[spoilers] Lucas. Just Lucas.

[HellsBells]

Harry apparently, according to Ros 'sweated blood' to get Lucas back. But I have always thought the Russians only released Lucas after he had agreed to be a double agent for Kachimov and the spy swap at the beginning of 7.1 was set-up by the Russians to get Lucas back to MI5. So I have always thought, despite their apparent close relationship, Harry did very little for Lucas.

[BoHenley]

Which makes Lucas's comment at the end of 9.8 all the more telling. "I am nothing." I took it on surface value at the time, but maybe I shouldn't have.

"Who" is actually saying "I am nothing." Lucas - or John?

Does it mean "I am nothing - to you, (am I)?" That would back up Lucas's previous comment about MI5 chewing up its agents and spitting them out, and in fact, Harry's reactions of doing very little. I realise Harry must at times put "the Agency" first, but it was heartbreaking not to hear him offer several deals to Lucas on that roof - anything to save him. At that point, we know that Lucas is on the cusp of self-destruction [in whatever form, shooting Harry or not], but wouldn't most people try and SAVE a work colleague, let alone one that you'd had a close working relationship?

I wish I wasn't trying to make sense of this. Sorry, my logical scientific brain can't cope with a nonsense story line. Maybe Dr Seuss could've done more with the nonsense, or at least made it fun.

[Byatil]

(26-11-2010 10:25 PM)BoHenley Wrote:  Which makes Lucas's comment at the end of 9.8 all the more telling. "I am nothing." I took it on surface value at the time, but maybe I shouldn't have.

"Who" is actually saying "I am nothing." Lucas - or John?

Does it mean "I am nothing - to you, (am I)?" That would back up Lucas's previous comment about MI5 chewing up its agents and spitting them out, and in fact, Harry's reactions of doing very little. I realise Harry must at times put "the Agency" first, but it was heartbreaking not to hear him offer several deals to Lucas on that roof - anything to save him. At that point, we know that Lucas is on the cusp of self-destruction [in whatever form, shooting Harry or not], but wouldn't most people try and SAVE a work colleague, let alone one that you'd had a close working relationship?

I wish I wasn't trying to make sense of this. Sorry, my logical scientific brain can't cope with a nonsense story line. Maybe Dr Seuss could've done more with the nonsense, or at least made it fun.

I'd like to think he meant "I am nothing (to you)", but to be honest I think the line was written to be taken much more literally :/ Probably signifying the 'death' of Lucas North and the realisation that JB is worthless - 'nothing'.

I much prefer your interpretation though! I think we all need to re-watch S9 when we have the chance so we can try and pick up on any extra hints the writers may have thrown into the script, because as it stands I can't make head nor tail of half of it.

[WhiteSwan]

Quite frankly, the only reason for me to watch S9 again would be to find more plotholes. And even then I would never want to torment myself by watching any scenes with JB. In episode 1 to 6 there were enough scenes with Lucas to enjoy - and the rest of the series is something I want to erase from my mind, because JB never existed and for me that whole storyline is too ridiculous to waste any more thoughts about it.

Over the weekend I will try to make a list of the plotholes. I'm just not sure where to post it, as this seems to be the wrong thread for it. Any ideas anybody?

[binkie]

(26-11-2010 09:21 AM)Belle Wrote:  

(25-11-2010 11:41 PM)binkie Wrote:  

(25-11-2010 10:59 AM)Belle Wrote:  He longes to be the pre-russia Lucas, but somehow he lost that person whilst in prison.
Everything he does is a quest to try to become that Lucas again.

I understand what you mean when you say this, but I’m not convinced Lucas does actually want to ‘be’ his pre-Moscow self in the way you suggest. I think the situation is rather more complex. It will almost certainly be very important to Lucas now that his time in prison not be dismissed as an eight year black hole. The initial expression on his face in 7.1 when Malcolm says: “Is it really eight years?” is one almost of irritation, then confusion and disappointment, before softening into conciliation and the placatory comment about Russian prisons being like holiday camps: “They have mattresses and everything.” Lucas is beginning to realise here that those eight years will never mean the same to other people as they do to him. He will actually become, in some ways, quite protective of those years. By the time of 8.7 he is even able to make jokes about them, characterising them to the Hindu translator as an: ”eight year reading sabbatical”. That time belongs to him – it is literally part of him, written on his skin - and it is for him to make sure it continues to have meaning. Undoing that time, reversing through the black hole, is unthinkable. To do so would be to strip that huge portion of his time, and all the pieces of his life that went into making it, of any value. I think Lucas probably looks fondly on his pre-Moscow self, in the same way he would at childhood pictures. But I think he recognises it would be dangerous to think he could be that person now, and that it would be equally dangerous to want that.

