MovieChat Forums > Burn Notice (2007) Discussion > Three things about Fiona that I had a ha...

Three things about Fiona that I had a hard time with

posted 10 years ago by centrd
42 replies | jump to latest

One...The way she was so violent with Michael, always hauling off and slugging him. I mean with his background of abuse, that seems like a bit of questionable writing (Maddie too), but then again, maybe it's realistic...people tend to be attracted to dysfunctional relationships based on their past relationships, and one thing's for sure, Fi & Michael have a dysfunctional relationship.

Two...She never seemed to be violent with her other boyfriends, never saw her haul off and hit Campbell or Carlos. She seemed quite reasonable and tender with them. It's hard to believe if her nature is that violent, that she wouldn't behave that way with them too. (or at least let them see how crazy she could be.)

Three...How she fell in love with Carlos so quickly in season 7. And was genuinely crushed when he left her. I just had a hard time with that, after everything she and Michael had been through...I understand she was seriously hurt that he made a choice that she believed meant he didn't value her as much as his work, and then disappeared without a word. So she was trying to mend a broken heart by opening it to someone else...but it was still hard to take...it would have been easier to watch if they'd left out the love stuff. (of course, it was also a necessary plot device, so that Michael could sleep with Sonya.)

I do think that perhaps the Carlos Fi relationship existed ultimately to demonstrate the kinds of extreme things that Fi & Michael were willing to do for each other that any other regular love interest, like Carlos, just couldn't. In the end, only Michael & Fi really got each other in that way. They had the same level of commitment to each other, willing to break the law for each other, willing to die for each other... whether they were together or not.

I still wince every time I see Fiona or Maddie hit Michael though, but I know it makes for a more dramatic effect. And maybe it is a more realistic plot device than I first thought. Because basically, I think Matt Nix is a genius, and he wouldn't do it if it wasn't true to his vision.

[–] shuglife 10 years ago

#3 When Fi says I love you to Carlos was the worst part of the entire series. It really watered down the finale for me. When she ends up with Mike it loses a lot of its impact because deep down does she love him?

----------------------------------------
Nobody knows what I do, until I don't do it.

[–] centrd 10 years ago

Yeah, it was pretty crushing. I suppose the point was to get us, the viewers, to feel as strongly as Michael did that their connection was lost. And to show his isolation and how the loss made him vulnerable to manipulation by James and Sonya. The show tells us, that for whatever reason, Fiona somehow drew out his better side. Michael himself said that a small part of him was like "Larry" but it was getting smaller the longer he was with her. Not having her as his conscience allowed him to access more of his darker side. At least this is how I rationalize it to myself to try to get over what felt like a massive betrayal on Fiona's part.

I do believe that deep down, Fi really loved Michael. She wouldn't have put herself on that rooftop without trying to defend herself from Sonya if she didn't love and believe in him. I think the ending shows that ultimately, the bond they had (as Seymour would call it) was stronger than any of the other bonds they had to anyone or anything else. It just took a life-or-death moment for them to both finally realize it at the same time. Fi actually sacrificed herself for Michael more than once, first during the assault by Vaughn when she consciously followed him into that outbuilding, basically choosing suicide, and second, when turning herself in for the Anson bombing to protect Michael from himself.

These women still drive me nuts sometimes though...like Maddie being so mad at Sam for blowing up her house, when if she'd just left when he asked her to, none of that would have been necessary. I suppose the writers are all men and maybe this is how they view women, plus those bits are in there for comic relief, but as a woman myself, I find their behaviors annoying.

I am aware how futile it is to get so caught up in trying to understand the motivations of fictional characters. But I blame that on the writers...they did a really good job of creating believable people that interest me (just like authors do), even if some of those characters drive me crazy sometimes.

[–] shuglife 10 years ago

Maddy drove me crazy in the exact same manner. Many times I fussed to her, If you had left when Sam said to you wouldn't have had t oworry about the window. But Maddy and Sam scenes where very entertaining even when it was for comic releif.

I see what you are saying about Fi, but it still made Fi and Mike's ending a little hollow after her pleading with Carlos.

----------------------------------------
Nobody knows what I do, until I don't do it.

