I’ll drop the politics, but seriously, what do you think they were? Misunderstood? Ask the Hungarians how much they like the Soviets “helping” them. Or the people in the Baltic states? Or the Cubans. The East Germans.
The US in its worst excesses was nothing like that.
But I did read your blogs - at least the two of them that were there. Didn’t you see the post I made that quoted one of the paragraphs from one of the blogs?
Perhaps you expected me to leave some referral? I am embarassed to admit this but … although I have signed up for Twitter and for Facebook and I have used them both, I have not yet used them very much. So, although I may have read two of the blogs you wrote, I have not yet used Facebook enough to leave you any kind of message. I’m sorry.
There are lots of people in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Chile, and Indonesia who would disagree with that–and I’d agree with them. Not to mention, you know, black people, or women. (I do think we’ve made a lot of strides in very recent history–I don’t agree with Chomsky or TNC in that regard–but you’re referencing the 1940s and 1950s, when the U.S. was very much a force for evil around the world; and the Reagan era was a retrenchment in that regard, particularly in Latin America.)
@Up the Junction,
You’re welcome. Not to hijack this thread, but I agree about the fact that Sepinwall phones it in. There are factual errors in his blogs that he has been called on, as well as sloppy writing, and he doesn’t seem to do any quality control. And the fact that he totally misses things. Like, I know subtext might be a stretch for folks who believe everything must be physically manifest, but in The Americans, subtext is the fricking currency of tradecraft!
On another blog Sepinwall writes, about Better Call Saul, he missed the beautiful subtext between Mike and Stacy where she implies very strongly, but not verbally, that the money Matt left her wasn’t enough. If that wasn’t a moment for all hell to break bad, I don’t know what was.
Anyway, enough hijacking! I look forward to your next review on your blog.
Cheers
-a
I like this post a lot. It speaks to how polarizing Betty killing Betty really is.
I think this death/murder/forced suicide will go down as being as controversial in The Americans canon as Jane’s death was in Breaking Bad’s universe. Was it necessary? Would it have changed any outcome between the Russians and the FBI? I would love Betty’s death to have as brilliant a payoff as Jane’s death did, at the moment Walt confessed to Jesse.
I wouldn’t be surprised if somehow Phillip convinces Martha to frame the “new” guy, thereby mirroring Stan’s getting Nina to frame the old KGB Residentura.
As for what Oleg is up to…he’s supposed to be helping Stan get evidence implicating the defector as a plant so that she can be arrested and swapped for Nina. Oleg is probably not aware that Nina has already evaded her death sentence so his actions would make sense if he thought her pretty head was still on the chopping block.
@Athabasca - gotcha!
Back to the topic, I tend to think Elizabeth afforded Betty the choice of death at her own hand out of respect for her (and her life) but also becaaue she would hope the same for her own mother - a little dignity at the end.
It was just an act of decency. There was a whole bunch of sub text going on in that scene but I thought that much was uncomplicated.
I thought there was very little dignity afforded to Betty in that scene, and not much decency. There is no decency in murder. Betty suffered a painful death, both physically and emotionally. True, her son was spared knowing his mom was murdered, but now he might feel guilt about his mom’s suicide. The only dignified part was that her body was intact - no brains to wash off the wall, should E have shot her instead.
Plus, the murder was senseless, because of the fact that the whole mission was stupid. There’s not going to be any useful intel coming from a bug in the robot mail cart. Especially where he planted it. All you’re gonna get is noise, and maybe some muffled conversations about the Redskins and the cute secretary on the lower floor.
But that matters … not a lot 
This is the world through E’s eyes - and Betty also made it pretty clear what she thought in her final words (“evil”).
From where E comes from, this was respect and dignity: tough lady.
You throw out these"soundbites" like they make your case. Were you even alive at the time, and if so, were you paying attention? I’m not referencing the 40s and 50s, I’m talking the timeframe of P&Es living in the USA. 1965ish to 1983.
Let’s talk USA vs Soviet Russia, ignoring for now what happened in other countries. Was emigration from the US severely restricted? Were US Olympic athletes’ movements restricted, with constant surveillance by a KGB equivalent? Were political parties suppressed? Was protest against the government dealt with by summary shipment to gulags, or execution, without trial? Was there a state newspaper that only offered one “truth”?
