Outlander: Wentworth Prison and To Ransom a Man's Soul

Okay, let's do this.

Trigger for rape.

I wasn't sure if I wanted to tackle these two episodes, because honestly: the internet was in an uproar for days afterward, and there didn't seem to be much I could add to the conversation. Besides which, when I don't like something, I generally just walk away from it.

But I made it this far, so let's see this season of Outlander out to the finish line. These episodes start with the methodical and emotionless hanging of criminals, and it only gets more cheerful from there.

To make a long story short (and on reflection it actually is a very short story) Jamie is saved from the gallows by Jack Randall, who then discovers Claire's rescue attempt and so uses her as leverage to coerce Jamie into sex. Due to a traumatic night of rape at Jack's hands, Jamie is a broken man by the time Claire and the other Scotsmen devise a way to successfully free him.

After a period of recuperation at a nearby monastery, Jamie divulges details of his ordeal, and he and Claire decide to leave for France – somewhat happy in the knowledge that she's pregnant.

There is a degree of irony to be found in the fact that after dodging rape attempts from every direction for each of the sixteen episodes of this season, it is not Claire but her husband that eventually becomes the victim of rape. We're so used to seeing the reverse: the rape of a woman that is framed by the suffering and anguish of a male character (usually her partner or father), that this almost came as an M. Night Shyamalan-esque twist. The ordeal is not only shot firmly through Jamie's point-of-view (the rape scenes in question are conveyed via flashbacks while he's recovering) but gave Claire a crucial role in his recovery and the only moment of retribution that Jack Randall is ever likely to get.

Of course, that gender flip doesn't make it any less traumatizing or horrible to watch (and I'll admit, I hit the fast-forward a couple of times). Rape seems to have permeated television recently; it's all over Game of Thrones, and is a fairly prominent part of individual character arcs in Scandal, House of Cards, Da Vinci's Demons and even "lighter" fare such as Downton Abbey and Reign. In all these cases, the rape is invariably that of women (the only male variant that comes close to what was depicted on Outlander is Theon's castration on Game of Thrones), although the rape itself either occurs off-screen or allows the actress to remain fully-clothed for its duration (the exception is Da Vinci's Demons, though even in that case they depicted the rape and then the nudity, not both at the same time).

This on the other hand? Full nudity from both actors and a graphic, prolonged depiction of the rape itself, with some Fingore thrown in for good measure. I don't even want to think about how uncomfortable this must have been for the actors involved, which essentially required them to portray the slow breaking of a decent man at the hands of a depraved sadist. (I'm sure they're both fine – it just must have been a gruelling few weeks of shooting).

I think what it all comes down to, not just in this show but in any story that involves rape, is the question of what exactly the writer is trying to convey with their inclusion of it.  Do they genuinely want to explore the ramifications of it, or do they just want to use it as an easy plot device? Sometimes it's employed as even less than that, used as a negligent background detail to tell the audience that we're in a "dark and gritty" environment (the otherwise fantastic Vikings falls into this trap with an early rape scene that serves absolutely no purpose beyond informing the audience that rape does in fact exist). Often it feels like there's a competition going on between television networks, to see who can be more shocking and controversial and graphic. After all, if people are talking about your rape scene, that means people are watching your show, right?

So how is rape is utilized on Outlander? What category does it come under? Does the character development justify its protracted and explicit nature, or is it just employed for gratuitous shock value? Is it a thoughtful and responsible depiction or gross torture porn?

Thing is, I don't know. I have absolutely no idea.

Looking over the message boards in various parts of the internet, it appears that opinion is starkly divided, and I'm certainly not in a position to weigh in on who's right and who's wrong. I suspect that the greatest division lies between the book readers (who knew this was coming) and the "unsullied" (to borrow a term of Game of Thrones) who – even after fifteen episodes of violence and rape threats – probably weren't even remotely prepared for what this last instalment contained. Especially since this show has been widely promoted as a sweeping romance and time-travel adventure set in the Scottish Highlands.

So all I can really offer is my own response to what happened.

Obviously, I didn't enjoy it. It was emotionally draining and left me feeling sick to my stomach (I skipped dinner that night). Although I can appreciate that the show didn't hurry Jamie's depression or recuperation period (insofar that a forty-five minute episode can afford to hurry such things), at the same time I feel the placement of his ordeal at the very end of this season gave the show-runners a "way out", in leaving the more gradual and arduous process of recovery to the imagination of the viewers (and the inevitable time skip that will exist between seasons).

