[spoilers] Lucas Discussion 2

[NightOwl]

(09-03-2011 10:01 AM)Silktie Wrote:  

(09-03-2011 07:50 AM)xRuthx Wrote:  ^I get why he was pissed but it was still hypocritical to me seeings as Harry betrayed Lucas in the first place by leaving him in prison for eight years (or at least that's the impression I always got from Lucas in series seven about how he felt re himself and Harry).

But that's just it, it was Lucas' impression that Harry did nothing to get him back. In fact, that was what Kachimov told Lucas to convince Lucas to betray his country. Kachimov is hardly going to tell Lucas that every effort is being made to get him back, is he? It would rather defeat his purpose. We also have Ros telling Lucas that Harry sweated blood to get him back. Do we then believe Ros lied to him?

It's not like Harry could just ask nicely and the Russians would give up their prize. He had to wait until he had something to force their hand with, and unfortunately it took eight years.

There is no evidence that Harry didn't make every effort. People just assume that because that is what Lucas believed. So in light of this, did Harry really betray Lucas? If not, then he is entitled to make that comment.

I'm a little late to the conversation but I don't think it's just Lucas's impression that Harry did nothing for him. In 7x2, Lucas tells Harry (and Ros) that Kachimov used Lucas's relationship with Harry to try to turn him. "He implied that you, personally, weren't in much of a hurry to get me back." Later, he says he agreed to work for Kachimov "to get back. God knows I couldn't rely on you to do it for me." Harry doesn't contradict either of these statements.

At no time in series 7 does Harry ever give Lucas an explanation of what he (Harry) knew about Lucas's situation or what he did to try to help. Nor do we know what exactly Harry told Ros. Harry sweated blood? "Citation needed, Ros." It would have been easy for the writers to add a few lines in the 7x2 bar scene where Harry talks about how he tried to help Lucas. Ros knows, or at least suspects, that Lucas believes that Harry abandoned him. It's quite possible that she is offering comfort in the only way she knows how even if that means she has to lie.

True enough that Harry couldn't simply demand that the Russians release Lucas, but, if there's no evidence that Harry didn't make every effort to help Lucas, neither is there evidence that Harry did anything to help him. Certainly Harry has abandoned his officers to their fates on several occasions. He quickly believes Tom is a traitor, he refuses to search for Zaf at the expense of the operation in 6x1, and (although I might not be remembering this right) it's Adam, not Harry, who insists on rescuing Jo at the end of series 6. "No man left behind" is not the motto of Harry Pearce, and, to me, it seems likely that Harry wrote off Lucas pretty quickly for whatever reason.

[BravoNine]

I know that Spooks isn't the touchy feely huggy show....but I really wished there was more exploration into Lucas and Harry's fascinating relationship and maybe even a hug!

[Silktie]

(20-03-2011 02:17 PM)NightOwl Wrote:  True enough that Harry couldn't simply demand that the Russians release Lucas, but, if there's no evidence that Harry didn't make every effort to help Lucas, neither is there evidence that Harry did anything to help him. Certainly Harry has abandoned his officers to their fates on several occasions. He quickly believes Tom is a traitor, he refuses to search for Zaf at the expense of the operation in 6x1, and (although I might not be remembering this right) it's Adam, not Harry, who insists on rescuing Jo at the end of series 6. "No man left behind" is not the motto of Harry Pearce, and, to me, it seems likely that Harry wrote off Lucas pretty quickly for whatever reason.

That is my point actually. None of us knows what really happened. Your examples of Harry not always putting his officers' safety first is certainly valid. But to me it comes down to context and motivation. Harry, as the leader, is in the difficult position of having to put the success of an operation and the resultant safety of the country first, sometimes to the cost of his officers. But he has never been shown to leave them to their fate because he simply couldn't be bothered to save them. I always come back to the fact that he did get Lucas back in the end. If he'd left Lucas in Russia for eight years because he didn't care that much about him, why bother getting him back when the opportunity did arise?

If it were the case that he had to leave Lucas there because it was in the interests of an operation and the safety of the country, I think it's a little unfair to see that as a betrayal. They all know that it is part of the danger of the job they chose to do, that they might one day have to be sacrificed to serve the greater good.

As for not explaining himself to Lucas in 7.2, once again context matters. I think it is important to remember that at that stage Lucas had not yet been debriefed, and as Harry had said to Lucas, he wanted to trust him but knew that it was his duty not to until they were sure of Lucas' loyalties. Also, I wonder if I had been in Lucas' shoes, whether I would have believed Harry if he'd told me then that he'd done everything he could to get me back. I would have suspected him of trying to play me, I think.

