Tag Archives: Soviet Union

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.

Are the writers still “In Control?” Sam Lim and I tackle Episode 4 of The Americans

Jay: After last week, this episode felt a bit like a letdown. The action was good, the tension was decent, but the dialogue basically muddled through and the plot was weaker than it was in “Gregory.”

First, though, I have to get a pet peeve off my chest. Stan’s boss says of the attempted assassin, “[If] this guy’s said ‘Nyet’ once in the past ten years, we’re gonna find out when and where.” Why do so many TV shows and movies have lines like that? No one talks in such melodramatic phrases.

But even aside from a few campy moments — another one is when Elizabeth is arguing with Phil about staying committed to the Soviet Union: that debate is already getting old for me, and Elizabeth still hasn’t looked convincing while doing it yet — the plot got into weird territory at times.

claudia

First, why are Phil, Elizabeth, and “Claudia” all so willing to talk in their car openly (and even somewhat loudly)? They drop bugs all over the place — I’m guessing one was in the pin Phil gave to that nurse, most recently — but they’re not even remotely nervous that they’re being watched? Even after Phil knows for certain Stan was suspicious enough to snoop around their garage and check out their car?

Speaking of cars, it was never explained how they got rid of the security guard’s car. Dumping a body is one thing, but making a car disappear is another matter entirely. Maybe that’ll get brought up in a later episode.

Another thing: why would Nina’s boss tell her colleague to follow her? Once again, there’s really no explanation given for why all the right people are wary of all the other right people. It’s too uncanny, and too much like network TV.

Which brings me to my next complaint: remember how Nina was recruited in the first place? Because she got caught stealing caviar from the embassy. If you were her, wouldn’t you rather just confess the theft and try to find a new job, instead of risking your life running around every time the FBI calls? In defense of the show, I suppose it’s feasible that she feels it’s now too late, that even if she stopped working for the FBI they’d ruin her life (or end it) anyway. But her risk/reward calculations don’t seem that smart right now.

Side note: I don’t get what took place when Phil called that guy with a bunch of phones and asked to get to the vice president’s office. Was he figuring out who the nurse was? And who was that dude with all the phones?

One last thing: I couldn’t help but notice that when Paige went over her friend’s house to apologize, she was playing with her hands in the exact same way Dana does all the time on Homeland. Is that the universal TV representation of “awkward teenager?”

Sam: I couldn’t agree more with everything you pointed out! My biggest mistake this week: raising my expectations. Before I watched the episode, I read that this week’s episode would cover the assassination attempt on President Reagan, and for some reason, I thought it would make for an interesting episode, to say the least. I was wrong. Continue reading Are the writers still “In Control?” Sam Lim and I tackle Episode 4 of The Americans

One for the motherland: Sam Lim and I discuss the pilot episode of FX’s The Americans

theamericansLast year, Sam Lim and I had so much fun dissecting the minutiae of Showtime’s captivating Homeland series that we decided to fill in the gap until the next season’s premiere with a new show. As it turns out, The Americans, which airs on FX, also deals with spies, espionage, and double agents. But the premise is quite different and, at least through the first episode, so is the quality.

And we’re off…

Jay: Hey Sam,

So I just finished the series premiere. Excited to be doing this again! Here we go:

I don’t know if I’m just really nitpicky, if I have an incurable contrarian streak, or if I’m actually right, but I thought last night’s pilot episode of The Americans was problematic on a whole, heaping bunch of levels. It’s hard to know where to start, so I’ll check off a few random issues that bothered me the most.

First, more than anything else, this episode felt remarkably contrived. Everything happened just as we might expect them to happen on a network TV show, but I was hoping this would be better. Obviously, while watching the show, I couldn’t resist mentally making the inevitable Homeland comparisons, and in that light The Americans‘ first episode looks even worse. The most glaring example is the Jennings’ next-door neighbor Stan, the FBI agent. Halfway through the episode, when the Jennings were beginning to worry about the curious timing of their new neighbors’ appearance, I thought, “I really hope the show ends up revealing that the FBI has already suspected this couple to begin with, and that the new neighbors were not a coincidence” — because, if not, there is absolutely no plausibility to the idea that Stan would immediately suspect Philip and Elizabeth of being somehow abnormal.

