When Claire (Caitriona Balfe) and her husband Frank Randall (Tobias Menzies) head to the Scottish Highlands in 1945, the plan is to kickstart their stalled marriage. World War II split the newlyweds apart for nearly 6 years, and the Inverness getaway is supposed to bring them closer together. Instead, Claire stumbles upon a magic-infused stone circle and suddenly finds herself 200 years in the past being shot at by Redcoats, held captive by Scottish clansmen, and nearly raped by her husband’s scoundrel of an ancestor who also happens to look almost identical to Frank. Her captors are nice enough, especially the dashing Jamie (Sam Heughan), but she’s still a prisoner, in more ways than one.
Claire is a rarity for television: a strong female character who isn’t a Strong Female Character. TV Claire is just as free-spirited and determined as book Claire. Romance and sex are part of her story and her personality, but they aren’t the defining aspects of it. Balfe gets this so completely, and the way she plays Claire is a revelation: “Her sexuality is part of who she is… She is a very passionate woman, with such a zest for life, and her sexuality is very integral to that. She controls that; she has desires. Quelle horreur, women have desires, oh my god!” Balfe balances Claire’s head-strongness and agitation beautifully, and she and Heughan’s Jamie are perfect complements.
Claire has every reason to be afraid in her brave new world, but she doesn’t let that hold her back. She relies on her intelligence to get her through the worst of it. Rape is an ever present danger in 18th century Scotland. Most of the time, writers use rape to give a man a reason for revenge or to punish an independent woman. Outlander (both the show and book) use it as historical accuracy rather than a plot device.
Tobias Menzies doesn’t get much to do as Black Jack in the premiere, nor does the relationship between Frank and Claire get enough fleshing out. In the book, it’s easy to see why Claire’s attracted to Frank. She picked a man like her surrogate father, the one man she respected and admired the most, although it’s clear she would’ve been bored silly being an Oxfordshire housewife. TV Frank is a bit too stiff, a bit too distant, and their marriage seems more like it’s continuing because of residual attraction and mild affection rather than they can’t live without each other.
The only real issues in the premiere are the pacing and Claire’s voice over narration. The 1945 portion drags on and on and on, and while it’s all very interesting it’s also too reliant on infodumps. In the book it works, mostly because Gabaldon has several hundred pages worth of territory to cover. On screen, not so much. Claire’s narration of every little thing is heavy-handed and over-bearing. Hopefully they’ll tone it down a notch in future episodes. Fortunately, the spectacular scenery and Bear McCreary’s entrancing score more than make up for the duller bits. McCreary’s score is consistently haunting and soaring, and is easily one of the best parts of the show. Well, next to Balfe, that is. Where has she been all my life?
It’s easy for fans to feel protective of a work they love, but we have to remember that crossing mediums will always mean a new translation. The show makes a few key changes from Diana Gabaldon’s text, some expected or at least understandable, others less so. Lines get swapped from one character to another (usually lines from book Mr. Randall to other television characters), mostly for expository purposes. Roger Wakefield, Mr. Crook, and the cottar woman are all missing from the premiere, but the loss isn’t much felt.
Scenes not in the book pop up in the premiere, and Claire makes a few minor choices on TV that she doesn’t in the book. But the show only has 64 minutes to do a lot of heavy lifting. I’m not entirely sure why they felt the need to move the season from Beltane (spring) to Samhain (fall), but I trust Moore enough to go with it. The multiple sex scenes are the most noticeable insertion (pun intended). In the book, Gabaldon takes her sweet time to get to the explicit sexy bits, but Randall goes down on Claire within the first 20 minutes. Although, according to reviewers who’ve seen the first 6 episodes, that’s more or less all the sex we’ll get in the show for quite some time.
One of the bigger hurdles Gabaldon’s books had to overcome was the romance label. Certainly, romance is a big part of the story, but the books are about so much more. Ronald D. Moore was vocal about wanting to create a show appealing to both men and women, but the early previews made it look like a sappy Lifetime movie, and the premise in and of itself is a hurdle. Frankly, that some men will be turned off primarily because the story centers on a woman doesn’t bother me. As a woman, I watch countless shows with men at the helm, so it’s time for men to watch someone else for a change.
