MovieChat Forums > Outlander (2014) Discussion > Was anyone angry at how Claire treated F...

Was anyone angry at how Claire treated Frank?

posted 7 years ago by not_a_virus.exe (1267)
15 replies | jump to latest

And I mean, practically fuming at the mouth? I get it, this is a super overly dramatic romance where some randomly good looking woman gets wept off her feet by a dashing, fit, Adonis in another time. Reminiscent of those 90's pulpy romance novels with yellowed up pages because of how long they've been sitting in the library, but let's get real here...

Frank not only lost his wife to her longing for Jaime, couldn't even make love to her without closing her eyes and dreaming of another man, but he ended up raising Jaime's child. And raising his child without prejudice towards her. He sacrificed his happiness not for Claire's sake, or for his, but for the sake of Brianna. And all because Claire saw Randall every time she looked at him.

Well I'm very sorry that your little time travel detour ended up with history tainting the image of your husband Frank Clair, but your husband was entirely innocent of his ancestor's crimes. The way she treated him was nothing short of sickening. And then she wants to have it both ways by throwing a hissy fit over Frank's affairs. So she doesn't want him anymore, but then doesn't want anyone else to enjoy him either?

This was a good man. A good man who by all accounts should serve as a model husband and father and he got thrown under the bus by his wife. It's infuriating. He didn't deserve to get cast aside like some side character that suddenly got in the way. The way they closed his arc was completely unsatisfying. poor Frank.

[–] Ziggy (1802) 7 years ago

As a book reader? No, not even a little bit. But I need to remember that those parts of the book are told strictly from Claire's perspective with none of Frank's thoughts. When I watched the show, I did become more sympathetic to Frank ... at least in the first couple of episodes.

But Frank isn't quite as innocent as you make him sound. Claire wasn't mad at him for having an affair. She was upset that on the night of her graduation from med school he had, not only made plans to be with Sandy instead of her that night, but also "forgot" that the dinner reservation was at 7:00 (not 6:00) so that Sandy arrived while all of Claire's friends were still there. He wanted to humiliate her.

Also, Claire tried to give him an out several times. She offered to let him leave her almost right after she came back through the stones. She offered to give him a divorce several times. He wasn't interested because he wanted to raise a child. He didn't want to leave because of Brianna. When he was ready to divorce Claire, he told her that he was taking Brianna with him. He even wanted Brianna to change schools before she graduated and attend school in Europe. Frank researched Jamie (without telling Claire) and found out that Jamie had survived Culloden.

Claire loved Frank, but Jamie was her soulmate. Her marriage to Frank probably wouldn't have been good even if she had never met Jamie, because she and Frank weren't really compatible. It was only a matter of time. It really had nothing to do with Black Jack.

I really didn't understand the whole concept of her closing her eyes. Most people actually do kiss with their eyes closed and make love with their eyes closed at least part of the times - usually when they are most aroused. I get what the writers were going for, but it was weak.

Frank wasn't a horrible person or husband, and Claire wasn't completely innocent. But Frank was no saint. He certainly contributed to the problems in their marriage.

[–] not_a_virus.exe (1267) 7 years ago

I'm not sure where you're getting that her and Jaime weren't compatible. For half of season one it felt like they were destined for eachother. Couldn't keep their hands off eachother. Even upon first encountering Jaime she wasn't 'immediatley' infatuated with him, she still had Frank on her mind. To suggest that they 'probably' wouldn't have made it if she had never met Jaime is a rather bizarre assertion. I can't see where you're getting that. It's only after she fell for Jaime that she couldn't look at Frank the same way. I think she easily could have lived a happy life with him if it wasn't for the stones.

Frank didn't contribute to the problems in their marriage, the love was already dead. What he did was akin to beating a dead horse. Desparatley trying one-up her to make here feel the same kind of heartbreak and humiliation she made him feel. It was petty sure, but I don't think that they were deal breakers.

Also, the reason he wanted to stay with her was because Brianna was the only thing he had left of Claire. She was completely severed emotionally from him. The only hope he had was raising her child. To lose Brianna in a divorce would have been to lose the only thing he had left. He mentioned this to her that one of his friends got a divorce because he wasn't happy, and upon divorce learned that he had all child rights severed because the courts favor women in custody battles. He wasn't willing to risk that.

[–] Ziggy (1802) 7 years ago

I think if you rewatch Season 1 Episode 1, and really watch Frank and Claire, it's more than a little forced. He was way more into learning about his personal genealogy than reconnecting with his wife. They were awkward, and I don't think it would have been long before Claire board of him. But, like I said, I read the books. Frank wanted a very traditional wife, and Claire was anything but traditional. Frank didn't really want Claire to go to med school, but ultimately decided it wasn't worth the fight. Jamie always found a way to let Claire be herself and loved her for it.