[–] centrd 10 years ago

yeah, I know what you mean about Fi & Carlos...it felt that way to me too, so I just have to add a lot of back story and fill in the blanks as far as what I think the writers' intentions were, so I can deal with it. lol.

[–] centrd 10 years ago

I sometimes wonder about the show's women being written by men only. I remember reading an interview with Gabrielle Anwar at the end of the show and she talks about how she had to argue with Matt Nix throughout the series about the writing for Fiona and how she'd have to remind him that women watch the show too and would be offended by some of it.

Matt Nix says he appreciated the fact that Gabrielle didn't bite her tongue but I wonder sometimes if she was perceived as being a bit difficult. Whenever you read interviews with Jeffrey, he always mentions how close he is with Bruce & Sharon, but never mentions Gabrielle. And it was pretty clear they had no relationship outside of work. It seems that the good natured chemistry they showed in interviews in the beginning of the show, was no longer visible as the show went on. It seemed like they stopped doing interviews and appearances altogether. So if he didn't actually like her, then it's even more remarkable that they were able to portray such chemistry on screen.

Regardless of all that, I wonder if that's why we sometimes find the Maddie & Gabrielle characters so annoying? Because men were writing them? Their irrational behaviors were really the only thing that ever bugged me about the show, and true to form, they carried it to almost the very end. But even with their flaws, I was still always rooting for them to work things out with Michael. Certainly the show would have been less comedic or dramatically striking (no pun intended) if Maddie & Gabrielle weren't always so violently reactionary or crazily contradictory. So maybe the writers made their behaviors a little extreme to create the foils Michael needed to reveal his conflicted emotions as well as show the depth of his love for them and his loyalty no matter what they did. Plus, their lack of appreciation certainly helped create sympathy for our misunderstood spy.

[–] shuglife 10 years ago

Intresting point about they are annoying more so because they are being portrayed so to speak through the eyes of a man. That makes a lot of sense, actually. You also have to figure, in the end this was through Mike's eyes explaining to Charlie, so in his mind they were crazy.

----------------------------------------
Nobody knows what I do, until I don't do it.

[–] centrd 10 years ago

lol...very good point! He sure kept that to himself though, didn't he?

[–] shuglife 10 years ago

lol...very good point! He sure kept that to himself though, didn't he?

He's still alive so I'm sure he kept it to himself

----------------------------------------
Nobody knows what I do, until I don't do it.

[–] centrd 10 years ago

So I did find at least one woman, Lisa Joy, who was a writer on 3 episodes of Burn Notice. Two of them featured Fiona heavily, "Better Halves", & "Where There's Smoke".

And it's very interesting that Fi didn't have the annoying attitude in those. Her character traits are quite funny, not annoyingly obnoxious. It's thanks to these kinds of scenes, and her independent nature and pro women-and-children views, as well as her comfort in male dominated activities, that I like Fiona despite her constant criticism of Michael. Probably also because Michael Westen clearly loves her, so she can't be all bad. Because in my book, anything Michael likes, I like, even yogurt. :)

Some favorite (and iconic) lines from the two episodes:

Jesse: "Just goes to show you man, payback is a..."
Michael: "Fi." (as she walks into the room)

Sam: “Charles Finley had a shotgun wedding for the sake of his cover, --that’s
Charlotte, the ol' ball and chain.”
Fiona: “Call me that again and we’ll have a shotgun divorce”.

Sam: "Where there's smoke, there's..."Fi." (as he & Michael see the smoke signals she sent up)

Fiona: “Did you get my message?”
Sam: “Yeah, loud and blinky.”

Fiona: "Michael, you can beat yourself up later, I’ll help.”

Maddie: (to Jesse) “Fiona and Michael love each other, and they hate each other, but
it’s always each other.”

The third episode by Lisa Joy was The Hunter, which was mainly Michael & Beck in the everglades...although the opening scene is Michael & Fi sparring, where she's clearly taking out her frustration on him...but holding her tongue --THANK YOU!

[–] MagusTruthseeker 10 years ago

Maddie: (to Jesse) “Fiona and Michael love each other, and they hate each other, but
it’s always each other.”

One of my favourite late season lines.