Moore’s other big-name remake, Battlestar Galactica, wonderfully balanced male and female characters, PoC, and gay characters, giving everyone intriguing personalities. He has 8 books worth of material to work with, although the Starz synopsis indicates they might be moving some things around in some crucial ways that I’m a little concerned about. (Granted, I’ve only read halfway through Part 3 of the first book, a series I only started after watching the premiere last week, so I could be talking total nonsense.) Nevertheless, I trust Moore enough to not worry too much over some of the potential issues.
There’s a lot of mystery and magic to the show, but the premiere suffers from too much to do and not enough time in which to do it, as most pilots do. There’s more than enough to keep me coming back for more, a feeling I had even before picking up the books. The show has a lot of potential, and while some of its first steps are shaky and its path unclear, I think it’ll be just fine. It may never be the epic historical drama Starz wants it to be, but as long as it stays out of the Downton Abbey weeds, I’ll be pleased.
Final Thoughts
- The theme song is an altered version of the poem by Robert Louis Stevenson, “Sing me a Song of a Lad that is Gone.”
- Having now seen the premiere 3 times, I can honestly say it gets both better and worse with each viewing.
- One of the best years of my life was my study abroad year in Scotland. Hadn’t realized how much I miss that place until Outlander. I could totally go for a pint and some haggis in a Highlands pub right about now.
Alex Brown is an archivist, research librarian, writer, geeknerdloserweirdo, and all-around pop culture obsessive who watches entirely too much TV. Keep up with her every move on Twitter, or get lost in the rabbit warren of ships and fandoms on her Tumblr.
A show that gives me a woman demanding, and receiving, cunninglingus, is a show after my own heart.
I’m there! So much better than the male gazey crap of GOT.
I really liked it, and seeing Menzies in the credits initially led me to believe that she was going to go back and forth between the two times, especially after the lady with the tea said her marriage line forked and didn’t break.
Seeing that he will be playing his ancestor means maybe I was wrong on that, but that’s ok, I like Menzies.
Fave part: The accents and seamless switch to Gaelic of the Scottish men. It really helps to inform what a different world she’s in, and how helpless she must feel at times when she can’t even understand what they are saying. And “Is she a hoor!” Oh, never change.
With her cursing and medical knowledge, I guess they think she’s a demon?
I’m SO freakin’ tired of the GoT comparisons! Diana Gabaldon’s books predate GRRM’s books (I know, I bought each book of both series in hardback the day they were released), the stories are completely different and the only similarity is that they’re both epic stories adapted from books.
That said, this premier episode was just enough to whet my appetite for more, and I’m impressed with the casting and the attention to detail!
@2, I’m not comparing it to GOT, except for the fact that they are both shows on premium cable.
Spot on review. I’m also hoping the VO decreases with the need for exposition. I think the portrayal of Frank is pretty accurate to the book — he is sort of musty and distant, and seems a bit bemused by his wife. As usual, I agree with Aeryl, although not only is that scene not in the book but SPOILERS: book cannon is that going down on Claire is something Frank never did. I also loved the title credits and the music, and this is minor but I loved how dirty everyone looked in the 18th century section.
I’m interested in giving this a watch. I think the general story is interesting. Though when I tried to read the book, I gave up somwhere around the 5th attepted rape. I do not doubt that woman’s live was more dangerous in that time period, but I had trouble believing that one character have to face that many rape attempts in so short a time period. I’m hoping there’s less of that in the show.
i could have stood for a two-hour premiere. very much liking the adaptation so far. looking forward to her adventures in the castle. love that alex distinguishes this is not a romance story. that seems to really be throwing people off. has gabaldon ever done geillis duncan’s story? i’d really love to know about her adventures.
They get aroung to demon eventually, druid, dame blanche, witch…
I’ve read the books, and re-read them many times. I really liked how they didn’t lose time being clear about Claire’s character form the start. The cunninglingus in an interesting addition, not only for the obvious reasons, but also, because how it works to tell us that Claire was already different in her own time.
I did hate the “Jesus H Roosvelt Christ!”. Is something book Claire says quite a lot, but where Caitriona Balfe did such an amazing job with all the rest, this sounds forced out of her mouth the both times she said it. Like she realises that Claire would just say “fuck!” :)
I do wonder how they’ll use the story, a book a season like GOT and True Blood? Is so, they have a lot to cover.
I for one loved it… if for nothing else than they cast Tobias Menzies whom I’ve had a crush on since he was Brutus in HBO’s late, lamented Rome.