But given Stan’s conversation with his wife in their kitchen, it appears that is simply not the case. His backstory, going undercover with white supremacists, is not a particularly convincing reason to go all renegade and start snooping around the Jennings’ garage. Which brings me to a second point, which is that it is absurd for Philip to not only agree to lend Stan a jumper cable, but then to motion for him to follow him into the garage while he takes it out from under their hostage. There were a million better, and far more obvious, ways to avoid that scenario: telling him he didn’t have the cable, asking him to wait in the living room, and so on. Again, this was one of just many ways in which the episode felt like it was intentionally fabricating made-for-TV moments that make no sense in the real world.

The dialogue, too, was pretty spotty. Basically any time Elizabeth was explaining her loyalty to the Soviet Union, I wanted to laugh. Same with Philip arguing that living in the US was actually pretty decent: “America’s not so bad…Yeah, electricity works all the time. Food’s pretty great.” This is then followed by Elizabeth asking: “Is that what you care about? Not the motherland?” Nothing about that conversation felt real, but it seems certain to appeal to a very provincial and binary mindset in which capitalism/America = good and communism/Soviet Union = bad. I know The Americans is a period drama, but it feels more at home as an actual contemporary show airing in the 1980s than it does as a retrospective series. On the other hand, I did enjoy Elizabeth’s snarky little asides any time her children mentioned how awesome the US was: “You know, the moon isn’t everything. Just getting into space is a remarkable accomplishment.”

I’m going to do a U-turn and head back to some of the more improbable plot points. How about starting with the Jennings having sex in their car at the very location where they’d just dumped the KGB defector’s body? As if that weren’t bad enough, what was the deal with that child predator at the department store? It makes zero sense for Philip to go berserk on him, especially now that he’s under even more pressure than usual not to make a scene or stick out like a sore thumb in the US. I really hope this doesn’t turn into one of those alcoholic-ex-Marine-has-an-eerily-prophetic-premonition-that-Brody’s-a-spy plots (or, for that matter, a Mike-has-the-same-premonition plot), in which Mr. Skinhead becomes a consistent thorn in Philip’s side or something. But if that really is the only episode in which that dude appears, what was the point of his entire storyline? That Philip likes thrashing people and then eating their barbecued food?

Last whine: what’s up with all the music? I think that’s one of the things Homeland does pretty well: there’s some soundtrack music here and there, but it’s organic and serves well in the background. Music in The Americans was overly obnoxious and distracting: it didn’t add anything to the story, but it definitely divided my attention a few times.

OK, so I’m being a bit harsh because I still can’t stop comparing it in my mind to Homeland, which got off to a much, much better start. The bottom line is, I still plan to keep watching.

What did you think?

Sam: I could not agree more: I thought the episode was entirely contrived. Too many story angles seemed unconvincing, and the details just silly, starting with the ending of the episode (which you nailed already). Perhaps my views — like yours — are overly colored by our obsession (?) with Homeland. I mean, sure, even if Stan had his suspicions about Philip, would he really sneak into his garage almost immediately after he met him?

Then again, perhaps him recognizing the model and make of the car as the one the FBI had been tracking gave him such cause, but then that gets to your point about Philip telling Stan to follow him into the garage. C’mon! You couldn’t just offer him a drink inside and say, “Let me go grab it from the garage real fast.” Or better yet, just tell him you don’t have one, since you obviously have no problem lying about most everything else in your life. But I digress.

On an acting level, I felt like Elizabeth was the weakest of all the main characters we met. As you noted, her loyalty to the Soviet Union was laughable. Even after her unfortunate incident with her captain (whom she so desperately wanted to murder in the garage), she still has such love for being a KGB officer? I will say though that the kids were at least normal, unlike the absurdly annoying Dana and seemingly oblivious Chris in Homeland. I say this now, but who knows, perhaps they’ll devolve into moody teenagers as well.

I also didn’t understand the whole predator storyline either. If anything, it seemed like a weak play at trying to show how Philip (and by extension, Elizabeth) have to keep their trained assassin skills under wraps — and perhaps to show off their diverse collection of costumes. But you’re right, where that’s going, I have no idea.

What struck me the most about this show is the attempt to portray how these Soviet Union spies might have thought about living in America or how everything relates to the Cold War. Then again, seeing as how I might have just been transitioning out of diapers when the Berlin Wall fell, I might just be utterly naive about how the 80s were. But it just almost seemed too much. Nearly everything the kids said was somehow turned into a subtle (or not so subtle) jab at how the Soviet Union is better than the US. You noted Elizabeth’s thoughts on space travel, etc. I couldn’t help but laugh when the daughter said she was learning about the Russians cheating on arms control in social studies and the son saying they launched a rocket in science.

