I’ve been thinking Re: Claire’s behavior…

My original thoughts above still stand, but a girl’s entitled to more than one motivation, especially if she’s been raised by HRG.
During the period when Claire was lying to HRG about the memory wipe and her family finding activities, we always had a chance to see Claire alone on-screen or with other characters in the know, so she could convey the lies to the audience. From the end of Company Man through Paraite, Claire isn’t alone on-screen. She’s always registering reactions in relation to other people. Plus, the Haitian can’t entirely count as in the know anymore, because Claire established she has trust issues with him and prooved she could slip by him.

Going back to Company Man, we get Claire and HRG’s conversation in the car in medias res, and HRG doesn’t count as in the know, because he had the Hatian blank that whole day. Blanking the whole day, the Hatian wouldn’t necessarily notice the particulars of one conversation.

I’m wondering if Claire is running a game, now, based on the knowledge gained from HRG, that someone above him in her life has been calling the shots. Part of the reason she ran for Peter is that she surmised that someone had to be a Petrelli and with or without HRG’s pre-memory wipe approval, she’s following up the lead.

I bring this up, because spoiler pics and a clip for the next ep. bear out that Claire isn’t left alone on screen, gaining info through her behavior, and the writers are using that device to hide her intentions for a big reveal in the finale. I look forward to your thoughts after .07% airs,

1. They were helping out the casual viewer, who watches the eps. out of order, because real life intervenes.

2. On the narrative level, they needed to establish the frame of mind that would cause Claire to run for Peter. Her “Thanks, Dad.” stemmed from annoyance, but also fear and isolation. The Haitian commented that she hadn’t said anything all day. What can she say? The Hatian is a one note song. It’s a necessary, ocassionally lyrical note, but one note, nonetheless. Plus, her father is painfully gone, and he’s left her with the man she watched shoot him and take his memory. This man who shot and memory-wiped her father, necessary as that was, takes on a new guise in the less rational part of her brain — death. Her father left her in a car with death, and she realizes how indicative that is of her relationship with HRG, wishing that he really could’ve just been a paper salesman.

Peter, otoh, is life. He kept Claire from Sylar, shares her power, and is exactly who he presents himself to be. That’s why it’s so easy for Claude and others to read his behavior.

But don’t you think that’s why Claire’s attitude was out of character? Claire has consistently demonstrated a level of poise and maturity beyond that.

Hey, Kelly. It seems like there are two issues here: first, that the show might be killing off its characters too quickly, and that it’s difficult to form an emotional attachment to them as a result; second, that the show’s telling an incredibly large-scale and fast-paced story, and not every character is going to play a role in the following season’s story.

I agree with the part about not wanting to form an attachment with a character who’s only going to be killed off, but in a way I think it also has the potential to achieve the opposite: if there’s a sense of impending doom, doesn’t that make the character’s story all the more tragic?

I’m not sure, I think every viewer will see it differently. But I thought Charlie’s story in “Seven Minutes” and “Six Months Ago” became more poignant because there was a sense of inevitable tragedy.

Beyond that, I think it’s just a way of underscoring that the danger is real, and that Heroes won’t have a fairytale ending where all of the characters adjust to their powers and live happily ever after. The show is telling a much darker story than that.

Eden and Charlie had to die, I guess, and we felt it. Simone was a positive death for the show in many ways–but there comes a point where it goes too far. Anyway, here’s the TVGal article. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on what she says:

http://www.zap2it.com/tv/news/zap-tvgal-021907-tvdeaths,0,2979040.story

Re: Claire — There’s another factor to consider: Any one of the events Claire has experienced, would be enough to put many folks in a padded room. I found myself thankful that she’s still lucid enough for the occasional teenage response.

I agree, Raissa, Coleman was amazing in his two scenes with Sandra and Candice-as-Sandra. He played the realization that Sandra could “play dumb” instead of being treated as dumb perfectly.

The Sandra/Grandma Petrelli concept sounds like a premise for a spin-off show. I’d watch it.

Hey, Reepicheep! This is weird. Two worlds collide. (Reepicheep’s a fellow reviewer, folks; she and I review Smallville over at Smallville Guide.)