I'm not sure you get what I'm trying to say with this .
I don't think Lucas wants to errase the 8 years in prison, because they are indeed very important and indeed a serious part of him. Anyway, such a dark period can't ever be really whipped out, I think.
I get the feeling, however, that he wants, or wishes, to be able to be the pre-russia Lucas in terms of feelings. We, as a viewer, know little or nothing about the pre-russia Lucas, but I can imagine that he was a lot happier and felt more sure of himself and of who he was (NOT including S9, here, simply because it's easier to make my point ). I really think that he's striving to feel the way he felt before his ordeal in Russia, that it is his ambition to feel safe, trusted and secure again. Not to forget the pain, but to be able to make it more bearable in one way or the other.

Belle, I think perhaps I am older and more cynical than you . I do appreciate the point you are making, (I realise you are not suggesting that Lucas wishes he had a time machine!) and I wish I interpreted the character and his motives in the same way. But I don’t. I’m not sure I see any indication of a desire on Lucas’ part to feel as he felt. Certainly, he is confounded and distressed by his inability to identify and experience the full, subtle range of human emotions. We must assume he has been capable of this. Elisabeta as much as lays this out for him, and us, when she more or less accuses him of being unrecognisable (That little scene in Elisabeta’s kitchen could support a lengthy analysis of its own, I suspect. There is so much going on, so much of it unsaid - and none of it anything to do with the disastrous and objectionable misinterpretation of it undertaken by season 9). My understanding of the character from this point, though, is very much of someone who is impelled to move forward. Yes, he still fetishes Elisabeta: he strokes and kisses her hair, he holds her waist, he tells her how he has missed her. But I see these actions as indicators of the survivor iteration of Lucas’ psyche. Thinking of Elisabeta (not of England or MI5) has been one of Lucas’ survival rituals for eight years. It has kept him alive, kept his mind active, and provided him with a connection to the emotional world (rather than the professional or operative world) outside prison. It’s hard to let that go. This is not necessarily so much a sign of lingering affection for Elisabeta as it is a fulfilment of the human need to need: specifically, to need something perfect and unobtainable (God is an obvious example of this, but there are others).

I do not mean to suggest that Lucas never loved Elisabeta. I do not mean to suggest that he is exploiting her, or any remaining feelings she may have for him. Rather, I am suggesting that the world looks different to Lucas now. Things no longer mean what they meant. He no longer wants what he might once have wanted. What he wants is more than likely nothing familiar to him. He may not even be aware of what it is he does want. He has been a long time without wanting anything except to be somewhere other than where he was. Comfort is no longer necessarily to be found in those things (people, relationships) which might once have represented security. I think Lucas wants those things (people, relationships) to mean something. I think he wants to be saved by an ability to feel. I think the abject dismay and confusion and self-disgust he displays when he tells Sarah in 8.4 “I just haven’t been able to feel anything for a long time” underline the extent to which he is aware of the distance between what he has wanted and what he is capable of wanting now.

It is, I admit, a very small point of interpretation on which we differ: the difference between wanting something and wanting to want something. I hope you don’t think I’m being unreasonably obtuse in coming back to this. The question of trust, to which you also allude, is a much more deeply felt thing for Lucas, which can only have been exacerbated by his experience of prison. I suspect it is quite important to an appreciation of the character to separate this question from that of security, although there is plainly a link between the two concepts. You have made me think more about this as a distinct object of concern for Lucas and his position in the narrative of seasons 7/8. I will come back to this later, because it’s worth a proper assessment of its own. You have only yourself to blame!

[Byatil]

(26-11-2010 11:03 PM)WhiteSwan Wrote:  Quite frankly, the only reason for me to watch S9 again would be to find more plotholes. And even then I would never want to torment myself by watching any scenes with JB. In episode 1 to 6 there were enough scenes with Lucas to enjoy - and the rest of the series is something I want to erase from my mind, because JB never existed and for me that whole storyline is too ridiculous to waste any more thoughts about it.

Over the weekend I will try to make a list of the plotholes. I'm just not sure where to post it, as this seems to be the wrong thread for it. Any ideas anybody?

