Season 2 Would you betray someone you love?
- Thread starter verdantheart
- Start date
-
- Tags
- alias
V
verdantheart
Guest
No, although I in fact do like her (but obviously don't condone her actions even if her intentions, as some hope, are "good"--you know what they say about good intentions), I say that more because if she loves those she uses it makes her all the more complex, and actually I do like complex characters. (It's probably why I frequently tend to like the villains of a piece more than the heroes . . .) Frankly, that's one of the primary reasons why I'm so taken with Jack . . . (The other reasons have to do with why he's so complex . . .)iL0v3vAuGhN said:
V
verdantheart
Guest
OK, you asked for it. I posted The Flour Moth, such as it is.AliasALIAS said:please do. I'm sure it would be interesting to read.verdantheart said:I actually wrote a piece of fanfic (and I never write fanfic) that touches on this a little (it's mostly a character study, actually), don't know if I'll ever post it.Victoria King said:
V
verdantheart
Guest
Based on the promo for the next episode, it looks like the hypothesis that Jack and Irina concocted a plan together is even less likely, wouldn't you say? Unless that (the Sydney/Irina angst) is merely for show--which I find to be an unlikely scenario.
Twenty years ago, Jack was indeed blinded by his love for his wife. Had his subconscious picked up some tell-tale signs of Irina's treachery, his conscious mind probably would have argued against it, based on the ground that "Laura" had been an English teacher and a loving wife. The current circumstance differs from "the first time" in that Jack now knows for a fact that Irina once betrayed his confidence and is fully capable of doing it again. This is a fact that he can neither ignor nor rationalize away. Therefore, as much as Jack's judgment is influenced by his emotion when it comes to Irina, to be "played" by her again predicates on his complete disregard for facts and logic. And a complete disregard for facts and logic is out of character for Jack.verdantheart said:
I think Jack willingly went along with Irina's plan because he has one of his own. What does he have to lose by letting Irina escape? Nothing. His #1 priority has been (and will always be, I think) Sydney – her safety and her happiness – which means his current concern is Sloane. If Irina places her love for her daughter above all, Jack then has a powerful ally in protecting Sydney from Sloane. If Irina is as Rambaldi-obssessed as Sloane is, then she will turn against Sloane eventually (because neither is of the sharing type), in which case she becomes a deterrent if not an ally, a la the enemy of my enemy. Either way Jack wins.
It is indeed unlikely that they concocted a plan together, because there is just not enough trust between the two of them. A more likely scenario is that they each had his/her own plan but recognized that their individual plans are not mutually exclusive.verdantheart said:Based on the promo for the next episode, it looks like the hypothesis that Jack and Irina concocted a plan together is even less likely, wouldn't you say? Unless that (the Sydney/Irina angst) is merely for show--which I find to be an unlikely scenario.
V
verdantheart
Guest
It's a good theory, but I don't quite go for it. If Jack believes that Irina desired to escape, he has no reason whatsoever to believe that Irina places her love for Sydney first. Meanwhile, having Irina and Sloane together gives Sydney added incentive to jump into the fire--and a very dangerous fire at that. Even with an eventually deteriorating relationship between Sloane and Irina, Sydney is bound to end up in the mix somewhere--in a very volatile mix, and a mix in which Sydney could hardly be expected to think objectively. I don't see how Jack could see this outcome as protecting Sydney in any way, because how is he going to keep Sydney away from the action while he patiently awaits for the inevitable collapse? Even without Irina there, you have Sark and the tensions that would bring to bear. I have a hard time seeing a solid strategy in letting Irina go. Let's just say I wouldn't be gambling at her table. ("The enemy of my enemy"? Yikes, what a friend!)Kit said:
Really, why is it so difficult for people to believe that it's possible for Jack to allow himself to be blinded by emotion--even twice? The man's been starved for love for years! Sloane gave him a clear trail to follow to Kane and he needed Irina's help to guide him along, didn't he? He was already clearly distracted then. Add to that the fact that it's always been impossible for him to read Irina--how could he rationally plan to set her loose?