So, how were blacks and women oppressed in this country in the 60s and 70? This is the time frame of the Civil rights movement, and the ERA (yes, it never got passed, but its effects survive). I’m not saying it was a utopia, but you make it sound like it was the antebellum South. Where was this Soviet-level of oppression that encompassed this country? You know, they let Black people eat at lunch counters even! You make it sound like Blacks and women were treated like, what, exactly? That we shot them from Army helicopters, disappeared them o their families? How does what happened in central America relate to the US at the time? We supported ruthless dictators, true, but we didn’t make them kill their own people. Just looked the other way, which is bad, but not Soviet bad.
Tell me, how were Blacks, women, Jews, treated in the Soviet Union? Were people able to worship any religion they wanted? Were they able to live where they wanted, go where they wanted, work where they wanted, start their own business if they wanted? Was there ever a “secret police” in the USA?
“The US was a force for evil!” What a load of crap! You sound like some 60s college radical, SDS, maybe. No grasp of the real world, just BS talked about between bong hits.
What "evil"was the US doing to the world in the 40s? I think you’re confusing the US with the Nazis.
I’m sure Betty appreciated the sentiment.
I hope no one ever offers me the same “dignity” for the act of deciding to work late.
In response to the question of whom to root for in this series, there’s no way I can hope for P and E to succeed. When all is said an done, I am an American, and consider myself lucky to be able to live my life here. I am also proud of much of what my country has done for the world during its history, and also of what my country represents. This is not to say there have not been mistakes, and I don’t support everything my country has done during its history.
However, when one looks at the big picture, I don’t think that there is any doubt that the United States certainly is the more noble nation. It is not perfect…no human endeavor is, or ever will be. As for the Soviet Union…their record speaks for itself, as Just Asking Questions has so effectively articulated.
Charlie Wayne, I believe you stated no one here posted that they wanted P and/or E to go to prison. That is not correct. I have stated this in more than one post.
I want my country to win, and in no way can I root for P and E. I don’t admire them. They represent a system that I abhor, and my hope at the series conclusion is that—barring defection— they languish in an American prison for the rest of their lives.
For various reasons…including, for me, that Matthew Rhys reminds me of an early-80s Lindsey Buckingham.
If caught they would most likely be swapped for American spies.
Great: Philip and Elizabeth would have gotten to see some heinous U.S. actions in all of the five countries I named (and I didn’t even go into the bombing of Cambodia and Vietnam, the napalm sprayed on little children, the destruction of villages “in order to save them”, etc.). Chile, Indonesia, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala (remember the fiery Latina Larrick killed?) all “enjoyed” genocidal crimes against humanity that had the full backing of the U.S. Not just looking the other way, but active participation. In the case of Chile, the CIA even assassinated the popularly elected president, Allende, and installed Pinochet’s brutal military junta in power. Those bong-smoking '60s radicals you sneer at had legitimate U.S. atrocities to point to–a plethora of them, and systematic ones, not scattershot.
And ask a black woman living in Mississippi in the 1940s how “noble” the U.S. was then. It surely looked a lot more that way for the affluent white men who utterly dominated government (national/state/local), the business world large and small, academia (including historians), the military, the police, the news media, and pretty much any other institution you can name.
Even in WWII, the U.S. was really just “less evil” than the Nazis, a low bar to clear. The firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo, the carpetbombing of other civilian population centers, and of course Hiroshima and Nagasaki were all heinous atrocities.
I do think we are one of the more “noble” countries in the world now, though–and that is, as I say, a way in which I differ from many others on the left who still see the U.S. in the same poor light it fully deserved only a few decades ago.
But you’re answering this question as though it was a week ago. I completely understand that’s what Stan *thinks *Oleg is up to. What I’m saying is that what Oleg actually said to Zinaida, per the subtitles, does not IMO match up either with the plan they laid out, or the way Oleg described the conversation to Stan afterward. I think Oleg is playing Stan somehow. My question is: how exactly, and why?
I found your point here really interesting, but I think you should have thrown in a spoiler warning there (I thought there were spoiler tags on this site but I don’t see them). My wife, for instance, is in the process of catching up on Breaking Bad and she just got to the episode in which the character you reference was introduced (to “Jesse Jackson”, LOL).
I am going to stick up for Alan Sepinwall here. His blog is one of my favorite hangouts, and the thing you complain he missed on BCS was pretty subtle, something I and many others missed (and can’t even really be definitively proven, although in rewatching I can see it). His “Firewall and Iceberg” podcast with Dan Fienberg is a weekly must-listen as well.
Ouch–I have to admit, that is well aimed.
I think Phillip has realized all along the inherent advantages of living in the United States and the opportunities it affords its people. Why do you think he wants Paige to grow up and live in America? He sure as hell doen’t want her to go back to the Soviet Union.