As I've said on other threads, I don't mean to imply that Harry never made any mistakes with Lucas. Like Bravo said, Harry is never shown as providing overt emotional support to Lucas. Harry is not perfect and emotional reticence has always been one of his weaknesses. Remember, this is a man who didn't even know how to ask Adam how he was doing after Fiona died. The point I'm trying to make is that it is not out of callousness that he never hugged Lucas or had a heart to heart with him that we saw. But if we do Lucas the courtesy of trying to understand his actions in the context of everything that's happened to him, don't we owe other characters that same courtesy?

[BravoNine]

I think with the relationship of Harry and Lucas, both of them have made mistakes, it's not really one person's fault. Sometimes circumstances aren't the most conducive to making their relationship work, and in the line of business they work in, they have to make tough choices, and I think both of them understands that but as they are also human, there are moments of anger where these pent-up feelings show up and they each make valid points.

It's easy for us to say that Lucas should know the consequences of this job, but knowing it and facing it for 8 years, whether you chose to or not, it does great damage on a person's psyche. Lucas is not a robot, he has emotions and feelings, and even if he knew the dangers of this job, facing those tortures every day, facing those moments of heart-break and pain, it's not something easy to deal with. 8 years is a long time, and 8 years facing those moments alone is enough to drive anyone crazy. I'm still shocked that Lucas turned out generally normal after 8 years of torture.

And likewise, it's easy for us to say that Harry should have tried harder or make an attempt to be all warm and fuzzy to Lucas. The bureaucracy of the world that Harry has to play in is not exactly conducive to him getting his man back even if he wanted to. People end up as collateral damage to save the masses, that's always been the game of that world, and sometimes it has to be that way, to sacrifice a few to save the rest. It sucks, but when you are in that position of power, you can't think about those personal connections, this job doesn't allow time for that or else nothing would be done and no one would be saved. The fact that Harry did get Lucas back, even if it took 8 years is a testament to how Harry has not forgotten Lucas, and I do think that means a lot. He could have forgotten Lucas or not cared, but he got him back. And yes, I do rag on Harry a lot about not being warm and fuzzy and give Lucas hugs, but the fact remains that he is not Lucas's therapist, and while he should have kept a closer eye on Lucas's condition, he can't always be the one looking over Lucas's shoulder. He has to place trust in his own people too that they can do their job, and if he doesn't do that, Lucas will think he doesn't trust him and the whole relationship would just fall apart. Harry is often stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to Lucas.

And really, neither of them are the touchy-feely people, so when you got two emotionally-cold/stubborn mules, it could literally take ages for them to have a heart to heart. At some point, you just wish someone would smack them both on the head to knock some sense into them or better yet, lock them in a room until they figure it out.

One of the things that Series 9 has always disappointed me with is that there was so much they could have done with Lucas and Harry's relationship, but they didn't bother to go explore into what that relationship meant, and it made those last scenes on the rooftop just seem really shallow. I mean, if they really wanted the series to be about dramatic betrayal and these two characters go head to head, I just wish they had bothered to explore the characters' histories and their feelings over the past and what has happened. There just wasn't enough depth in these characters' relationships to make those last rooftop scenes as powerful as it could have been from a storyline standpoint. Acting-wise however, RA and PF nailed those scenes so perfectly! I wish they just allow those two to be in scenes more!

[Byatil]

I have to agree with Silktie and Nightowl; I don't think there's any evidence that Harry spitefully left Lucas in a Russian prison for 8 years. One of the first comments he makes on Lucas is that "he was one of the best field-officers" he'd ever known; if that's Harry's honest opinion, then why wouldn't he have made every effort to get Lucas back? Although we don't often see an emotional, caring Harry, he does have that capacity, and will often go above and beyond to avenge his officers (Adam in 7.2 comes to mind).

(21-03-2011 09:00 AM)BravoNine Wrote:  One of the things that Series 9 has always disappointed me with is that there was so much they could have done with Lucas and Harry's relationship, but they didn't bother to go explore into what that relationship meant, and it made those last scenes on the rooftop just seem really shallow. I mean, if they really wanted the series to be about dramatic betrayal and these two characters go head to head, I just wish they had bothered to explore the characters' histories and their feelings over the past and what has happened. There just wasn't enough depth in these characters' relationships to make those last rooftop scenes as powerful as it could have been from a storyline standpoint.