[–] NurseRatched14 10 years ago

I have a hard time with her shoes. Her doing all that running and jumping over or off things wearing platform shoes. The episode she hooks herself under a truck she is wearing boots with big heels. It ranks up there with medical shows where the female doctor wears spike heels. It kind of takes me out of the show and makes me realize that it is fiction and there is a stunt double doing everything with sensible shoe on, or she is attached to a safety harness.

[–] centrd 10 years ago

lol...I love that. yeah, we are talking about a t.v. show here, aren't we. :)

[–] anon-14 10 years ago

I didn't think she fell in love with Carlos quickly. Season seven opened nine months after season six ended, so I assumed she and Carlos had been together most of that time. She was trying to move on from Michael and Carlos was a good guy.

[–] centrd 10 years ago

Yeah, I agree...and as independent as Fiona was, she always seemed to need a man in her life, so I suppose being that "in love" in only 9 mos was possible in her world. And I agree that she was motivated by trying to move on and be happy without Michael. But it still bothered me that she always assumed that Michael was doing what he did for his own selfish reasons when time and again he showed he would risk his life to keep her safe. I mean, what kind of deal did she think he'd cut with the CIA while they were all locked up? But clearly she was still angry and hurt, so I'm sure much of her behavior was caused by underlying feelings that she was trying hard to ignore.

I read an interview with Jeffrey before the start of season 7 where he said that Michael didn't really care about himself. But he truly cared about the people in his life. He actually wanted to be with them but he knew his presence caused all kinds of suffering so he was always conflicted and would sacrifice his own needs and put theirs first.

It bugged me that the writers always made it look like Fiona couldn't understand that, when she understood everything else about Michael. But then again, I know their separation was needed for other elements of the plot to be advanced, so I was okay with it when it was all said and done. But it was really uncomfortable to watch as the season progressed. Heartbreaking...but that's what drama's supposed to be. Otherwise it wouldn't make for a very good story. Just wish Fiona didn't have to always be responsible for most of the crazy emotional drama in the series. :)

Their reconciliation seemed kind of rushed too, all happening at the very end, but the good news was that ultimately Fiona did understand and love Michael enough to go to that rooftop willing to sacrifice herself to save him from himself. I also liked that in the end, Fiona and Maddie were Michael's heroes. It made up for a lot.

I'm just over sharing because I can't let go yet. I hate that there are no new shows to watch. Burn Notice is my all time favorite show and JD my favorite actor and I'm still in withdrawal. :( Nothing else I really want to watch that much. And now that JD deleted his twitter account, there's no way to know what he's going to be doing professionally in the future. Talk about heartbreaking. :( The other actors still have twitter accounts so you can keep up with them at least.

[–] blazegarrett91 10 years ago

I don't know if you heard, but Matt Nix has a new show coming this summer. it's called Complications, looks good. You might want to watch out for it if you haven't already heard of it. To your points, I think Fiona's need for men in her life comes from having so many brothers. If you remember back in season 3, Michael actually told her that working for the CIA was more than just to protect the people he loves. It was how he wanted to live. So for Fiona, what really upsets her is that the CIA will drop Michael like a bad habit and leave him to die despite everything he does for them, but he's still so willing to keep going back to them. He'll take the CIA's betrayal over her love and loyalty. So at the end of season 6, it kind of makes sense because she's thinking "protecting everyone is just collateral, he's doing this because he wants this more than me." So that's what upset her. And I don't know if the female character thing is as sexist as it appears. Maybe I'm wrong, but I interpreted it as Michael, Sam and Jesse were driven by patriotism. Maddie and Fiona were driven by circumstance. Remember, Fiona only joined the IRA to get revenge for her sister, and she got out pretty quick because she didn't care for the political aspect. Maddie couldn't dehumanize people like Michael could (seeing people as assets). Like remember the episode where Tyne Daly came back. Maddie became friends with her, and Michael needed her to blackmail Tyne, ultimately costing her job. That's where Maddie conflicts with Michael. Seeing his side of the story helps you empathize with him, but Maddie and Fiona as characters don't get to see that. So at times it did get a little irksome, but I personally don't think it's merely from men writing female characters. At least I hope it isn't!

[–] centrd 10 years ago

Those are really great insights. Gives me new perspective. thanks!