You see this "disregard for facts and logic" as out of character. I see your point, but I'm afraid that I disagree. The reason that I disagree is that there has been a lot of character work to the contrary laid out. However, much of it is subtle and can be easily overlooked. What we mostly see from Jack is the ultra-rational analyst, the man with no life. But that's what he did to himself in response to Irina's treachery and his need to survive undercover. This is not Jack's "natural" state, nor what he was when he, "Laura" and Sydney were a family. He has a tremendously large heart--we see it all the time in the lengths he goes to to protect Sydney. Isn't that one of the main reasons we like him so very much? Do we love him because he's unemotional?
Jack says that he and Sloane shared "a similar unsentimental patriotism . . . and devotion to our wives." That devotion--sorry, folks--trumps unsentimental patriotism, you can hear it in the sad tenor of his voice (and Sloane's left his patriotism, but not his devotion, far behind). When "Laura" died, Jack mourned her deeply, despite what he knew she was. He never let her go, never stopped loving her. When he discovered--with Sydney's assistance--that Irina was still alive, he was shaken to the core. It must have been like a miracle to him--or a resounding tragedy.
Why was Jack so shaken when he heard what Irina had to say about him at her debriefing? It was only what he could have expected through logic. No, he hoped to hear some hint that she actually cared about him. Why was he so desperately, irrationally frightened by the prospect of his daughter's contact with her mother? Come now, he sounded paranoid, no question about it. There was some logic in it, but it was overwhelmingly charged with emotion--which is one reason why people weren't listening. And the more they didn't listen, the more emotional he got. And he knows he can't handle Irina, doesn't he? He assiduously avoided contact with her, dropping by only to threaten her (for Sydney's safety) until forced by Sydney to come along on the mission to India. After that, he couldn't stay away, could he? Isn't it possible that subconsciously Jack hoped that the miracle of Irina's resurrection could translate into a second chance for the two of them? No, of course it didn't make the slightest logical, rational sense, but wouldn't it be his dearest wish? And all he had to do was give in just a little, just enough . . . just close his eyes for a moment . . . just long enough for a kiss.
I think people want to believe that Jack has his own plan here--or that he has a plan with Irina--because they like Jack a lot and don't want to see him hurt so badly--fooled, not once but twice, humiliated, heartbroken. I love the character and feel for him too--as though he were a real person (to the extent that I'm putting way too much time in writing this, actually!)--but this is the stuff of drama. Jack's inability to let go of his love, his ability to forgive his beloved, are part of why I love the character. Jack's not going to be down forever. Our heroes have been getting kicked around a lot (!) lately, but I'm looking for the tide to turn.
Sure it's possible I'm wrong here . . . Maybe Jack formulated a plan as they winged back from India . . . sorry for the length of this response . . .
Well, how's this? Particularly after seeing the promo for next week, I don't believe Jack and Irina are working together, and I think Jack let his emotions get hold of him one more time.
My dilemma is much more Irina-centered. Maybe my flaw here is attempting to analyze the situation logically in its historical context, but I don't think that there's any way that she could have been with Jack for ten years and had his child without defying some major directives from the KGB. I believe that she did the time in Kashmir, whether over something specific she did for Jack/Sydney or a more general "maybe next time you'll take us seriously" sort of thing is too difficult to say. Long story short (too late!), though, my personal theory is that Irina grew more attached to her life and family in the U.S. than she was to the KGB, they didn't like it, and she paid the price.
The ultimate question, obviously, is where do her loyalties lie now? With Sloane? I think that's completely unlikely, for reasons that I can't quite explain, except to say that if she really wants Rambaldi, which inherently means power, it's illogical to align yourself completely with someone else. Only one person can hold absolute power.
With herself? Possibly. In which case a temporary alliance with Sloane would make sense-- he has Rambaldi info/artifacts she wants or needs, and she knows concretely that Sloane can't be Rambaldi's prophecy, unless he's doing a really good job of cross-dressing. So she may need him temporarily until she has enough tech and info to fulfill the prophecy for herself.