Finally, I couldn’t help making a mental note of all the improbabilities I saw. You mentioned a few, but the ones I saw: Fighting with Timoshev and punching his head through a wall in your garage doesn’t wake the kids up? Hmm…I think I’d hear if my parents were duking it out with some guy in my garage and generally making a racket — and head downstairs to the garage to ask them what was going on. Their kids must be heavy sleepers. Also, wouldn’t you handle Timoshev’s body with gloves at least?

The one that caught my eye the most though is a rather silly one and really has nothing to do with anything. When Elizabeth pulls out the brownies she baked from the oven, I assume the baking sheet was hot. She did use a towel after all. But when she picks up the knife, stares at it, and finally drops it back on the counter, her wrist hit the corner of the baking sheet. Silly, I know, but her reaction (or rather, non-reaction) suggested the baking sheet wasn’t very hot.

I plan to keep watching as well, but I really do hope it gets better and that the story angles become less contrived and predictable. They need another layer or two of complexity to this show. But then again, it’s only been one episode.

This is a tough question, since we’ve only seen this pilot episode, but what predictions do you have for next week on The Americans?

Jay: I’m secretly glad you had similar reactions to the pilot episode. I was worried it’d just be me, especially after all the reviews started coming out and they were almost uniformly positive. By the way, I’m pretty sure you win Episode 1’s Most Observant Moment Award for noticing the thing with the baking sheet. That would never, ever have crossed my mind. The Timoshev fight in the garage, however, definitely did, so I’m glad you brought that up. Just not believable.

The good news is, I think reviewers often receive the first two or three episodes all at once, so if they’re all this positive about the show, I’m guessing it gets better within the next few weeks. But even if so, there are certain problems that I’m worried won’t be so easily resolved. One is, as you mentioned, Elizabeth’s character. She’s way too one-dimensional and black-and-white. I’m guessing that’s mostly the fault of the writers, but maybe it’d take a better actress to really sell it too. The jury’s still out on her.

This has already been brought up elsewhere, but there’s something fishy about this couple, who have been married for a decade and a half, only now somehow coming to grips with their conflicted emotions about both their jobs and their marriage. As in, she’s still not sure how she feels about him — after 15 years or so? Similarly, would she really be that shocked that he wants to defect? The general she meets late in the episode mentions that she’d brought up Philip’s hesitance in the past, so she can’t be all that surprised that he wants to defect now, right? It’s also inconsistent that she’s so adamant about fighting for the “motherland” for the entire episode, and then decides at the end not to mention her husband’s desire to defect. Just too many stretches.

If I had to guess, we’ll start to see more of the family life (a development I’d rather not take place, but it feels inevitable). I’m guessing we’ll have the kids almost finding things out in the next few episodes, etc. For the record, and this is more of a side note, I can hardly think of a single TV show or movie in which main characters’ family lives are portrayed in an interesting or relevant way. Even on The Wire, when they show Kima’s or McNulty’s or Lt. Daniels’ home lives, I just want to hit Fast Forward.

What do you think is on the way?

Sam: The few reviews I had read were pretty positive as well, so I was truthfully a bit disappointed with the first episode. But you’re right, it has only been one episode, and hopefully we’ll see better story angles develop.

I also thought Elizabeth and Philip’s relationship a bit odd. When they first moved to the US (and stood in front of the A/C unit together), she had said she wasn’t ready to fully embrace their couple status yet. The way she continues to act, despite having two kids, seems somewhat out of place (read: contrived) given Philip’s cheery nature.

As for the show focusing on their family life, the only show that I can think of off the top of my head is Modern Family, but that’d be a totally strange mix for a show like The Americans, even though I love Modern Family. 

My thoughts on what’s coming: Stan will inevitably find another reason to go snooping in the Jennings’ garage, after another strange and contrived encounter. I also wouldn’t be surprised if Elizabeth and Philip get trailed by other covert KGB officers, particularly after Elizabeth’s latest conversation with the general. Sure, she may have convinced him that Philip’s okay this round, but Philip’s bound to have another “America’s not so bad” moment that’ll just piss Elizabeth off.

I also feel like we might see something happen between the Jennings’ daughter and Stan’s son. The way they looked at each other when their families met seemed like too obvious an opening for a developing relationship. After that brief focus on how they looked at each other in the episode, I’d almost be disappointed if they don’t get together (and create a strange tension within the Jennings’ household that will trigger red flags in Stan’s household), but that right there is exactly why I’m disappointed in this show. The story seem too obvious and simple. Or it may just turn out to be another odd tangent like the child predator dude.