And honestly, I don't think we needed such graphic flashback scenes. The glassy look in Jamie's eyes and his choking confession to Claire was more than enough to tell us what had happened to him. That said, I concede the counter-argument to this is that the elimination of the flashbacks would remove the narrative from the victim and give it to Claire instead – something that (if genders were reversed) is one of the great criticisms of rape depictions on film and television.

But that's just me.

I.... really don't know what else to say at this point. At the end of the day, this is what the show looks like, and (presumably) how the show plans to proceed. Once everyone has vented their feelings – for or against Jamie's rape – on the internet, the only choice that remains available to us all is whether to continue with Outlander or find something else to watch.

At this point, I'm not so much outraged at the current trend of rape on television as simply weary of it. I've heard all the endless counter-arguments ("that's just the way it was back then!" and "no one complains this much about murder!" are two popular favourites) but that doesn't change how I feel. Personally, I've had enough and I'm ready for something lighter ... right after I marathon The Borgias this weekend.

Damn, it really is ubiquitous, isn't it. 

Miscellaneous Observations:

In my review of a recent episode of Penny Dreadful (and no doubt my mind was dwelling on these episodes of Outlander when I wrote it) I argued that sometimes it's not a bad thing to kill in order to protect others. Can anyone doubt that it would have been better for Claire and Jamie to have screwed the moral implications and cold-bloodedly killed Jack Randall when they had the chance? Because I'm pretty confident I would have!

There were some nice little character bits strewn throughout these two episodes: Claire noticing the Bible on the warden's desk and so playing up her role as dutiful Christian woman, Those Two Guys seemingly playing cards when they were actually gathering information, and the one lone prisoner who had nothing to gain or lose by it, but who tells Claire where she might look for Jamie.

This was a nice shot:

So was this:

The Wentworth Prison episode was rather chillingly framed by Jamie witnessing McQuarry's hanging at its beginning, and Claire noticing his corpse when she's ejected through the trapdoor at its end. He was the man who led them both there, and his fate was a poignant framing device, as well as providing a striking visual in watching Claire crawl from the pit of bodies to the green grass beyond.

Most of the time this show forgets its time-travelling element, but it was used to good effect when Claire tells Randall the date of his impending death. That said, it didn't even come remotely close to providing the cathartic release required. There's been no closure on Jack Randall, let alone a sense of justice being done. What happened to him anyway? He just seemed to disappear after the stampede.

Compare this to the wake of the Red Wedding on Game of Thrones, where all anyone wanted was to see the Freys suffer. We got that a little, in the way Arya attacked the Frey soldiers by their campfire, but the general consensus at the conclusion of season five is that viewers are starting to get burned out by the endless stream of depravity and misery. Human beings aren't designed to withstand darkness without the promise of light, and there's a chance both these shows will lose viewers as a result.

A lovely touch was that the memory of Jamie's mother continues to inspire others to act in her name. One could almost say she saves her son from beyond the grave with the goodness she instilled in others during her lifetime.

I liked the portrayal of the peaceful monastery with its helpful, surprisingly open-minded monks. Whenever you come across a church in a period setting you never know whether it's going to be a sanctuary or a hellhole. Not sure why Claire confessed all to the monk though.

I liked seeing Claire in pants. Apparently so did the director, because look at the below shot. It's all about the fact that Claire is wearing pants.

And if there's one humorous thing we can take away from these episodes, it's that they involved a lot of random Englishmen having a really weird day.

Buh?

Huuuuh?

Da fuck?

So that's that. Season one of Outlander ends and I doubt I'll be back for the second. For the record, this is not because of the violence and rape, but because I was never hugely invested in the first place. The stuff that drew me to the show (such as the time-travel element) never became the focus of the story, and the Claire/Jamie romance didn't really grab me. That they're heading to France holds no interest for me; especially with so many loose ends left behind. Did Geillis really get burned at the stake? What the heck happened to Dougal? What about Frank? Why was there no explanation for the sighting of Jamie outside Claire's window in 1945, watching her brush her hair? Is there an actual reason that Claire was transported back to Scotland?

Maybe I'll check in occasionally over the course of season two, but at this stage I'm putting Outlander in the Game of Thrones category: shows that I keep track of, but don't actually watch. Reading recaps and watching YouTube clips of these shows is a viewing choice I'm 100% happy with.

And I definitely won't miss those pointless voiceovers.