[–] centrd 10 years ago

Btw, yes I've heard of the new series. Even saw a little trailer for it. I'm looking forward to it as I'm a huge Matt Nix fan. I think he did something really unique and very high quality with Burn Notice. I hope this new show gets him the accolades I think he deserves for crafting really excellent television.

[–] blazegarrett91 10 years ago

absolutely. I'm definitely looking forward to it. He's proven himself with Burn Notice, and I think Good Guys was just a result from trying to run two shows at the same time.

[–] MagusTruthseeker 10 years ago

The Carlos relationship was one of the most ridiculous things about season seven. It was never even remotely believable. Even the lengths the writers went to to show the schism between Fiona and Michael seemed out of place, like when he rescued her from the guy in the bunker in 7x02 and she looked right through Michael to run to Carlos. Yeah, right. Whatever.

I honestly thought Burn Notice was going to do right by the audience and skip the angst will they/won't they stuff at the end. I thought they did a great job with addressing that situation when Maddie noticed some sexual tension between Jessie and Fiona. She pulled Jessie aside and pointed out that no matter what happened, in the end, it would always be Michael and Fiona - no matter what. This was a great way to handle it. Then the writers could just have gone on from there and stop worrying about the Michael/Fi relationship as a story focus until maybe the final episode.

[–] centrd 10 years ago

Clearly they did that so that Michael would believe he'd lost Fiona for good. The whole episode was building to that final kiss on the cheek, signifying their relationship was really over.

And of course there was the shock factor for the audience, to get us worked up and really invested in their eventual reconciliation. But I agree, initially it was difficult to buy her reaction after their long history together. The only way I could rationalize it was to think that Fiona was so angry at Michael that she was purposely cold and intentionally ignored him in retaliation..."you leave me for 9 months without a word, let's see how you like it when you're left hanging, no matter what the circumstances". "And just to rub it in, let me go kiss the new, deserving man in my life right in front of you."

Even then, Michael still held out hope, obviously, as he later approached her at the ambulance. He knew how Fiona behaved whenever their relationship was on the rocks. Remember in "Wanted Man" when Michael tells Sam, "Fiona's idea of testing a relationship is the emotional equivalent of artillery fire". So he still seemed optimistic when he approached her. She momentarily softened when acknowledging their past in saying to him, "you remembered my story" but clearly she was resolved to be done with Michael no matter what. So she didn't give him any opening whatsoever, no chance to say something that might change her mind. She just kissed him on the cheek and walked away.

I can actually understand that. When you've been so in love with someone but decide he is bad for you or you realize you will never have a future together, you have to steel yourself against falling into old patterns. It's like an addiction that you have to go cold turkey on; you can't allow yourself to even think about the drug. And to help her maintain that resolve was her commitment to Carlos, which she used to fortify her resistance to Michael's pull on her. I think Carlos was more like rehab for Fiona, than a real relationship.

Sometimes I feel like the dynamic of a back story makes sense, but in a show with so much going on some of it gets lost in the editing, merely for a lack of time.

I keep trying to write an alternative version in my head, that would create the same kind of dramatic tension and justification for the seeming finality of their separation (which allows Michael to turn to Sonya), and it's not easy to come up with anything much better that would accomplish the same outcome. So I can appreciate their efforts and I'll accept that it all works out in the end, even it it caused some discomfort along the way.

Plus, as Shakespeare and every soap opera knows, the only way to keep a relationship interesting is to keep the lovers apart, at least off and on. The writers did that through the entire Burn Notice series. Which kept the relationship exciting, unlike most shows that die soon after the lead characters get together. So it would have been out of character to suddenly have Michael & Fi on the same page for the entire last season. The push pull of their relationship was as big a part of the story as any other so it makes sense it would be a prominent factor in the last season.

[–] ih8tt 9 years ago

I think Carlos was more like rehab for Fiona, than a real relationship.