Either way, I’ll be interested to see what happens in the next episode, but I can’t honestly say I’m excited to watch it. I’ve actually developed more of a liking to other new shows like 1600 Penn, even though that has its own share of contrived ridiculousness too. At least, it makes me laugh for being a political comedy. The Americans just makes me laugh for being overly implausible.

 

#22: The Dream Life of Sukhanov

It had been awhile since I’d read a Russian novel. In fact, I believe the last such book I’d read until now was Invitation to a Beheading by Vladimir Nabokov. Even after having read only a scant few of the major works of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, I suppose I still should have realized that not all Russian books — or Russian authors, for that matter — are alike. And yet somehow I was persuaded by the name Olga Grushin and the intriguing title of her book, The Dream Life of Sukhanov, into presuming literary greatness.

As it turns out, not all stereotypes are inaccurate. Beautiful novels are as Russian as vodka consumption and chess. But where the last two are respectively vulgar or elite, the Russian novel is a format accessible to all, at least to those for whom 700-page sagas are not too forbidding. Grushin’s is no different (except considerably shorter). As several reviewers have noted, her writing does contain a slight foreign twang, as when she uses overly lengthy strings of adjectives to describe mundane settings. But her English is considerably better than my Russian, so judge I shall not.

The Dream Life of Sukhanov opens with the the protagonist and sometime antihero, Anatoly Pavlovich Sukhanov, arriving with his wife, Nina, at a birthday celebration for a renowned Soviet painter named Pyotr Alekseevich Malenin. (Do not fear an endless litany of names for each person; either Grushin has graciously spared her anglophone readers the consternation of rote name memorization, or I have subconsciously grown accustomed to the practice. And I’m quite confident it’s not the latter.) Malinin is a product of the Soviet machine, an “artist” whose works traffic in ideological and political cliche, stripped of their creative meaning even as they enjoy the public notoriety afforded by an official stamp of approval.

Malinin is also Nina’s father. Sukhanov, while privately musing that “the main quality uniting all [of Malinin’s] works…was the inherent ease with which they slid into oblivion the moment one’s back was turned,” was nevertheless duty-bound to pay the man his patriotic dues. Anyway, as editor in chief of Art of the World, the nation’s (and thus the state-approved) premier art magazine, Sukhanov was in no position to evaluate the integrity of others’ choices.

What he cannot stop himself from doing, however, is reassessing his own decisions, ad nauseum. As Sukhanov constantly travels in thought from the present to his past, the narrative voice switches from third to first. He is once again a small child, then a young man in love with both art and his future wife. Surrealism is his passion, but the Kruschev Thaw all too soon evaporated and, with it, the sacred luxury of maintaining artistic creativity without forfeiting all professional (and certainly political) ambition. Sukhanov confronted a life-altering decision: to rebel, or choose the safety of the ideological mainstream.

Choosing the latter, Sukhanov eventually soared to career success. When the time came, however, he was unable or unwilling to comprehend the realities of glasnost and perestroika, even as they rendered his suppressive voice cartoonish and his fears of a crackdown anachronistic. When a student journalist accosts him at Malinin’s birthday event, demanding that he acknowledge the innate dishonesty in the great man’s paintings, Sukhanov condescendingly responds, “A piece of friendly advice…Those artistic ideas of yours, I wouldn’t advertise them so openly if I were you — you never know who might hear you.” To which she replies, presciently, “I don’t care who hears me…The times are changing.”

The Dream Life of Sukhanov, in chronicling a unique world event — the twilight of the Soviet era — evokes a surrealist universe of its own, neatly meshing with the artistic chaos of the genre that first captured Sukhanov’s heart as a child. Olga Grushin, Russian by birth and now American via naturalization, has experienced first-hand the decline of Russian communism, both from within and without the country; and this personal touch lends her already sterling writing an entirely believable hue. Sukhanov as a character is difficult to be admired, and yet a decent helping of contextual pity is always present nonetheless. Upon hearing (but not heeding) the student’s retort about changing times, Sukhanov concludes the terse conversation: “The times are always changing, my dear Lida…But it would serve you well to remember that certain things always stay the same.” In the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of 1985, those “certain things” were nonexistent. For Sukhanov, then, as for the rest of the country and the world at large, the only question was whether to accept the inevitable.