I hear what you’re saying about Mohinder. To me, it shows how complex his issues with Chandra are. He’s playing off a basic instinct for retribution, but I think what makes it so compelling is that (a) Mohinder’s relationship with his father was messed up, like you say, and (b) there’s a grain of truth in what Sylar says: Sylar was closer to Chandra than Mohinder before Sylar killed him.

I think that’s why there’s an undertone of twisted jealousy in Mohinder’s need for revenge. Mohinder wishes Chandra could have involved him with his research the way he at one point involved Gabriel.

It’s also a neat link to the backstory when Mohinder decides to use Sylar for his research instead of shooting him right away. It’s Mohinder’s way of proving to himself that Chandra was wrong: Mohinder really does have a “heart of stone” when he needs to. He’ll use his father’s murderer to further his father’s research.

I thought Ramamurthy played the scenes remarkably. That moment when Sylar mentions Shanti and Mohinder gets this twitch in his right eye; it’s like all of his inner conflict comes to the surface.

On the 4 out of 5 score: I score episodes based on my overall impression. There are plenty of flaws to nitpick, but I wouldn’t dock more than a point here because none of them were critical. And in the end, the cliffhangers were off-the-charts amazing. So overall, the good outweighed the bad.

Hi Kelly: I take your point about Sandra, but I think she’s alive and well. I mean, heck, even Simone got a couple of loved ones kneeling over her corpse. If the show kills off Sandra, I’m betting Claire and HRG will be weeping over her body. I think it’d be a much bigger deal if Sandra was killed off.

Claire? Yeah, I think it was out of character. I can sorta see what the episode was trying to say; like, she has a moment when everything gets to her and she just wishes life could go back to normal, or that she could just do what she wanted. Maybe no one really saw it that way when they were making the episode. I’m not sure.

On the “fatalism” discussion: I can’t add to that; all great points, and very well argued.

Anyway, not sure if Sandra Bennet is still alive. I had an exchange with Otto about it, and there really is no reason for Thompson to keep her alive. HRG is completely at their mercy, and I wonder if they really need a bargaining chip. But we’ll see.

I have to wonder why Hayden didn’t object to the character assasination she was forced to portray in the episode. This was NOT the heroic Claire of “Unexpected” and “Company Man.” Just bad writing that showed a lack of sympathy or understanding for the character. The opposite of what was done for Mohinder.

I’m really torn on the whole “fatalism” angle. Is the die really cast? Is Hiro powerless to change the future as well as the past? This is why I hope against hope that Isaac doesn’t die because the show will end up contradicting itslef and essentially making us all ask what the point of it all is. I hang onto this tidbit of hope from v/o Mohinder (my favorite of all of them) from the end of “Six Months Ago”:

Was the die cast from the very beginning, or is it in our own hands to alter the course of destiny? Of all our abilities, it is free will that truly makes us unique. With it, we have a tiny but potent chance to deny fate. And only with it can we find our way back to being human.

The show needs to remember those words. If they don’t, fans will. I buy that we can’t change the past. I don’t buy that we can’t change the future. We have a tiny but potent chance to deny fate. Let’s hope we see some evidence soon of that tiny but potent chance, or this is one fan who will lost patience very quickly. It’s one thing to move fast with your stories and avoid “Lost” syndrome. It’s quite another to render the entire goal of the plotline laid out in scrolling text in the first episode meaningless.

Great review. I agree with every point that you made except for your praise of the Mohinder-Sylar scenes. This probably just boils down to personal preference, but for me, I had a hard time sympathizing with the guy. His role as the rejected son who loves/hates his father - and who discovers every day, whether through visions or through the callous name of a pet lizard, how little his father cared for him - didn’t really come through for me. He looked more like he was triumphantly avenging the death of a beloved comrade than struggling with his own issues and mixed-up emotions about his father. Even Sylar’s taunts about how his father trusted him far more than he trusted Mohinder (the highlight of their scenes together) didn’t seem to bring back Haunted Mohinder. Somehow his performance here didn’t really capture the Mohinder we all knew. It was more like a lightswitch was flicked and he transformed into Dark Mohinder, sort of the way Smallville randomly gave us four or five Lex Luthors in Season Four.

I completely, COMPLETELY agree with all your other comments on plotholes, complete character reversals, underplayed consequences, and drawn-out sequences (Hiro)…which leads me to the question: Why 4 out of 5?

Look forward to hearing your thoughts when Heroes returns.