I also think that Catriona Balfe was BORN to play this role. It also makes me want to go to Scotland like right now.
In re: cunnilingus
Well I imagine that also goes a bit towards making Frank seem like a nice guy, stuck back in 1945 with no wife, while said wife goes galivanting around the Scottish countryside with handsome rogues like Jaime(book readers is it Jaime or Jamie, TV says Jamie, but that doesn’t seem right).
And to separate his character from his dastardly ancestor.
Nice piece. A few quick thoughts.
Show used Samhain rather than Beltane for the simple reason they began filming in the Fall and were worried it wouldn’t look sufficiently Spring-like.
I really liked the 2/3 1940s, 1/3 1740s split. You need to establish “modern” Claire in order to understand her emotional conflicts to come. I’m fully supportive.
I agree and hope that voice over will moderate as show goes forward.
Child Roger Wakefield has been cast, and will be showing up in a Frank scene later in the season. (In contrast to book, we will be seeing Frank trying to find Claire in the TV show.)
@Aeryl: I, too, liked the switching back and forth with Scottish Gaelic. Especially that the show doesn’t translate it. It keeps us firmly with Claire.
@Desmodus: The GoT comparisons are apt, actually. No one’s claiming the books are alike, just that Starz and HBO took epic, multibook stories set in fantasy-ish/historical-ish place and are adapting them. Starz hasn’t been coy about wanting Outlander to be as sweeping and massively popular as GoT (especially in terms of attracting a male AND female audience 18-35).
@mochabean: You can almost smell the stench off some of those dudes. ;)
@Ciella: I dunno, for me the constant threat of rape was pretty realistic for the period. For all periods, really. Back then (and, really, up until fairly recently in the US) if you were a woman your options were typically: married, soon to be married, or whore. And men typically had no qualms with taking a woman regardless of her social status. In Claire’s position, she’s at an even higher risk, for reasons I won’t get into for spoilers.
@sofrina: Yep. Too much crammed into too short a time means certain bits get dragged out needlessly (the 1945 stuff) and the more important bits get cut short (1743). Couldn’t tell you about Geillis, but that would be an awesome prequel.
@Mashara: The Starz synopsis indicates it’ll be a book a season, and I think this one is supposed to be 16 episodes. It’s a lot of material to cover, but also not at the same time. Gabaldon takes her time moving through certain events, and the show won’t be able to dwaddle that way.
@LadyBelaine: I love Tobias Menzies a lot as well, despite his unfortunate albeit extremely British name. Curious as to whether or not Edmure Tully will make another GoT appearance now that he’s terrorizing 18th century Scotland.
@Aeryl: Jamie in the books and show.
@RobMRobM: Interesting turn of events…and not sure I want, need, or care about Frank searching for Claire.
@11 AlexBrown
I’ve not read the books, nor am I a specialist on 18th century Scotland, but was the concept of a spinster so alien to people at that time? This exact word did seem to have arisen at that exact time, with that meaning.
When reading books written in the 18th century in my country (Brazil), it’s not uncommon to see the figure of an unmarried woman living in the house, either as a daughter or as sister to the patriarch of the house. Normally they’re portrayed as very angry women, with bad humor and very religious (wearing black to go to church, as was the norm for unmarried or widowed women at the time), the bad humor coming from being an old maid (ficar para titia, in Portuguese) and having no sexual relations. So if you were a single woman you had the choice of being a very bad humored woman with no sexual life or being a whore at those times (or so says the stereotype). What surprises me is that, in Scotland, if you’re right, the first case was completely absent and an unmarried woman was considered fair game to rape. I wonder if this difference arose due to the protestant reformation or if the portrayal of that time period is wrong.
@12 – to quote Dirty Dancing, “No one puts Frank in the corner.” LOL
Also @12
– can’t say anything about Ms. Duncan, for prequel purposes or otherwise, for all sorts of reasons.
– yes I expect Tobias to make additional appearances in GoT. He does in the books. (Off the point, I saw that his “wife” Roslin Frey is the Queen of France in the new BBC America Musketeers show.)
@Ryamano: Well, yes, you certainly could be a spinster, but it wasn’t ideal. I suppose I should’ve said “Eligible for marriage” rather than “Soon to be married.” You were eligible to be married until your death or marriage…unless you went into a nunnery. Spinsters were a financial drain on the family, and the status was to avoided at all costs (see Charlotte from Pride and Prejudice). But even spinsters could eventually marry, usually a widower.
