An interesting point that you make there Binkie about Lucas putting a hand over his mouth whenever he is distressed. That's something I have not considered, and now it makes me curious as to if RA had intended for this action to have the same meaning as you interpreted, or it was simply just a part of acting.

(12-12-2010 07:41 PM)BravoNine Wrote:  An interesting point that you make there Binkie about Lucas putting a hand over his mouth whenever he is distressed. That's something I have not considered, and now it makes me curious as to if RA had intended for this action to have the same meaning as you interpreted, or it was simply just a part of acting.

Mm, I was thinking the same thing, because now that I think about it, RA did do a lot of mouth-covering. It's an extremely interesting point, and to be honest I wouldn't put it past RA to have considered a few of his characters deep-rooted personality traits. I seem to remember reading somewhere that he spent a lot of time writing out diary-entry style pieces for his character in order to better understand how prison would have affected Lucas? If that was the case, then I'd say there is a possibility that a lot of the acting intended to signify certain aspects of Lucas' character. Or else we're all looking too far into it

(12-12-2010 07:44 PM)Byatil Wrote:  Or else we're all looking too far into it

Oh there's always a chance of that

(Apologies for just barging into this thread here - hope you'll forgive me)

It's an interesting point about the mouth-covering thing, and I agree that I wouldn't put it past RA to have made a conscious effort into doing that. But one thing I do wonder about Lucas and his tattoos is why, upon his return to England, did he not have the removed? I would have thought that he would have wanted to. He seemed so keen to try and forget the past (although it proved difficult, as things kept bringing up memories), and, in my opinion at least, it would have made sense for him to get rid of one of the most major memories of his time in Russia: his tattoos.

(12-12-2010 07:49 PM)blackpearl23456 Wrote:  But one thing I do wonder about Lucas and his tattoos is why, upon his return to England, did he not have the removed? I would have thought that he would have wanted to. He seemed so keen to try and forget the past (although it proved difficult, as things kept bringing up memories), and, in my opinion at least, it would have made sense for him to get rid of one of the most major memories of his time in Russia: his tattoos.

I think in a way he probably liked to remind people (as well as himself) of what he'd been through. He never seems to 'let go' of his experience in Russia, and often repeats phrases such as "I did 8 years for this!" in retort to his co-workers. I don't think it is the tattoos themselves that make Lucas feel uncomfortable, but more likely the fact that they reveal aspects of his persona that would not necessarily be obvious to everyone he interacts with. He never appears self-conscious over his tattoos (except when Elizabeta comments on them and he covers the band on his arm), and indeed has a tendency to show them off somewhat. The scene in 7.1 where Lucas is washing himself in the bathroom almost seems slightly unnecessary - if Lucas didn't want people to see his tattoos, surely he would have put his shirt back on upon noticing Harry enter the room. However, he proceeds to show Harry both the front and back of his torso and they discuss the Latin phrases. That implies to me that the tattoos are not only being used as a plot device in terms of Lucas' character, but that they were also required as part of Lucas' interaction with others, and as part of 'telling his story'.

So I'm not convinced that Lucas (the character) would have been particularly bothered about having the tattoos removed, and the tattoos themselves were a plot-device in terms of the script and it would therefore have made little sense for Lucas to have wanted rid of them.

If we also take into account the culture of prison tattooing, I'm assuming there would be an underlying meaning for Lucas' desire to keep the tattoos. It might be something as simple as the logic that "wiping away the ink won't destroy the memories", or indeed something to do with the associations of the tattoos.

My thoughts are becoming rather disjointed and nonsensical so I'll leave someone else to decipher them!

(12-12-2010 07:44 PM)Byatil Wrote:  

(12-12-2010 07:41 PM)BravoNine Wrote:  An interesting point that you make there Binkie about Lucas putting a hand over his mouth whenever he is distressed. That's something I have not considered, and now it makes me curious as to if RA had intended for this action to have the same meaning as you interpreted, or it was simply just a part of acting.

Mm, I was thinking the same thing, because now that I think about it, RA did do a lot of mouth-covering. It's an extremely interesting point, and to be honest I wouldn't put it past RA to have considered a few of his characters deep-rooted personality traits. I seem to remember reading somewhere that he spent a lot of time writing out diary-entry style pieces for his character in order to better understand how prison would have affected Lucas? If that was the case, then I'd say there is a possibility that a lot of the acting intended to signify certain aspects of Lucas' character. Or else we're all looking too far into it

I’m not sure if this discussion belongs here, or if it should migrate to the Lucas thread.

I'd like to think this is more than a case of looking too far into something - or of over-analysing a particular acting tic. I agree with you, Byatil, that an actor who seems to invest so much in the collation of character detail is unlikely to bring his own habits to bear on the performance of that character (sorry, BravoNine, if this is not what you meant).

If we consider the occasions on which the habit is most apparent, we can, I think, make a clear identification of a relational pattern of cognitive connections and the external manifestation of those connections. I’m not suggesting that the habit relates specifically to a conscious effort on Lucas’ part not to speak, or that it relates always to an internalised prohibition on speaking. Rather, it is a learned and practiced behavioural device arising from a need to withstand emotional collapse. It is a distraction technique. I think the habit is a behavioural equivalent of the name-rank-and-serial-number device by which captured combatants resist interrogation.

The habit is one which, more often than not, is employed in situations in which Lucas needs to regain some kind of control over his circumstances, whether this is emotionally or operationally. For example, the closest he comes to asking for help is in 8.4 when he tells Harry that he has lost control of the situation with Oleg: “I don’t know what to do.” Equally, when, in 7.8, he begins to process the implications of what Connie has told him (whether or not it is the truth) he defaults to this behaviour because it distracts him from those implications and means he can respond to Ros when she asks him if he is alright.