But just because she's loyal to herself for purposes of the Rambaldi prophecy doesn't mean she's bad or evil. And I don't think (although naturally this is just my opinion) that being loyal to herself for Rambaldi rules out at all a concern for Jack and Sydney. What if...
Sloane said in A Free Agent that he's been studying Rambaldi for 30 years. Maybe, way back when Laura Bristow was just an English prof and Jack Bristow's wife, Sloane somehow realized that "Laura" was the woman in Rambaldi's prophecy. Maybe the KGB realized this as well-- I don't think it's likely that the KGB would concern themselves with Rambaldi, but then, there's the CIA. It's essential to either of those parties to have her on their side in order to "destroy the greatest power". But that is a misreading of the prophecy. The woman in the prophecy can destroy "the greatest power", not whoever someone else decides is the greatest power (hmmm, maybe SpyMommy was responsible for the collapse of Communism?? Hee.). With her knowledge of Rambaldi, Irina surely understands this, and also maybe that, the more Rambaldi devices Sloane acquires, the more powerful he becomes. If she helps him to become the greatest power... then that is what she renders unto utter desolation, thereby (maybe) freeing Sydney and Jack from their constant fight against Sloane, and freeing herself to go back to them.
Of course, the question then is what she does post-Sloane. Does she grab the power for herself or is she satisfied with destroying him? From the promo, it looks to me like she thinks she's fated to be where she is and can't quite control her destiny.
To sum up:
Jack-- duped
Irina-- way too soon to tell whether her seeming betrayal is what it looks like
God, I really hope that made some sense. As always, YMMV. My opinions, like anyone else's, are not in any way shape or form fact, or superior to someone else's theory.
My dilemma is much more Irina-centered. Maybe my flaw here is attempting to analyze the situation logically in its historical context, but I don't think that there's any way that she could have been with Jack for ten years and had his child without defying some major directives from the KGB. I believe that she did the time in Kashmir, whether over something specific she did for Jack/Sydney or a more general "maybe next time you'll take us seriously" sort of thing is too difficult to say. Long story short (too late!), though, my personal theory is that Irina grew more attached to her life and family in the U.S. than she was to the KGB, they didn't like it, and she paid the price.
The ultimate question, obviously, is where do her loyalties lie now? With Sloane? I think that's completely unlikely, for reasons that I can't quite explain, except to say that if she really wants Rambaldi, which inherently means power, it's illogical to align yourself completely with someone else. Only one person can hold absolute power.
With herself? Possibly. In which case a temporary alliance with Sloane would make sense-- he has Rambaldi info/artifacts she wants or needs, and she knows concretely that Sloane can't be Rambaldi's prophecy, unless he's doing a really good job of cross-dressing. So she may need him temporarily until she has enough tech and info to fulfill the prophecy for herself.
But just because she's loyal to herself for purposes of the Rambaldi prophecy doesn't mean she's bad or evil. And I don't think (although naturally this is just my opinion) that being loyal to herself for Rambaldi rules out at all a concern for Jack and Sydney. What if...
Sloane said in A Free Agent that he's been studying Rambaldi for 30 years. Maybe, way back when Laura Bristow was just an English prof and Jack Bristow's wife, Sloane somehow realized that "Laura" was the woman in Rambaldi's prophecy. Maybe the KGB realized this as well-- I don't think it's likely that the KGB would concern themselves with Rambaldi, but then, there's the CIA. It's essential to either of those parties to have her on their side in order to "destroy the greatest power". But that is a misreading of the prophecy. The woman in the prophecy can destroy "the greatest power", not whoever someone else decides is the greatest power (hmmm, maybe SpyMommy was responsible for the collapse of Communism?? Hee.). With her knowledge of Rambaldi, Irina surely understands this, and also maybe that, the more Rambaldi devices Sloane acquires, the more powerful he becomes. If she helps him to become the greatest power... then that is what she renders unto utter desolation, thereby (maybe) freeing Sydney and Jack from their constant fight against Sloane, and freeing herself to go back to them.