I am a historical research librarian by day, and it’s not uncommon to find women in the US in the 19th and 20th century census records having their first marriage in their 40s and up, usually to another man up in age with several children under his care. You see this especially in underpopulated territories, like the West, where there are fewer women to choose from. I can’t speak to 18th century Scottish Catholics, but in the rest of Europe, if a woman didn’t marry (or was one daughter too many), she’d likely be shipped off to a convent. (In Anglican England she’d either remain a spinster or go into a “female” profession like becoming a governess or teacher.) Same thing happened to the third son; he was too far down the line to inherit anything worthwhile, and would have a much harder time marrying a rich woman (especially if his elder brothers took their time to marry), and would often either join the military or a monestary.
So this looked interesting to me, as most everything about Scotland does (as the the celtic knotwork tattooed around my left bicep would indicate, lol) but not having read any of the books I wasn’t sure what to make of it. I have never been that guy who won’t watch a show with a female lead (quite the opposite in fact) but the trailer did make it seem sorta like a lifetime/romance type of thing which isn’t really my cup of tea. If you guys say its not like that then I will give it a shot.
I don’t understand why women aren’t more direct when it comes to the porn they like. Outlander isn’t a show – Outlander is porn for women. WAAAAAAAAAAY too much foreplay for practically nothing. It’s like you women are pretending what you’re watching in Outlander isn’t porn but the whole time really do know it’s your kind of porn. Why bother with all this evasion – why not get to the point immediately?
I liked the first episode. It was slow, but a confident kind of slow. The people behind this show know they have good stuff coming and aren’t going to rush the set up. It doesn’t have that usual TVpilot desperation to please (mostly becuase this isn’t pilot). “Sassenach” takes its time to set up the story it wants to tell, though the first half of this episode didn’t exactly make for riveting viewing. I hope the slow playing pays off for them; I liked it a lot.
There are two places where I disagree with the review. The first is on TV Frank, which I found to be better fleshed out and more relatable than book Frank. His presence in the book is so brief that it is easily forgotten. TV Frank seems like a man who is a little unsure of how to go about reconnecting with his wife, but definitely wants to do so.
The other thing I disagree with the music. For the most part it is great, but there are are few scenes where it is just really ill fitting. Specifically the jaunty tune that plays when Claire is first being shot at by Redcoats. That music is way more “fun dance time” than “bullets! run for your life.” It is a jarring contrast. That and the theme, which is not going to help draw in viewers.
@18, It reminds me of the music Sons of Anarchy sometimes plays during motorcycle chases and stuff, as the gang has Irish ties. It worked for me.
Billiam – Watch it. I read all the books and found them fascinating. Sounds like it should be a Harlequin romance … but it’s not. Good characters, nice plot twists and surprising amounts of humor. You also get to learn a fair amount of Scottish history by the by. Casting for the TV show looks very strong and the show runners have done a great job with the look and feel of the show. I’m all in.
@quinne: Um, I politely disagree, about the book and tv show as porn for women. There’s nothing porn-y about either one. Sexy? Yep. But porn? No way. Look, I read a lot of Romance, Paranormal Romance, and slashfic. If Outlander was porn in any way, shape, or form, I’d cop to it without shame. I enjoy those genres/subgenres and would very much enjoy a show touting them. But that isn’t Outlander. Just because Ygritte and Jon Snow have a sweeping, sexual, Romeo and Juliet-esque relationship doesn’t make Game of Thrones a romance. Outlander is no different. Romance is a part of Claire’s story, but not the sum total. And porn doesn’t even come into the equation.
@skoce: Bear McCreary can get heavy-handed at times, but compared to other shows where he looks at musical overkill and laughs in its face (like The Walking Dead), Outlander seemed rather tame by comparison to me.
A worthy start. TV adaptations always have their problems, a la GoT; we tend to think “that’s not the way it really happened” and yet, as in Got, most of the deviations from the books can be well done and actually make more sense! Historical fiction/fantasy/romance has never been my major literary interest, but-the Outlander series has just the right mix of each to more than maintain interest. To those who have not read the books, I highly recommend the audiobooks as, for me, Davina Porter’s narration really brings the books and characters alive! (And I have and have listened to all eight.)