I never noticed Claire humiliating Frank.

It's one thing for Frank not to want to lose Brianna. It's another thing to take her away from Claire entirely, and that's exactly what Frank intended to do.

I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't the last we see of Frank. In the books we don't see Frank and Claire's life all in a linear fashion as we did in the show. There wasn't a whole lot of them in the beginning of Voyager. Rather, everything we learn about their life comes in bits and pieces as Claire recalls something or Jamie asks a question. "Frank" is in every book. There are 8 so far, and the readers know there is still more to learn. So who knows how the show writers will approach this.

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

I agree with you, she treated him horribly. She should have just let him go to live his life when he asked for the divorce.

[–] Ziggy (1802) 7 years ago

Frank said he would take Brianna away from her. I'd be more upset if she did agree to just let him go and lose her daughter (Jamie's daughter).

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Probably I'm remembering it wrong, I've only seen it once and I have only read the first book.

But how could he take Brianna away, wasn't she like 20 and going to the university?!

If he threatend to take her away when she was younger, then of course I understand Claire. I guess they had talked about the divorce quite a few times during the marriage, I just think she should have let him go and go through with the divorce once Brianna was grown up and he found a mistress, so they both could go on with the rest of their lives.

[–] Ziggy (1802) 7 years ago

I think Bree was 19 or 20 in the book, but in the show Claire points out the Bree hasn't finished high school and that Frank shouldn't take her out her senior year. I got the impression that legally Frank could do that - that Claire wouldn't be able to fight him.

I really felt like the show made Frank more sympathetic than the book, but the book is told from Claire's perspective. We don't hear Frank's side of the story. But it's still hard for me not to side with Claire a bit.

[–] RickAtheDJ (29) 6 years ago

Not to mention the fact that when Claire initially offered him the divorce years earlier Frank had declined. The reason was that divorced fathers often lost contact with their kids. But he had no problem wanting to take Brianna away from Claire after she graduated from high school and he was ready for a divorce. That took away a lot, but not all, of the sympathy I had for him.

[–] fishpan (544) 6 years ago

I did still feel sympathy for him, huge amounts after I got the timing of everything and got why he talked to Claire about Bree coming with him after we saw more of their relationship.

But not only that after down the rabbit hole, well... the request for a divorce is after knowing Claire goes back to Jamie and him finding the obit. So he knows Claire is going, he doesn't know what is happening to Bree, if Claire is going to take his daughter to a time where she would have been in danger at worse but have her options limited in ways he couldn't take. Or just leave Bree in Boston on her own - which in a way Claire did. Going with him would mean he's guaranteeing Bree would have had someone when Claire went. Plus he had the accident almost straight after and it looks like he was upset and drunk. I took it he was cutting his loses with Claire, trying to mitigate the pain for Bree and as hurt as hell as he know Claire somehow is going back to Jamie.

[–] [email protected] (2017) 6 years ago

I hated how she treated him especially after she came back and Frank was a very loving father to her daughter. He didn't deserve her coldness, she didn't even make an effort to be a good wife to him.

[–] Batty67 (358) 6 years ago

Well, it was a doomed relationship from the start it seems. Frank was not a bad guy, he was a bit of a self-centered jerk and controlling and jealous at times, but Claire definitely empowered such negativity. That they stayed together so long, when they should have split long before, is more a sign of the era and devotion to Brianna. Neither side is blameless, etc.

[–] [email protected] (2017) 6 years ago

I don't think their marriage would've been doomed if she hadn't meet Jamie.

[–] Batty67 (358) 6 years ago

Probably given the era. They "merely" would have been unhappy but maybe divorced much later when it was not such a stigma. I cannot recall but I presume they could not have children, likely Frank's "fault" I suppose. Of course, children often keep married parents together, such as was the case with Frank and Claire when she returned.

[–] fishpan (544) 6 years ago

I don't think they would have been unhappy, I think if they could have gotten through him not being able to have children they would have been okay.

[–] Urogy (176) 6 years ago

I agree with you 1,000% !!! In fact, in reality, NO F*CKING WAY, is a good looking high maintenance woman going back and/or longing for WASHING CLOTHES, MAKING EGGS + BACON, HORSEBACK or CARRIAGE TRANSPORT, NO PERFUME, NO DEODORANT, etc...... I mean, literally everything is very slow and hard in the 17th century compared to our century and the show will NEVER portray the daily tremendous struggles for things that we take for granted, even in 1950 of Claire's timeline! Sorry, but maybe if it was an overweight, unattractive goth chick that completely hated her life in the 20th century, would feel loved and/or wanted in the 17th century!