I'm determined to analyse S9 and try to fully understand if there is any plausible way in which this plot could be feasible! As much as I hate to see Lucas' character be destroyed, I'm really interested to see if there are any hints as to exactly how and why this double-persona of his makes any sense.

I'd just make an "Inconsistencies" or "Plot-Holes" thread in the S9 discussion forum

---

I'd just like to bring up something Elizabeta says to Lucas in 7.2 (I think?).
"Happiness isn't about getting what you want. It's about appreciating what you have. Perhaps you will be happy someday."

I take this to mean that Lucas is lost in his desire for unattainable things. He wants Elizabeta, but in the 8 years they've been apart, she has clearly moved on. He wants to 'feel' again, but simply willing it to happen won't make it come true. I just think it was an interesting comment for her to make. Lucas never seems to appreciate what he has; he always wants more, always feels he deserves more. That's the impression I got anyway.

---

One more thing...!

Just re-watching 7.1, and noticed that when Lucas is asking Harry "What do I do? Where do I go? Just tell me and I'll do it." it seems like a bit of a sly dig at Harry? The last time Lucas followed Harry's orders it cumulated in him being locked away for 8 years, I'm assuming when he delivers this line he's insinuating that following Harry's orders has never done him much good, so he has no real reason to follow them.

Also, when Lucas asks Harry (about Elizabeta) "How is she?", Harry responds with "She's well. And happy.", Lucas asks "Meaning?" and Harry fails to respond. His next line is "It's good to see you, Lucas. You were missed.", even though his previous lack of response implies that people were 'better off without' Lucas, to an extent. After Malcolm's earlier comment ("Has it really been eight years?"), it's easy to see why Lucas would feel pretty worthless. I think it also displays the strain between him and Harry, which is brilliant to watch in this scene.

[Byatil]

In 7.2, Ros asks Lucas if Kachimov ever played on 'sexual desires' in his interrogations. Lucas replies "No, he never took that route. Actually, he used my relationship with you, Harry".

Possible link to the scene in 8.4 where Lucas says his and Harry's relationship is "a sexual thing"? If it is, then that's a nice little reference! Basically implying that their relationship is based on distrust, fear and betrayal?

[BravoNine]

(26-11-2010 04:15 PM)HellsBells Wrote:  Harry apparently, according to Ros 'sweated blood' to get Lucas back. But I have always thought the Russians only released Lucas after he had agreed to be a double agent for Kachimov and the spy swap at the beginning of 7.1 was set-up by the Russians to get Lucas back to MI5. So I have always thought, despite their apparent close relationship, Harry did very little for Lucas.

The way I interpreted is that Harry has tried over the years to get the spy-swap exchanges, but the Russians would not give up Lucas no matter what Harry is offering them in return until Lucas finally agreed to be double agent just so he can get back home since in his mind it seems that Harry isn't gonna get him back so he has to do it on his own. So when Harry finally catches one of their Russian spies, he sets up the exchange and because Lucas agreed to be double agent, Kachimov finally agrees to give Lucas back to Harry.

At the beginning of 7.1, even Harry was not sure why the Russians are agreeing to this exchange, as he told Adam, he wasn't sure why the Russians wanted their agent back and was willing to give up Lucas, but Harry was certainly not gonna give up this chance, there is also a sense of almost gleeful cockiness in Harry's voice as he told Adam, "but in this case, the return package is so much of a prize, we don't need to worry about it", I always thought that voice indicated that he seemed quite happy to finally have Lucas home.

(26-11-2010 10:25 PM)BoHenley Wrote:  I realise Harry must at times put "the Agency" first, but it was heartbreaking not to hear him offer several deals to Lucas on that roof - anything to save him. At that point, we know that Lucas is on the cusp of self-destruction [in whatever form, shooting Harry or not], but wouldn't most people try and SAVE a work colleague, let alone one that you'd had a close working relationship?

And one wonders why I have been glaring at Harry Pearce for most of Episode 8....

He didn't try hard enough, he did too little too late. He let Lucas down in Moscow, and he let him down again with this mess.

(26-11-2010 11:06 PM)Byatil Wrote:  I'm determined to analyse S9 and try to fully understand if there is any plausible way in which this plot could be feasible! As much as I hate to see Lucas' character be destroyed, I'm really interested to see if there are any hints as to exactly how and why this double-persona of his makes any sense.

I applaud you for trying to make sense of this strange storyline, and I wish you luck, perhaps one day I will be able to put this miserable storyline behind me and find peace with it, but right now, my head cannot forget the agent who gave up everything for his country and for his team and then having to watch the writers turn him into this monster whom I don't even recognize.