Good grief! I need to leave this thread alone

(12-12-2010 07:49 PM)blackpearl23456 Wrote:  ...one thing I do wonder about Lucas and his tattoos is why, upon his return to England, did he not have the removed? I would have thought that he would have wanted to. He seemed so keen to try and forget the past (although it proved difficult, as things kept bringing up memories), and, in my opinion at least, it would have made sense for him to get rid of one of the most major memories of his time in Russia: his tattoos.

This question creates potential for a wide range of discussions, touching on, among other things, considerations of identity and anonymity, instruction and obedience, separation and loss, and conscious and unconscious memory. It also allows us to address some interesting additional questions having to do with aspects of personal and cultural memory, and invested and commodified memory. Is memory a controlled, or a controlling, value in the human condition? And how much is this altered or challenged by the experience of extreme circumstances?

I suspect some of the answers lie in the detail of Byatil’s observation that:

(12-12-2010 08:01 PM)Byatil Wrote:  I think in a way he probably liked to remind people (as well as himself) of what he'd been through.

We might also profit from a return to the point made by Belle that:

(07-12-2010 12:56 PM)Belle Wrote:  ...sailors f.i. got tattood for reasons of recognition, if they would drown on sea and their bodies were found beyond recognition, one could tell who they were by looking at the tattoos they got. So they actually equalled who they were with their tattoos.

I will try to work up something coherent on this later today, or tomorrow.

Incidentally, Byatil, I do not believe the thoughts you set out in your earlier post are disjointed or nonsensical. I think you are being rather harsh on your ability to express yourself in an engaging and cogent fashion. I will almost certainly be making shameless and repeated reference to the content of your post in whatever I have to say later

Just to briefly return to the point about Katchimov being Lucas' "only company", it's also interesting that when he meets Elizabeta in the park, he tells her "8 years... all I thought about was you". Seems he has a habit of telling these little white lies!

In the same scene, before he goes into a slight rage ("How much time did I waste?") he covers his hand with his mouth, which further supports binkie's argument. It'll be interesting to see if he repeats the same action before saying anything which may cause conflict, or indeed before 'wearing his heart on his sleeve'.

I always think of the S7 version as "right," i.e. he thought of Elizaveta during his time in prison, rather than the silly version of S9.

(15-12-2010 08:25 AM)BoHenley Wrote:  I always think of the S7 version as "right," i.e. he thought of Elizaveta during his time in prison, rather than the silly version of S9.

Exactly!

The writers can't have it both ways, either he is an evil psychopathic killer and liar OR he is just misunderstood and mentally messed up by things that happened in his life. The writers want to have their cake and eat it too, but that's not how it works, choose one, you can't keep contradicting yourself in a script. Either he simply is just a killer and a liar OR he is our real Lucas.

(15-12-2010 03:20 AM)Byatil Wrote:  Just to briefly return to the point about Katchimov being Lucas' "only company", it's also interesting that when he meets Elizabeta in the park, he tells her "8 years... all I thought about was you". Seems he has a habit of telling these little white lies!

Admittedly, not related to the tattoos, but onward nevertheless...


I'm curious as to why you characterise this as a lie.

I have always thought this line was a very clever device by which to introduce the crisis of self-awareness that is Lucas' state of mind following his release from prison. He tries so hard to keep the operative reality separate from the emotional fallout (as when he answers Harry's enquiry in 7.1 as to how he was treated in prison "Sometimes well; sometimes not"). On occasion, however, these two states of awareness and denial crash dramatically against one another. I think that is what is happening here.

I suspect the version of Elisabeta which sustained Lucas in prison was a highly idealised one. He would have needed to maintain a vision of something entirely apart from, and entirely unaffected and untainted by, his surroundings and his circumstance and his experience of prison. As soon as he sees Elisabeta in the park, picking up her child, that vision of an unchanged (and unchanging) perfection - familiar from eight years of constant reference - is exposed as an illusion. This is only reinforced, and quite brutally, when she approaches him in the cemetery and reveals herself as his FSB handler. Not only are awareness and denial colliding, but the desperate need to keep separate the things which sustain, and the things which sully, emotional survival is being challenged by the revelation that, in fact, they are one and the same.

In saying to Elisabeta that he has spent eight years thinking of her, Lucas is beginning to admit to himself - even as he speaks aloud - a very unpleasant truth. He wants someone to acknowledge that he has suffered, and that he was abandoned to that suffering. He does not want to take responsibility for making others feel less awkward in his company. The words spoken to Elisabeta are, I think, an indication of the extent to which Lucas is floundering in his recently-restored freedom. He is no longer in a contained environment, where his emotional connections and personal interactions are strictly controlled (whether by fear, indifference, or self-preservation). He is back in the world, where emotional reality is more vivid and more tangible. Lucas, it seems to me, is not lying so much as he is confused and confonted by the suddenly apparent complexity of the relationship between himself and his experience, and between the world he is in and the one he has left. There is a sense in which he seems almost to expect Elisabeta to know that he has been thinking of her - he is not telling her, he is reminding her -and he is surpised and disappointed that she is oblivious to this.

You argue that Lucas tells Elisabeta a conscious untruth. I wonder why that is, and I wonder why what he says suggests itself to you as untrue. I always appreciate additional insight, and I am interested to know if I am alone in seeing this as anything other than outright deceit.