I think the word you're looking for is, "rebound" :)
and isn't it interesting that Fi had a couple of boyfriends during the series (most notably, dear Campbell, poor guy), Michael never had anyone else (and *please*, no one bring up Sonya, that wasn't love, that was a mission, and maybe horniness)

Plus, as Shakespeare and every soap opera knows, the only way to keep a relationship interesting is to keep the lovers apart, at least off and on. The writers did that through the entire Burn Notice series. Which kept the relationship exciting

and Jeffrey said in an interview that the way they kept their on screen relationship fresh, was to not see each other when they weren't working, so it was always interesting when they were together, they didn't tire of each other

[–] centrd 9 years ago

No I really meant "rehab". I do understand what you mean, but the Michael Fi thing was a kind of addictive relationship that wasn't exactly healthy. I think Fiona was seriously hurt by Michael's disappearance and probably felt the need for some "rehabilitation" after being forced to go cold turkey when he left. (Yet again.) And Carlos seemed like a safe place for her to heal and turn her life around, even if he was really more like a "half-way house" than her final landing place. lol. In the real world, she would have been smart to wait a good bit longer before getting into another relationship, but that wouldn't have worked plot wise. And of course this is a fairy tale and in the end, everything is swept clean and Fi & Michael are living happily ever after in a romantic little cottage, never to have the dysfunctional nature of their relationship raise its ugly head again. I'd like to see that happen in the real world. lol.

[–] ih8tt 9 years ago

I think Fiona also saw Carlos as her last/only chance at a "normal" life, away from the 'international conspiracies' and drama of her relationship with Michael.

...and I still think what you describe sounds an awful lot like a 'rebound relationship,' but, to-ma-to, to-mah-to ;)

I think Fiona was seriously hurt by Michael's disappearance and probably felt the need for some "rehabilitation" after being forced to go cold turkey when he left. (Yet again.)

on that, and I realize some of that time was probably while he was in Ireland with Fiona (though I'm honestly a little sketchy on his CIA timeline), but did Fi ever complain about his 'disappearance' for a decade the way Madeline did? from the pilot, he 'left' Fi when he had to leave Ireland, I'm not sure when that was in that 'missing decade,' versus, say, his work with Larry, but it seems like he cut Fi off, too (on Card's orders? he never did like her - or maybe just the idea of a CIA operative being involved with an IRA terrorist), and she was pissy about it in the pilot, but she doesn't seem to have held it over his head as much as his mother did, perhaps Fi understood the reason for it better?

never to have the dysfunctional nature of their relationship raise its ugly head again. I'd like to see that happen in the real world. lol.

indeed! I'm with those who say that they'd probably end up 'helping people' wherever they're living now, the same as in Miami, but possibly on a smaller scale, so as not to attract the wrong kind of attention, because 'normalcy,' as the rest of us know it, just doesn't suit them...I mean, can you see Fi going to PTA meetings, helping with bake sales? Michael mowing the lawn on Saturday mornings, and coaching Little League in the afternoons?

[–] MurphAndTheMagicTones 10 years ago

A fair point. Even Gabrielle Anwar admitted they didn't seem to know how to write the character of Fiona. She would chide Michael for the decisions he made yet she had no problem making similar decisions herself.

As for Maddie, teasing Sam about blowing up the house was more for comic effect than anything else.

Yeah, the Carlos thing I've wiped out of my mind. That was just poorly written.

---
"I go salsa dancing, but I don't shake my ass to pay my phone bill."---Daredevil

[–] MrJohn 9 years ago

The biggest problem I had with her is that she's a terrorist, and she's not even a remorseful one at that.

I could never get past a scene in the first series where she was planting bombs in the guy's club - a particularly nasty thing the IRA used to do to maximise civilian deaths.

Imagine if the character was an Arab ex-ISIS IED maker for a moment and tell me an IRA bomb maker is acceptable as a hero.

[–] centrd 9 years ago

Well, this is a very good point. I just ignored the back story for the most part and held on to the few times that they made it clear she never was involved with the IRA to kill people, instead using explosives the way she does with Michael. But you're right, it's hard to get past the terrorist background. I think they were probably trying to imply that the IRA and the CIA both engage in questionable methods when it comes to securing their homelands. But it's a touchy subject, that's for sure.

[–] MrJohn 9 years ago

Here's the thing, you can't be a bomb maker for the IRA, (which she specifically was), and not be responsible for some incredibly reprehensible acts of terrorism and death.

She joined to get back at the English army - she joined to kill.

And the IRA was not "securing its homeland", it was killing innocent people through acts of terror and mass murder.

[–] centrd 9 years ago

Yes, your argument is obvious. It's a tv show that I think was trying to play that aspect down, obviously.

