Wow, Jack's a jerk.

Betha Bristow said:
You can't blame him. All he was used to was Irina (who is an evil liar)
You mean I'm not alone in feeling that way after the finale? :blink:

The people on the SD-1 boards seem to think that Irina is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and that I'm the one who's nuts for thinking she's gone off the deep end! :lol:
 
Ophelia said:
The people on the SD-1 boards seem to think that Irina is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and that I'm the one who's nuts for thinking she's gone off the deep end! :lol:
I think that the casting and writing for Irina has been brilliant in that the audience response to Irina seems to be exactly what the typical response to the character is supposed to be within the Alias-verse: she's absolutely charmed nearly every everyone into submission. She seems to have garnered a great deal more sympathy than Jack, whom she victimized, in fact viewing her victimization of Jack--accomplished by her own choice--as the source of her own victimization. As I have said, I can see one or two possible motives that could make her more of a heroine (in the she's good camp), but we have insufficient data to know if these motives exist or if they are enough to outweigh her enormous and admitted crimes. We see both Sark and Irina kill foes who could have easily been incapacitated instead, yet it's Sark=bad and Irina=good (Oh, she's old-school; that's how she was trained. Yeah, she's a dinosaur who can't learn anything new . . . Tell me another one). Wait a minute; this is turning into a rant . . . Sorry. I like Irina--but!

As far as Elsa Caplan goes: Irina certainly seems sincere even when she's not. Others do as well. You have to push to really know with a trained liar (which is what Elsa Caplan is), and Sydney didn't do that. I again say that she was a coward. If she really loved her husband, she should have told him the truth and thrown herself upon his mercy and begged to defect. Instead she just put it off until the endgame kicked in--an eventual possibility of which she was well aware. Her fear outweighed her love. So someone confronted her with the truth in pretty uncomfortable terms! Boo hoo! She's in a dirty game and if she can't stand a little mud getting on her she shouldn't have gotten into it. She passed the test and she's set now.

Meanwhile, Jack had to test the woman for his daughter's sake--he had to find some way of checking her story beyond gut instinct based on surface details. Jack knows that Sydney sometimes makes snap decisions based on limited information that are dead wrong (like when she said she was going to nail him for being responsible for her mother's death, remember?), so he had reason to want to make a separate assessment. Unfortunately, this required pushing Elsa Caplan--and because he had to tap into his own experience and say some of the things that he hadn't the opportunity to hash out (and probably had been dying to hash out) with Irina--he went farther than he intended, as his evident chagrin showed. Can we blame a man who has suffered so much for getting a little carried away? Yes, he went too far. Yes, it was understandable. Cut the poor man a break.

OK, rant over.
;)
 
Jack was just testing Elsa...he wasn't just "being a big meanie" or dwelling on Irina...I believe that he was in total control during the entire interrogation...he had to test her reaction so he could find her true motives...
 
verdantheart said:
kylo4 said:
He just thought that no Russian people like her and his wife are good.
Gotta disagree with you there. But I'd think that he believes that anyone who uses sex and someone's love for them as a tool to get the job done has questionable morals. And I'll go on to say that I agree (with Jack) to the point that I'd suggest that such a person might want to examine his or her morals. It's not a job that I personally could do. My country would just have to get the intel some other way. And maybe that's one reason US intelligence doesn't do as well in that department, as a matter of fact.
;)
And maybe that's one reason US intelligence doesn't do as well in that department, as a matter of fact.
I gotta disagree with you . I think we do as well as anybody in that department. If not better. -_-
 
SydneyFan said:
I gotta disagree with you . I think we do as well as anybody in that department. If not better. -_-
We do well in tech/analysis. Historically, we have not done as well as other countries in the people game. Certainly not as well as, say, Israel.
;)
 
verdantheart said:
SydneyFan said:
I gotta disagree with you . I think we do as well as anybody in that department. If not better. -_-
We do well in tech/analysis. Historically, we have not done as well as other countries in the people game. Certainly not as well as, say, Israel.
;)
At least the Americans never had to ban a branch of their intellegence service from going on operations or carrying weapons.

...unlike Australia
 
Back
Top