of 0.93% for subsidized Stafford loans, 2.93% for unsubsidized Stafford loans, and 3.93% for loans for parents and graduate students. The rate on new loans would be set each year based on the market rate.

Maintain Pell Grant Maximum Award at $5,645 Through 2015-16

As the Department of Ed’s document of highlights notes, the Pell Grant maximum award has increased by $915 since 2008, which is welcome news for low-income and lower-middle-income undergraduate students. As I’ve written before, part of the challenge of maintaining Pell Grant funding is ensuring fiscal sustainability for its long-term viability.

Provide Funding for Further Research on Student Aid for Postsecondary Education

The proposal calls for $9 million for upgrades to the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) to improve federal data on postsecondary students. It also proposes $8 million for more frequent surveys of postsecondary students to gather data on who receives student aid, enrollment patterns, and graduation rates for those who receive federal financial aid. Finally, it includes $67 million for research and evaluation of federal student aid.

Of these main higher ed highlights, the one that will get the most noise is likely the proposal tying student loan interest rates to market-based interest rates, as Libby Nelson of Inside Higher Education noted:

https://twitter.com/libbyanelson/status/322019199897722880

More interesting, though, is the second half of her tweet, which predicts that the campus-based aid idea of tying funding to outcomes for low-income students might actually receive the most pushback. In considering all of these proposals, I would have to agree with this assessment, because institutions rely heavily on these aid programs to retain their students.

Aside from the Pell Grant highlight (which doesn’t propose anything new), none of the other proposals are as closely tied to direct student funding as the campus-based aid programs. By this, I mean that the RTTT and First in the World competitions would both provide additional funding that institutions and states would not already have received under current budget formulas.

The budget also calls for making the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC) permanent, which would provide up to $2,500 for higher education costs. The threshold for eligibility is higher, which includes more middle-income households (who tend to benefit more from tax credits like this  anyway), and it allows for book expenses and is available for the first four years of college.

While other areas of the Obama budget might have clear winners and losers, it’s hard to say whether higher ed is a winner or loser IF (and it really is only an “if”) all of these proposals are ultimately funded (which is entirely unlikely). In this scenario where each proposal is indeed funded, I would probably lean slightly toward higher ed being more of a loser than winner, given that student loan interest rates will likely increase using market-based rates, and campus-based aid programs might become more limited if tied to low-income student outcomes while college tuition is likely to continue to rise. On this last point though, the goal of the higher ed-focused RTTT is to contain tuition increases, but I have a hard time seeing enough substantial funding from states to offset the increases that have occurred in recent years.

Instead, I probably share more of the sentiment that Rep. George Miller (D-CA), the senior Democrat of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, expressed in his statement on the Obama budget: while it rightly focuses its proposals on addressing college affordability, some of the deeper-rooted issues may be best resolved through reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (which Congress is supposed to reauthorize this year). While I do hope that the renewal of the HEA can provide long-term solutions for student loans, student aid programs, and college affordability, the question is whether Congress will actually reauthorize it on-time (they delayed the last reauthorization from 2003 to 2008).

Whether through the final budget for Fiscal Year 2014 or the reauthorization of the HEA, it’s clear that college affordability should be a priority to ensure that all students have the chance to pursue postsecondary education if they so desire.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Death of the ombudsman

Edward Wasserman, the dean of UC Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism, laments the elimination of The Washington Post‘s ombudsman position:

No matter how the job is structured, ombudsmen generally please no one. While journalists complain that they’re quick on the trigger and unsympathetic to the pressures of deadline-driven news production, outsiders say they’re too soft, and lack the spine to challenge their own employers over the most vexing new practices.

To that is joined now the criticism that they’re simply obsolete. That’s a point The Post itself endorsed when it noted the profusion of tough media commentary from unaffiliated online critics, implying there was no longer a need for The Post itself to weigh in as well.

That’s an interesting point, but I didn’t hear any corresponding commitment to cooperate with these outside inquiries. And I can’t imagine The Post deciding that in light of the ramped-up coverage of Capitol Hill by Politico, The New York Times and others, it need no longer cover Congress.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Overcast? Then give today a one-star review.

The sky over New York on April 3, 2013. (Courtesy of TheAwl.com.)
The sky over New York City on April 3, 2013. (Courtesy of TheAwl.com.)

Tom Scocca posts daily photos of the sky over New York City on The Awl and reviews the weather on a five-star scale. Here’s his review for April 3rd:

★★★ The wind tousled hair or whipped it around. On the steps up from the subway, warm air contended with and briefly edged out the chill. Out on the street, though, fingers went numb. Sparrows chattered in the shelter of the bushes behind the shelter of the netted scaffolding. One tiny wayward puff of cloud crossed above the avenue. The doorman scooped up a windblown cardboard box and made small talk about how cold it was. Winter, practically, still. In the night, the full Dipper stood over Broadway and Amsterdam, every star of it shining, if you looked up between streetlights.

Enhanced by Zemanta