[–] MrJohn 9 years ago

Oh for sure, and I can't blame them - it just seems a very odd choice for a "hero" character, considering her arc contains zero remorse for her IRA activities and the British MI6 officer sent to take her when she's in jail, (and let's not pretend the IRA didn't kill children she should be in jail), is presented as a cartoonish villain come to take away the ever so innocent hero.

It's a little absurd if you put more than a second's thought into it - but the Americans have always romanticised the IRA, so it's understandable.

But other than that, I thought the series was great.

[–] centrd 9 years ago

I agree. It's an odd choice. I suppose they couldn't come up with another idea for a female character adept at bomb building who also has zero sympathy for the CIA or government in general. She's clearly supposed to be a scrappy fighter who's actions are rationalized because the British govt. killed her sister. Esp. funny when she lost the bad Irish accent after the pilot.

I suppose making her a disillusioned operative would be too similar to Michael and not give her the independence and rebellious streak they wanted her to have...so not sure what else they might have come up with that would make sense and explain her "skills". I get why they did it, but yeah, I think it was a little problematic and they tried to downplay it a lot once the show took off.

[–] ih8tt 9 years ago

I agree with all your and MrJohn's points about Fiona and the IRA

[–] ih8tt 9 years ago

I agree with all your and centrd's points about Fiona and the IRA

but the Americans have always romanticised the IRA

just for the record, not this one

[–] centrd 9 years ago

Yeah, I'm an American and I certainly don't romanticize the IRA. I don't romanticize any form of terrorism, and find it especially abhorrent when it's done in the name of religion.

[–] MrJohn 9 years ago

I'm sorry but it's a cold hard truth - many, many American societies (and film makers), romanticised and even funded the IRA, (one only needs to look towards NORAID and their support of Republican Army activities through Sinn Féin a terror group).

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NORAID

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-week/diary/8895981/diary-608/

http://www.securitynewsdesk.com/opinion-noraid-supporters-must-examine-their-consciences-over-ira/

Look at the film The Devil's Own, it's not a brilliant movie but it does look into how certain communities within America viewed the IRA.

It's something that's changed dramatically, especially in the last fourteen years or so, but it's a fact of history that the US sponsored a group that after Enniskillen even Libya wouldn't touch.

[–] ih8tt 9 years ago

I'm sorry but it's a cold hard truth - many, many American societies (and film makers), romanticised and even funded the IRA, (one only needs to look towards NORAID and their support of Republican Army activities through Sinn Féin a terror group).

maybe so, but please don't paint us all with that brush (and certainly not that of left-wing, always-underdog-supporting-whether-they're-right-or-wrong-and-what-tactics-they-use Hollywood!), many of us saw it for what it was

and Fiona did yell at that guy (in the one with her brother) that he murdered children, and called him a monster, so I guess we could assume, or at least hope, that nothing she did killed children, otherwise, she'd be a hypocrite, it did seem like she was trying to separate herself (or the writers were trying to separate her) from his 'kind,' the more hard-core IRA, but it could be a distinction without a difference, I agree

[–] MrJohn 9 years ago

I'm not painting you all, I'm merely mentioning historical reasons that led to an IRA terrorist being painted as a hero in a US TV show and it being seen as acceptable; it's a truth, it's not a pleasant one, but it's a truth none the less.

I don't for a minute think in a post WTC world that the US has the same feelings as they did when I was growing up, wondering when the next bombing would be.

And the IRA killed more innocent people, than soldiers and it killed children.

Considering the actors were playing their ages, (another great aspect of the show, having older leads), you can safely assume she was in the IRA from the late 80's and stayed with them for 14 years according to the show.

Even if we take a very liberal age of 17 as her joining she'd have been a member during the 1987 Enniskillen bombing, which killed 11 civilians, (the target was a remembrance service at a church), 13 of the injured were young children.

That happened the year, or year before she joined the IRA.

There were 31 subsequent bombings over the next 14 years, you have to think she was responsible for some, (if not many), of those.

Over 98 people were killed during this campaign, 53 of which were innocent civilians, (that's over half the casualties), two of those were young children.

The bomb that killed the children were small devices hidden in bins outside shops - again something you watch her do in the show, the whole plating them around the club was a terrible idea for the character too.