I have read all the books. After watching the disaster that was Kelley Armstrong’s ” Otherworld” series, I am relieved that it is more along the lines of ” Songs of Ice and Fire”. Some scenes are not in the book, but most are edited for time. There is a huge amount of the episode centered around her time in the 1940’s, but it gives the people who have not read the books more character development.
SpoilerAlert! She ends up going back through the stones after Culloden and has Jamie’s daughter in the 20th century. Frank has given up and gone back to Cambridge when she appear pregnant, starving and dirty in the town they were staying. They stay married but Frank cheats on her the rest of their married life. He was a great father to Jamie’s daughter but they never had one of their own. She becomes a doctor and when Frank dies, she goes back to Scotland and tries to find out where Jamie is buried and finds out he survived Culloden. She goes back and then her daughter follows her. The Reverend’s nephew follows her.
“Written in My Own Heart’s Blood takes us to the Revolutionary War where Jamie is a general for the rebels. These are long books but well worth the read and I for one am pleased with the first episode except Jamie was taller in the books.
(Moderator note: whited out the spoilers. Thanks! SR)
Did anyone catch Frank grilling Claire about having an affair during their time apart and think that maybe HE cheated on HER? That would’ve been the first question out of my mouth after proclaiming my own innocence.
True Blood stopped being about the one-book-per-season over 3 years ago.
@Penni: Yeah, I think it’s pretty clear Frank was asking more out of his own guilty conscience than anything else. TV Claire seems to let it slide, but book Claire thinks about that a little more.
The author has stated quite clearly on more than one forum that there is zero evidence Frank cheated on Claire in any way, in stark contrast to Claire herself. I suspect this is added justification for Claire’s behavior so that readers can believe she is just giving as good to the gander, so to speak.
I’ve also never understood the idea that Frank was boring. Frank worked for M-6 during the war, you know the same place James Bond worked then he became a history professor. So he’s a combo of James Bond and Indiana Jones.
@Banner: Having now read almost all of the first book, almost everything is plot contrivance. If Gabaldon mentions it, even in passing, it’s going to have major repercussions down the line. Which is kind of a cheat and a little frustrating, but whatever.
Frank is rather boring, but I think it’s more to contrast him with the sadistic Randall. So far on the premiere (haven’t seen the second ep yet), all of Frank’s WWII escapades are reduced to a few brief lines. Frank maybe cool, but we’ve so far only been told he’s cool rather than seeing it. It works, up to a point. But I’m having a hard time in both the TV show and book understanding why Claire is so desperate to get back to him. Desperate to get out of 18th century Scotland I get (as a mostly Black woman, there’s no amount of money in the world that would make me want to switch roles with Claire), but without having a real firm grasp on him as a character or the depth of their relationship, it isn’t quite working for me.
The reason Claire is initially in so much danger in 18th-century Scotland is primarily that she’s an outsider, a stranger without family connections or the protection of relations or a recognized status as the acknowledged guest of someone who’d stand in for relations. This would be bad for a man, and of course much worse for a woman(*).
By our standards, everywhere was a “bad neighborhood” back then with astonishingly high rates of violent crime, but the Highlands had virtually no law except the deterrent of a possible blood feud.
So she’s surrounded by violent heavily-armed people with poor impulse control and a predatory attitude towards all outsiders, many of whom also hate English people (and/or Protestants) like poison. Also they’re drunk a lot of the time.
There’s an illuminating anecdote from around that period, about a guy known to his kin as “Thick Angus”. He comes across a Lowlander and says “God and Mary be with you”, in Gaelic. The Lowlander, who doesn’t speak Gaelic, says “Good morning” in reply.
Enraged by this blasphemy, Angus draws his broadsword and cuts the Lowlander down, then takes his musket, shoes and other impeditmential he no longer needs, and ambles on back home over the heather.
His relatives back at the clachan hear him out and ask if the Lowlander had had any money. He replies no, how could he, the man wasn’t wearing a sporran. His father takes off his bonnet and starts whapping Angus, as you’d guess by his nickname not the brightest bulb in his clan’s marquee, over the head with it while shouting “He’s a Lowlander, he wears breeks, he’ll have pockets.” And everyone tears out to rifle the dead man’s breeches.
Ah, the romance of the Highlands!
You can imagine how “Thick Angus” and his ilk would probably treat a strange woman wandering around alone.
(*) It doesn’t help that she shows up in what is, by local standards, her underwear.