I agree, it's a shame their relationship wasn't developed further. It's a shame Lucas' relationship with Ruth was rather an undeveloped one as well; there was a lot of potential for the writers to really build up to some tense, emotional scenes. However, as you say, it all ended up seeming a bit shallow It just ended up being rather unbelievable for me, by the end of 9.8 I didn't feel upset or betrayed; I just felt really confused and annoyed! It would have been great to have seen a proper "showdown" between Harry and Lucas; I always loved their scenes together throughout S7 and 8 where Lucas would back Harry in to a corner of his office and attempt to demand some explanations from him. Ah, missed opportunities! If only we could have an entirely selfish show that focussed mainly on the relationships between characters

[HellsBells]

I think all through series 7 there was that sense that Harry was somehow responsible for Lucas spending 8 years in prison. But in 7.8, when Connie asked Lucas 'who do you blame' and he replied 'Harry, I blame Harry', Connie told him it was time to let it go because it was her fault and that she was to blame. I think that scene was meant to 'draw a line' under that particular theory, and Lucas accepted that Harry was not to blame and therefore move on.

[binkie]

(22-03-2011 02:50 PM)HellsBells Wrote:  I think all through series 7 there was that sense that Harry was somehow responsible for Lucas spending 8 years in prison. But in 7.8, when Connie asked Lucas 'who do you blame' and he replied 'Harry, I blame Harry', Connie told him it was time to let it go because it was her fault and that she was to blame. I think that scene was meant to 'draw a line' under that particular theory, and Lucas accepted that Harry was not to blame and therefore move on.

Agreed. However, there is also a rather more sinister undertone, if you are inclined to see things that way (which, apparently, I am). Connie's reassurance, and Lucas' acceptance of it, always remind me of what Kachimov says to Lucas in 7.2, about Harry's decision to trust Lucas coming from a pre-existing desire to trust him.

I like this interpretation because it plays up nicely the extent to which Connie, as well as being mistress of her own fate in suicidally volunteering to disarm the bomb, retains her investment in the fate of others. Whether she is telling the truth or just telling Lucas what he so plainly wants to hear (that it was not Harry who sold him out to the Russians), she saves London from a nuclear winter, she saves Lucas from his self-destroying irresolution, and she saves Harry from the potential consequences of Lucas' unsettled blame-casting.

[xRuthx]

^I always took that revelation with a grain of salt too because Connie was a manipulative liar. I never trusted that particular revelation of hers.

But dw I never said that Harry was spiteful in leaving Lucas in prison. I would argue he was doing his job ie if you're necessary, you're OK, if you're not you're thrown out into the cold. Harry has always been Machiavellian. It's the way a secret service works. Lucas was not necessary until eight years had passed and sure Harry may (if we believe Ros actually can know this? She wasn't around for Lucas remember) have tried to get him out, but I would argue he wouldn't have had the power to try very hard, because Lucas was not necessary at that time and therefore there would have been less bargaining power.

Unfortunately, because this aspect of the story was never explored fully, it is really impossible to say either way, especially since series nine drastically u turned from series seven and eight Lucas. I think it also depends on how much you sympathise with Harry throughout all of Spooks as a character- how much you agree with his morals and ethics. I personally have huge problems with the way a secret service works and have had problems with the way the show has had Harry as moral arbiter since about series five without ever facing real consequences for that and I thought series nine was going to be about changing that. It wasn't, it just confused me further. And therin lies the source of the problem

[HellsBells]

I always doubted Connie's admission of guilt in 7.8, and thought that her confession would be proved to be fictitious. But the writers obviously thought that it was a sufficient explanation. The drama would have been better served if there was a continuing tension between Harry and Lucas, IMO. Maybe Lucas finding out that Connie had lied would have made for a more satisfactory series 9.

[BAUER24]

Harry on the whole has changed since series 7 as a result of what happeaned to Adam. He has discovered that people with a moral compass such as himself cannot possibly hope to survive. He has seen what happeans to people he cares about and that he will do whatever it takes to keep them safe. ( e.g Ruth series 9) He is also prepared to get revenge for the people who die and to make sure that justice is served. ( Adam=series 7, Ros=series 8) This may be because he sees every member of the team as a child and that he has paternal instincts with every single one of them and that he is trying to compensate for being a rubbish husband/father.