If the US were as evil as some claim, then the results would have turned out quite differently. An evil country would not permit such things as the women’s suffrage movement of the 1920’s, or the civil rights movement of the 1960’s. Those movements, and countless others, are the result of a society and a system that is 1. Free and 2. Recognizes its imperfections and allows a mechanism for positive change.
The truly evil societies never allow those ideas to take root.
Geopolitical history is not a clear cut proposition, and world events are replete with examples of countries that didn’t live up to the values to which they aspire.
That doesn’t mean they are evil.
I guess I could have quoted half the posts on this last page …
When Betty says “That’s what evil people tell themselves when they do evil things” she is speaking from the context of a husband who never recovered from seeing the results of evil in WW2.
She could have been talking about Regan’s utterly appalling policy in Central America, or the Soviets policy in Afhganistan. Equally, she could have been referencing almost unconditional US for the white supremacists in SA or Soviet oppression in Eastern Europe. She could also be talking about the treatment of blacks in the US or gays in Russia.
There are no winners here.
The Soviet empire failed because it was a rubbish economic model - but plenty of people still miss the perceieved basic sense of equality, of striving for worthy human goals, of unity. If you happen to think a US consumer-based oligarchy is better, then cool.
The point - in the context of the show - is to create exactly what is happening in this thread now: thinking.
I agree with much of what you say. I am less convinced that the US is particularly noble these days in terms of either foreign or domestic policies. The myth of American exceptionalism is one I cannot accept. Which is not to say that the US has an unrelievedly bleak history, naturally. There are moments of great achievement and progress in US history IMO.
It’s interesting to contemplate how different Philip and Elizabeth might have been if they had stayed in the Soviet Union. By the early 1980s, so many people had become extremely cynical about the official party line. Only the diehard true believers (or people who didn’t really think much about it) remained fully committed to Soviet ideology. So Elizabeth’s passionate, no-questions-asked allegiance to the cause would have been quite unusual (though admittedly in KGB circles it would have been more typical than elsewhere). Of course a lot of people paid lip service to the official views and held entirely different beliefs in private, but it’s clear that Elizabeth believes every word.
But at the same time, I think Elizabeth and Philip have been more influenced by US culture than they would like to admit. When Elizabeth sharply tells the South African activist, “I’m not American,” she is reinforcing her identity but also deceiving herself to some extent. They’ve spent half their lives in the US. If they were suddenly dropped into the Soviet Union after twenty years away, I can imagine they would experience intense culture shock.
I read up_the_creek’s blog and have a few remarks about it. But in my typical style, these remarks are extremely long and so I’m enclosing them in a spoiler box so as not to make this thread somewhat ugly with something that many of you might consider “off topic”.
However, many of you may not feel that way. So, I figured it would be best to avoid angering the group who would not appreciate a very long post about a blog from some other web site. But, it was really a great blog and so here is the link to it - for those of you who might enjoy reading it:
https://clevertelly.wordpress.com/2015/03/
I read your blog for S3E9, “Do Mail Robots Dream of Electric Sheep?”
. As I read your description of the scene between Clark and Martha coupled with their new “paradigm”, it confirmed my original thought that Martha has to be completely nuts to accept any such arrangement. After all, her entire life is at stake here. She has spent her entire working life at the FBI and she is ready to just toss it over and spend the rest of her life in prison just so that she can have a husband? And it’s only a part time husband. More than that, it’s only an imaginary husband. So many times, I have heard people say “they have to work at marriage”. But Martha actually has to work at forcing herself to believe that her marriage is real.
We have never seen Martha behave in a really crazy way. But given that she has that gun in her drawer, I sense that must be coming. In order for anyone to go along with such an arrangement, they have to be a real screwball. IMO, this is the single most interesting relationship in the entire 3 seasons and I expect something extremely dramatic to result from it. So, I fully agree with you spending so much time in this blog discussing that.
I think the following paragraph summed things up very well:
“And the deal she has made with herself? She’s in denial. She doesn’t want to be alone. Above all, she loves this man - whoever he is.”
I didn’t realize The Center was putting Martha to the test and that was an additional element causing P to be angry with TC (The Centre) and with Gabriel. I am happy when I learn things that I hadn’t previously realized. It may sound like a silly point. But it’s an important point to me.
The following paragraph confused me:
Walking with Gabriel, P instinctively senses danger for Martha and spells it out, E doesn’t miss a thing and notes the change in tone.
I didn’t notice E “not missing a thing” and “noting the change in tone”. But as I recall it, when you said:
"Later, while fetching water for Betty, E comments “It’s only natural you developed feelings for Martha”.