(26-11-2010 11:06 PM)Byatil Wrote:  Just re-watching 7.1, and noticed that when Lucas is asking Harry "What do I do? Where do I go? Just tell me and I'll do it." it seems like a bit of a sly dig at Harry? The last time Lucas followed Harry's orders it cumulated in him being locked away for 8 years, I'm assuming when he delivers this line he's insinuating that following Harry's orders has never done him much good, so he has no real reason to follow them.

It could be a sly dig, but I thought it was more of Lucas just feeling despair and looking to Harry for answers and showing vulnerability, trying to find some semblance of control or having someone tell him just what should he do now that he's back.

(26-11-2010 11:06 PM)Byatil Wrote:  Also, when Lucas asks Harry (about Elizabeta) "How is she?", Harry responds with "She's well. And happy.", Lucas asks "Meaning?" and Harry fails to respond. His next line is "It's good to see you, Lucas. You were missed.", even though his previous lack of response implies that people were 'better off without' Lucas, to an extent. After Malcolm's earlier comment ("Has it really been eight years?"), it's easy to see why Lucas would feel pretty worthless. I think it also displays the strain between him and Harry, which is brilliant to watch in this scene.

I always thought Malcolm's comment didn't mean that they didn't care or think about him for 8 years, I thought it was more of an awkward moment and for a lot of them to realize just how fast time has gone by. Malcolm seemed more nervous, as if he's walking on eggshells, but he seemed genuinely happy to see Lucas home safe. At least it was more than Harry's reaction.

-------------------------------

On another hand, I was listening to music, and I heard this song that I thought would make a great Lucas tribute. Don't know if you guys have heard it, but it's called Transatlanticism by Death Cab for Cutie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNqQC7R_Me4

[Belle]

(26-11-2010 11:03 PM)binkie Wrote:  Belle, I think perhaps I am older and more cynical than you . I do appreciate the point you are making, (I realise you are not suggesting that Lucas wishes he had a time machine!) and I wish I interpreted the character and his motives in the same way. But I don’t. I’m not sure I see any indication of a desire on Lucas’ part to feel as he felt. Certainly, he is confounded and distressed by his inability to identify and experience the full, subtle range of human emotions. We must assume he has been capable of this. Elisabeta as much as lays this out for him, and us, when she more or less accuses him of being unrecognisable (That little scene in Elisabeta’s kitchen could support a lengthy analysis of its own, I suspect. There is so much going on, so much of it unsaid - and none of it anything to do with the disastrous and objectionable misinterpretation of it undertaken by season 9). My understanding of the character from this point, though, is very much of someone who is impelled to move forward. Yes, he still fetishes Elisabeta: he strokes and kisses her hair, he holds her waist, he tells her how he has missed her. But I see these actions as indicators of the survivor iteration of Lucas’ psyche. Thinking of Elisabeta (not of England or MI5) has been one of Lucas’ survival rituals for eight years. It has kept him alive, kept his mind active, and provided him with a connection to the emotional world (rather than the professional or operative world) outside prison. It’s hard to let that go. This is not necessarily so much a sign of lingering affection for Elisabeta as it is a fulfilment of the human need to need: specifically, to need something perfect and unobtainable (God is an obvious example of this, but there are others).

I do not mean to suggest that Lucas never loved Elisabeta. I do not mean to suggest that he is exploiting her, or any remaining feelings she may have for him. Rather, I am suggesting that the world looks different to Lucas now. Things no longer mean what they meant. He no longer wants what he might once have wanted. What he wants is more than likely nothing familiar to him. He may not even be aware of what it is he does want. He has been a long time without wanting anything except to be somewhere other than where he was. Comfort is no longer necessarily to be found in those things (people, relationships) which might once have represented security. I think Lucas wants those things (people, relationships) to mean something. I think he wants to be saved by an ability to feel. I think the abject dismay and confusion and self-disgust he displays when he tells Sarah in 8.4 “I just haven’t been able to feel anything for a long time” underline the extent to which he is aware of the distance between what he has wanted and what he is capable of wanting now.