Of course, the question then is what she does post-Sloane. Does she grab the power for herself or is she satisfied with destroying him? From the promo, it looks to me like she thinks she's fated to be where she is and can't quite control her destiny.
To sum up:
Jack-- duped
Irina-- way too soon to tell whether her seeming betrayal is what it looks like
God, I really hope that made some sense.
As always, YMMV. My opinions, like anyone else's, are not in any way shape or form fact, or superior to someone else's theory.
V
verdantheart
Guest
I tend to agree with a lot of what you say. It is way to early to assess Irina's motives, and, indeed, I'm not sure that she herself completely understands them. She has a way of interweaving threads of truth and lies and halftruths together into a cord that is impossible to tease apart. I believe that she uses her own emotions to deceive--and, in fact, she did feel love for her family and used that to deceive Jack during their marriage.
However, if she indeed feels love for Jack now--and I believe that to be a very strong possibility--she has a great deal to make up for. Does she believe that she can use him and abandon him like so much wreckage along the roadside (broken glass, ripped rubber) and pick him up again whenever she wants? Perhaps. He is so deeply in love with her and so forgiving. But she treats him as though he is completely expendable to her whether she in her heart loves him or not.
I think it's entirely possible that she might see her feelings for Jack and Sydney as weaknesses and hate herself for those feelings. She might even be tempted to punish Jack for making her feel that way. But it's impossible to tell whether this is true. Irina is completely opaque. This is why Irina needs to return next season--so we can shine a light inside and see what is in there!
Her primary motivation may yet be an obsession to "find a deeper meaning" through Rambaldi's work. But it's hard to tell, because she is yet ambiguous. She does terrible things, but they might be extreme actions taken to prevent even more extreme evil--or they might be things she does to increase her Rambaldi collection. Only time can tell us that for certain.
(BTW--Irina's imprisonment: I have a theory about what that was for--and it was for good reason if I'm right.)
(hm, long post to say "yes, I agree", huh?)
However, if she indeed feels love for Jack now--and I believe that to be a very strong possibility--she has a great deal to make up for. Does she believe that she can use him and abandon him like so much wreckage along the roadside (broken glass, ripped rubber) and pick him up again whenever she wants? Perhaps. He is so deeply in love with her and so forgiving. But she treats him as though he is completely expendable to her whether she in her heart loves him or not.
I think it's entirely possible that she might see her feelings for Jack and Sydney as weaknesses and hate herself for those feelings. She might even be tempted to punish Jack for making her feel that way. But it's impossible to tell whether this is true. Irina is completely opaque. This is why Irina needs to return next season--so we can shine a light inside and see what is in there!
Her primary motivation may yet be an obsession to "find a deeper meaning" through Rambaldi's work. But it's hard to tell, because she is yet ambiguous. She does terrible things, but they might be extreme actions taken to prevent even more extreme evil--or they might be things she does to increase her Rambaldi collection. Only time can tell us that for certain.
(BTW--Irina's imprisonment: I have a theory about what that was for--and it was for good reason if I'm right.)
(hm, long post to say "yes, I agree", huh?)
What an interesting thread! I agree with much of what you guys said about Irina. However, I still have a very hard time believing Jack was "duped" again because it goes against my basic perception of this character.
What we do know, however, is that he has always been considered an expert on game theory. In my limited experience, game theorists tend to be the kind of people who are very much predisposed to think logically and to behave unsentimentally. This is not to say that Jack is incapable of deep love or great passion - on the contrary, we have witnessed the great length he would go to for his daughter and the intense emotions evoked by his wife - but it does suggest that Jack is inclined to act rationally. Thus, I do not believe that being "blinded by his emotions" is Jack's nature state; in fact, Irina's choice of phrase suggested such behavior was atypical of Jack. As such, a complete disregard for facts and logic is out of character for him.