I recall P became visibly angry at that and said, “Thanks for your permission” to E. She replied, “I didn’t mean it like that.” But I didn’t understand. It seemed to me the writer failed to explain just how she did mean it and what the resolution would be (if any) for P & E.
I’ve never been married. But I sense there is a lot of anger shared by most married couples and the often just “swallow the anger” - meaning they just pretend it doesn’t exist - for the sake of the marriage. Anyway, I don’t expect you to reply. I just want to say that exchange confused me and I still don’t understand it. It may be due to the fact I’ve never been married.
Consider the following paragraph:
“If this were real estate, an enormous stretch of beach front would be afforded to E’s conversation with Betty Turner, …”
The above paragraph sounds quite lovely. But I don’t understand the analogy. Did you mean the writer should have spent more time dealing with the conversation between E and Betty? Does “an enormous stretch of beach front” mean “a large portion” or did you mean the conversation was something very beautiful - like a beach front. I didn’t understand that.
Finaly, here are some random notes I made.
. As I watched the “scrabble scene”, I noted that P was unhappy. But I never stopped and thought enough about it to understand all that was going on.
Your analysis as to what P was juggling and “the bitch slap” made the dynamic much more clear to me. So, thanks for that!
. I really liked your insight into Hans and “the wrong cause”. I hadn’t thought of that before and it added a nice element.
. I’m always catching typos. I guess I have an “editor’s eye”. Here is one for you:
"Hans wants rid of … " I think you meant "Hans wants to get rid of … " No?
. I loved your paragraph on “Stan and Ollie”. That was just magnificent. A real LOL moment for me. That convinced me you have real talent as a writer.
I have often daydreamed about becoming a writer. But I don’t have the talent. I can see that now. I don’t know whether to thank you. But I am very
impressed with your level of talent. IMO, it is excellent!
. I was confused by your Notes. When you talked about using the dictionary, I felt the need to look up those words as well. I remember looking up
“paradigm” a long time ago. All I remembered about it was that it confused me.
It still confuses me. Here is what I found in Dictionary.com:
NOUN
It seems to me one would have to be a freaking genius just to understand that. But I don’t think that was the meaning you were using.
Here is meaning I think applies to your blog:
or maybe it was number 3?
a. framework containing the basic assumptions, ways of thinking, and methodology that are commonly accepted by members of a scientific community.
b. such a cognitive framework shared by members of any discipline or group: the company’s business paradigm.
It’s not important to your blog or the show. I’m just unhappy that I couldn’t remember what the word meant even after looking it up. Of course, it was about 20 years ago.
In this case I’m guessing it meant that Martha and Clark are both now thinking of their relationship in a new framework.
Paradigm Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
I guess the only negative reaction I had was your use of the word “paradigm”. Wouldn’t there have been a simpler word you could have used that most of a TV audience would understand?
I know it will sound elitist, but a TV audience consists of a cross section of the population and it seems to me that only the top ten percent of the population walk around knowing what “paradigm” means.
Or maybe I’m just unhappy that after looking it up 20 years ago, I couldn’t remember what it meant and had to look it up again. And it still confuses me. Yikes! I’m guessing that will sound very sad to anyone reading it.
In conclusion, I really enjoyed reading your blow with the idea that I would try to offer you some advice on being a writer. In the end, I realized how stupid that was because you are obviously very talented far beyond any imaginary daydreams I have ever had about being a writer. But I had a lot of fun while reading your blog and writing this comment about it.
I did add my email addy to the place where it said, “Follow Blog via Email”. And I left a reply too. Do we not get to see what other people have left in that “Reply” box?
P.S. A very minor point:
It is a very minor point. But it’s about the writer (Joshua Brand) and not about your blog. If someone is writing something for the general TV audience, why use a reference to “Dreaming of Electric Sheep?”. I would guess one could come up with many different titles that refer to a “Mail Robot”. Why use something about “Dreaming of Electric Sheep?” I would guess that only a tiny fraction of the general TV audience would have ever heard of the writer “Phillip Dick” or of his book, “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?”. I could be wrong about that. But it seems to me that author as well as his books (like The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy) would only be familiar to the group of people who enjoy Sci-Fi stuff and that is not necessarily the same group of people who would be attracted by this kind of TV show. I have a bad feeling about this point and my little voice is telling me that I would be better off just to forget it. But I remember that the very first thing I thought after watching this episode was that I had a negative reaction to this writer and so I feel the need to ask you whether my point about referring to the novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep” in the title of this episode might be a mistake. Or do you think I’m just nit-picking about that? Or would you reply that it is just too minor to squawk about?