It is, I admit, a very small point of interpretation on which we differ: the difference between wanting something and wanting to want something. I hope you don’t think I’m being unreasonably obtuse in coming back to this. The question of trust, to which you also allude, is a much more deeply felt thing for Lucas, which can only have been exacerbated by his experience of prison. I suspect it is quite important to an appreciation of the character to separate this question from that of security, although there is plainly a link between the two concepts. You have made me think more about this as a distinct object of concern for Lucas and his position in the narrative of seasons 7/8. I will come back to this later, because it’s worth a proper assessment of its own. You have only yourself to blame!

Well, I'm 33 and I can be quite cynical, but I must admit that I can be very naïve too .

I think I get what you mean Binkie, you say Lucas is wanting to want. That the 8 years of imprisonment has left him hollow and deprived of an ability to wish for feelings, that he instead wishes he could want something more than the flatness he's undergoing now.
Is this a right interpretation?
I can appreciate your point of view, it certainly is more elequantly put than mine, I'm not very good with words.

There's one thing in your post I'm having a bit of 'problems' with.
You say that we must sepperate the issue of trust from the issue of security.
In my mind, however, I don't think that one can feel safe or secure when one isn't felt trusted. To me, those two go together without a doubt.
I'll explain: I see trust as the ability to be truely who you are with someone, no masks, no hidden agenda's, no fear to make mistakes becuase they will be forgiven.(I mean mistakes on human level, when you work for MI5 the stakes are too high in terms of human lives and safety of the world, to be granted 'mistakemaking'). When you can be yourself, when you are sure whomever you are trusted by will not stab you in the back, so to speak, I see that as a feeling of safety.
Maybe this is again too naïve of me.
So I'm awaiting your view on this point ( I will gladly blame myself ), maybe you can put this in a more clear light.

---

(26-11-2010 11:03 PM)WhiteSwan Wrote:  Quite frankly, the only reason for me to watch S9 again would be to find more plotholes. And even then I would never want to torment myself by watching any scenes with JB. In episode 1 to 6 there were enough scenes with Lucas to enjoy - and the rest of the series is something I want to erase from my mind, because JB never existed and for me that whole storyline is too ridiculous to waste any more thoughts about it.

Over the weekend I will try to make a list of the plotholes. I'm just not sure where to post it, as this seems to be the wrong thread for it. Any ideas anybody?

That's a great idea! I await your list eagerly, thanks for that in advance, I can bring myself to watch S9 again, yet.

I guess you could start a new thread 'Plotholes' under 'Season 9' in MI5 operations.
Good luck!!!!

[binkie]

(27-11-2010 09:33 AM)Belle Wrote:  I think I get what you mean Binkie, you say Lucas is wanting to want. That the 8 years of imprisonment has left him hollow and deprived of an ability to wish for feelings, that he instead wishes he could want something more than the flatness he's undergoing now.
Is this a right interpretation?
I can appreciate your point of view, it certainly is more elequantly put than mine, I'm not very good with words.

That's exactly what I mean. I hope you realise I'm not suggesting you are wrong to see a different set of motivations underlying Lucas' behaviour (and I'm not dismissing you or your understanding of the character as naive). I'm just trying to explain myself

(27-11-2010 09:33 AM)Belle Wrote:  There's one thing in your post I'm having a bit of 'problems' with.
You say that we must sepperate the issue of trust from the issue of security.
In my mind, however, I don't think that one can feel safe or secure when one isn't felt trusted. To me, those two go together without a doubt.
I'll explain: I see trust as the ability to be truely who you are with someone, no masks, no hidden agenda's, no fear to make mistakes becuase they will be forgiven.(I mean mistakes on human level, when you work for MI5 the stakes are too high in terms of human lives and safety of the world, to be granted 'mistakemaking'). When you can be yourself, when you are sure whomever you are trusted by will not stab you in the back, so to speak, I see that as a feeling of safety.
Maybe this is again too naïve of me.
So I'm awaiting your view on this point ( I will gladly blame myself ), maybe you can put this in a more clear light.

I have to say, the idea of appreciating security and trust as slightly separate strands of significance in Lucas' post-release readjustment mechanism was something that occurred to me only as I typed my response to your post. I haven't quite thought it through yet, and there is every chance I will discover - upon further analysis - that I am absolutely wrong about this. You are quite right, I think, to point out the number of ways in which there exists such an intricate set of relationships between the two concepts of trust and security. I accept that they are fundamentally coexistent values. I'll see what happens to my theory when I apply a bit of pressure to it

You really must not worry about your ability to express yourself. Your grasp of many of the more subtle elements of Lucas' character and situation is one of the things that is keeping me thinking about stuff like this. I'm very grateful for that