This is the problem I have with her character - like I said originally as an American, just imagine the character as an ex ISIS/terror group IED maker who "only killed soldiers in war" and decide whether the character is appropriate or not.

I loved the show, but there were moments in her character that left a really bad taste in my mouth and I often found it difficult to root or her.

Again, I'm not saying you specifically romanticised the IRA, but I'm saying in the past American thoughts on the subject have been a little rosier than they should.

[–] ih8tt 9 years ago

This is the problem I have with her character - like I said originally as an American, just imagine the character as an ex ISIS/terror group IED maker who "only killed soldiers in war" and decide whether the character is appropriate or not.

frankly, I wouldn't be surprised to see a character like that in 10-15 years, distance breeds forgetfulnesses, and if they were somehow endearing or appealing in other ways...and there might be protests from 9/11 families, which would be seen as free publicity for the show

remember, you can't even have Muslim terrorists as bad guys in movies anymore (the villains in "The Sum of All Fears" were supposed to be Muslim terrorists, changed to Neo-Nazis), so Hollywood is already trying to whitewash them, I would possibly even expect sympathetic ones in the years to come

Considering the actors were playing their ages, (another great aspect of the show, having older leads)

yes!

the whole plating them around the club was a terrible idea for the character too.

probably banking on Americans not knowing/remembering details like that, sorry

Again, I'm not saying you specifically romanticised the IRA

I appreciate that :)

[–] MrJohn 9 years ago

You say ten to fifteen years time - which would be nearly three decades after 9/11, The good Friday agreement, (after which there were still bombings), is only 16 years old.

So it would be like putting a former al-qaeda member into the same situation in two years time, and presenting them as a lovable, roguish character who we all enjoy seeing blow things up.

I think, in the end I'd have been happier with the character is there was a redemption thread to her arc, if they spent more than one episode redressing what had happened in her past it might have felt more organic to have the character there perhaps they intended to at one point which is why you have a few story hooks that could lead into it, but decided to concentrate on other characters instead.

Maybe a TV Movie in the vein of Sam Axe could have fleshed out the reason of her leaving and given it the clearer line of redemption that they didn't have time for.

Just one without Donovan's "County Cork, Pakistan" accent!

[–] centrd 9 years ago

I think, in the end I'd have been happier with the character is there was a redemption thread to her arc, if they spent more than one episode redressing what had happened in her past it might have felt more organic to have the character there perhaps they intended to at one point which is why you have a few story hooks that could lead into it, but decided to concentrate on other characters instead.

THIS I agree with 100%. And I think it sums up my real problem with the character. They never explained her violent tendencies or delved into her past at all and she was a MAJOR part of the show. She would have been much more sympathetic if we'd gotten some back story, learned about her vulnerabilities, insecurities and the trauma she experienced. But like I've mentioned elsewhere, the male writers on the show seemed to have written her a bit one dimensionally, and definitely not in the most flattering light, almost as if they were working out some personal issues they have with women. Truly, the only episodes where Fiona seemed to be a truly fleshed out & relatable character was when a female writer was involved (I noted her name & the episodes elsewhere but don't have time at the moment to look them up). Even Gabrielle Anwar has said she often had to fight with the writers and remind them that a big part of the audience was female and wouldn't appreciate some of the behaviors they were writing for her.

Your solution of giving Fiona a redemption arc would have solved the problem for me, for sure. They did it to a degree with Maddie (but not all that well there either), who in the end made the ultimate sacrifice for her son, so a little thrown Fi's way would have gone a long way to make her more likable.

All in all, even with the things that bugged me about her character, I still really liked Fiona. And even more as time goes by. I mean she was allowed to challenge a lot of female stereotypes and she was certainly an independent and capable woman who was loyal and caring but also believable as an action hero / survivor that you usually only see in the likes of Chuck Norris and Steven Seagal. So that was refreshing.

[–] mgreen9715 9 years ago

Only problem I had with her is every time she wore something sexy I wanted to pause and pull the pud.

[–] robocop-37224 9 years ago

Like I said before...She was so damn Annoying. Other than having a delicious Ass, she served no other purpose but to like you said hit him or want to kill every bad person. But that Ass ( WOW ).