Another thing we have learned about Jack is his willingness to take enormous risks in order to achieve his endgame. At the present, that endgame seems to be the demise of Sloane, who continues to be the bane of Sydney's existence. If Jack believes CIA is ineffectual in solving the "Sloane problem" then it is conceivable for him to formulate a potentially effective, albeit risky, strategy on his own. One could argue that Irina, when being outside CIA custody, is more useful to Jack than her being inside. Irina's escape does not necessarily indicate that she does not love her daughter above all, nor does it signify her permanent alliance with Sloane. And "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" fits quite well with Jack's "the end justifies the means" mentality.
I do not doubt Jack's popularity being a cause for some wishing him not being "duped" again, yet I wish to offer another perspective: mind games are stimulating only if there are two worthy adversaries; if Jack was so easily fooled by Irina once again, what's the fun in that? Thus, a part of me indeed wishes that Jack's seeming madness disguises a solid strategy. As for the part of me that believes him actually having something up his sleeves, well, she will put a crow in the freezer right after this post (just in case it will be needed in a few months) . :lol:
Perhaps this is the crux of the issue, then. What is Jack's "nature" state? What was he like before "Laura" disappeared? There has been scant direct evidence to afford any concrete conclusions. That Jack is ultra analytical post-Irina does not necessarily mean he was not so pre-Irina.verdantheart said:
What we do know, however, is that he has always been considered an expert on game theory. In my limited experience, game theorists tend to be the kind of people who are very much predisposed to think logically and to behave unsentimentally. This is not to say that Jack is incapable of deep love or great passion - on the contrary, we have witnessed the great length he would go to for his daughter and the intense emotions evoked by his wife - but it does suggest that Jack is inclined to act rationally. Thus, I do not believe that being "blinded by his emotions" is Jack's nature state; in fact, Irina's choice of phrase suggested such behavior was atypical of Jack. As such, a complete disregard for facts and logic is out of character for him.
Another thing we have learned about Jack is his willingness to take enormous risks in order to achieve his endgame. At the present, that endgame seems to be the demise of Sloane, who continues to be the bane of Sydney's existence. If Jack believes CIA is ineffectual in solving the "Sloane problem" then it is conceivable for him to formulate a potentially effective, albeit risky, strategy on his own. One could argue that Irina, when being outside CIA custody, is more useful to Jack than her being inside. Irina's escape does not necessarily indicate that she does not love her daughter above all, nor does it signify her permanent alliance with Sloane. And "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" fits quite well with Jack's "the end justifies the means" mentality.
I do not doubt Jack's popularity being a cause for some wishing him not being "duped" again, yet I wish to offer another perspective: mind games are stimulating only if there are two worthy adversaries; if Jack was so easily fooled by Irina once again, what's the fun in that? Thus, a part of me indeed wishes that Jack's seeming madness disguises a solid strategy. As for the part of me that believes him actually having something up his sleeves, well, she will put a crow in the freezer right after this post (just in case it will be needed in a few months) . :lol:
So? Does it have to be a lie just because she said it? I'm not sure about the whole shooting Syd thing but I believe she was being genuine when she said she was a KGB prisioner. Just watch the episode again. She had this "look" in her eyes everytime Jack or Syd mentioned that she used to be an "officer" there.
SiriCerasi
Cadet
About the shoooting Syd... just because she said it doesnt mean its a lie, she could be telling the truth.
You can sorta tell when she's telling the truth, like Manu said she gets a look
You can sorta tell when she's telling the truth, like Manu said she gets a look
V
verdantheart
Guest
There's a clue that there's something up with the shooting because when Irina shoots Sydney, she asks her a question that she already knows the answer to ("Who are you working for?"--the CIA). Just as in "Passage Part 2" Irina threatens Jack as she asks him a question that she already knows the answer to ("Who is Sloane's new partner?"--Sark). So it seems to me that she is performing for a third party. However, whether the third party is who she says it is, and whether she has to do what she did for the reason that she said she did is a good question.
SiriCerasi
Cadet
Or she could just be asking the question to buy time, and in both cases a reason to hurt Sydney and Jack and then conveniently leave them alone to "think abou it" ie giving them time to escape.
V
verdantheart
Guest
I may well be at the risk of beating a dead horse, but I think you brought up some very valid issues, Kit.
You could well be right, but I still maintain that it wasn't set up nor played that way.
True enough, and I believe that he was an analytical man, but not with regard to his personal life. Had he been so, I think that it would have been difficult for him to go 10 years without suspecting anything. Afterward, he had to become analytical with regard to his personal life because he was working under cover. However, we have little evidence he has been particularly successful in analyzing Irina's plans or motives. She appears to be a "blind spot" in his falcon's eye.Kit said:
But it is his reaction to Irina. Thus Jack's initial strategy (and I choose that word intentionally) of staying away from Irina. The only time he willingly approached her was to deliver a rehearsed message threatening her should she hurt Sydney. He strenuously avoided contact with her after that until the issue was forced by Sydney and he had to embark on a mission with her. Then, moves to get her better prison conditions, excuses to seek her help (really, Sloane did give him enough help with Kane for him to work it out himself), continual meetings with her . . . You have logic at war with love, hope and desire. My feeling is that logic is probably outnumbered and outarmed.
Still not seeing the reward for the risk. Not to say it's not there, but . . .
I see a lot of "fun" in that, frankly. For one thing, it sets up a great deal within both the characters of Jack and Irina that can be explored for a long time to come. As it stands now, Jack's painted almost as a classic tragic hero, a very compelling figure. And what he does as a result of renewed injury is a huge question, and one that, for me is much more interesting than his being in control because we have the added emotional dimension of how he responds to the emotional pain. How does Sydney try to help him? (If we don't get to see all this fallout, I'm really going to be unhappy . . .) We already have mind vs. mind with Jack vs. Sloane. With Irina the emotional betrayal adds resonance and hits you where you live. (Of course, they could play up the betrayal-of-a-friend angle with Jack/Sloane--that could be great, but we haven't seen that brought out yet . . .) Plus, I don't necessarily see that Jack's being "fooled" makes him an "unworthy adversary" in the long run. It's a setback, certainly, but it could set up some very interesting confrontations. It really has been a bit depressing--in the best possible way--the last few weeks because our heroes have been so out of control of the situation and their wins have been minor (rescuing Caplan's family and getting the firebomb machine).
You could well be right, but I still maintain that it wasn't set up nor played that way.
Yet another fascinating aspect of Alias - things are open to varied interpretations and the truth takes (very long) time. With Episode 2.18 around the corner (less than 34 hours, wheeeee), I am really looking forward to some Irina-heavy storylines ...verdantheart said:
... and eagerly awaiting your new post-episode commentaries as well.
V
verdantheart
Guest
That's why I like Shakespeare so much, too. There's so much room for interpretation. Even when I see things as pretty simple, other people can make them complex and build up some pretty convincing arguments. Or they can argue that Shakespeare's saying exactly the opposite of what I think he's saying (Julius Caesar comes to mind).Kit said:
V
verdantheart
Guest
Well, I stand corrected. The writers indeed were having Jack hedge his bets--which required a little fancy dancing in their storytelling--revealed in "The Truth Takes Time." I'll get into that when I talk about that episode.verdantheart said:Perhaps Jack was testing her, we shall see. But why then pretend such concern about the manuscript? Again, that is not how it played. Let's remember that while Alias frequently hides what its villains are up to (and let's include Irina in this category because her motives are decidedly ambiguous), it almost never hides the actions of its heroes. In my opionion, it would be somewhat underhanded storytelling for the writers to present the story in this manner, and Alias storytelling is top-knotch.
V
verdantheart
Guest
Nothing like a magic edit button. Since my bold thought that Jack was fooled was obviously not right, I came back to open the door--but I only had to open it a crack to get at what I think really happened, which is that Jack intentionally let himself be fooled. (If you look at it what he did barely covered him with the CIA.) But I was never really happy with that section in the first place, so there you have it.
