+- Spooks Forum (http://www.spooksforum.co.uk)
+-- Forum: MI5 Operations (/forum-3.html)
+--- Forum: Character & Actor Discussion (/forum-23.html)
+--- Thread: [Spoilers] Sir Harry Pearce (/thread-209.html)
RE: [Spoilers] Sir Harry Pearce - Nia M - 24-01-2010 04:53 PM
I personally can't see Harry as a 'secondary character' at all; Spooks without him in the front just wouldn't be Spooks!
RE: [Spoilers] Sir Harry Pearce - Silktie - 24-01-2010 06:39 PM
(24-01-2010 04:46 PM)JHyde Wrote: So now that we've caught up to it in the rewatch, I wanted to talk about Harry in 1.6. The first episode where we really see who he is, both his best and his worst. Not always cool, calm and collected that's for certain.
The thing is, I happen to agree with him about not turning your head from a known attack for a possible one. This is one of those times in the show where it was Harry vs the team, and in this case I think he was absolutely right. What did everyone else think?
And when Tessa threatens him over Bill Crombie, did you think he had been cowardly? Or did you just see it as typical of Tessa's dastardly character that she would stoop so low?
I also think Harry was right. I thought, given his history with McCann, he acted pretty reasonably at the beginning to let the team decide whether the meet with McCann should go ahead. He was absolutely right to mistrust McCann's promise not to launch a terror attack as well. The only thing Harry put his foot down about was not allowing the bomb in the train station to explode. Perhaps, if Tom had explained his plan to Harry instead of going behind his back, he might have persuaded Harry. I thought it took guts from Harry to tell the team why he hated McCann so much as well. That can't have been easy. In the end, McCann played MI5 like a banjo - yes he did have information they needed but he used that to set up the attack on the politician we see in 2.1, using the bomb in the laptop given to Tom as a diversion. Harry was right not to trust him.
Re Tessa, I thought she was trying to play Harry, but that she couldn't have known the real circumstances of what happened with Bill. So maybe there was a question about what Harry could have done, but in light of what we know of Harry up to this point I couldn't see him being able to live with himself if he had betrayed his friend like that.
RE: [Spoilers] Sir Harry Pearce - JHyde - 24-01-2010 07:01 PM
I remember wondering, but not being convinced.
This was the episode I think I fell in love with Harry a bit and then put it on hold until season 3.
RE: [Spoilers] Sir Harry Pearce - Tea Lady - 24-01-2010 08:00 PM
Well, Harry a coward? I am struggling with this one. How would Tessa know he had a gun and then tossed it? How could he toss it anyway, surely it was government property? Even if he had a gun, could he have made any difference against two car loads of terrorists who probably had better weapons than him, and a crowded pub of civilians close by? If what Tessa said wasnt true then why didnt Harry tell her so, then again why should Harry have to explain himself to her? There is no mention of Harry having a gun in his diary though. Maybe he wanted to forget that he had one. I cant though see Harry as being a coward. He had already been captured and beaten himself and went back to work. Hardly the actions of someone not fit for duty. Bill was also his best friend, perhaps his only best friend ever in his life. If he had a gun I would like to think that Harry saw any attempt at saving Bills life as futile and would have ended his own as well. Not something that is easy to live with though.
As for McCann, Harry was completely right not to trust him and their efforts should have been spent on stopping the first bomb. A security cordon and special forces would have prevented anyone attacking the power plant. I wonder though whether his team wanted the glory target. Look at the way they cheered at the end. That was what they were fixated on, not the smaller train station bomb. Less glamorous.
Sorry, I think I have babbled here.
RE: [Spoilers] Sir Harry Pearce - lwhite53 - 24-01-2010 08:04 PM
(24-01-2010 04:46 PM)JHyde Wrote: So now that we've caught up to it in the rewatch, I wanted to talk about Harry in 1.6. The first episode where we really see who he is, both his best and his worst. Not always cool, calm and collected that's for certain.
The thing is, I happen to agree with him about not turning your head from a known attack for a possible one. This is one of those times in the show where it was Harry vs the team, and in this case I think he was absolutely right. What did everyone else think?
And when Tessa threatens him over Bill Crombie, did you think he had been cowardly? Or did you just see it as typical of Tessa's dastardly character that she would stoop so low?
I have to say I disagreed with Harry here. True, McCann was scum and they really couldn't trust him, but I don't think they actually did. They knew they'd have have to deal with whatever he potentially had planned as well as dealing with the potential attack on Sefton B. And remember, there was no real intel on what McCann was up to either. Had Harry been able to put his emotions on hold, he would have seen that they were fighting on two fronts and could have been part of the solution instead of becoming part of the problem. Once he put the blinders on, he was pretty useless to the team and became the third front that they had to guard against.
Tessa's threats re Bill Crombie were a low blow attempt to get Harry angry and put him off his game. She knew she was in serious trouble and needed to find a way to compromise him. She took a shot with the Crombie situation because it was fresh in her mind and she hoped she could rattle him with it. But was it true -- I don't believe so.
Edit: I have to eat my words -- after listening to the 1.6 commentary, I now know that Tessa's re-telling of the Crombie story was the accurate one!
RE: [Spoilers] Sir Harry Pearce - Silktie - 25-01-2010 06:16 AM
I think, though, that the truth is in Harry's Diary version of events. He apparently had an opportunity to do something, but would have had a small chance of success at saving his friend. And also, any action taken by him would have blown their whole operation and specifically the asset they had in place - and who was in fact one of the men kidnapping his friend. So Harry, in essence, had to choose between maintaining their asset's cover and his friend's life.
The "Fight, goodie" line is the one that sways me towards this version. I just don't believe that Harry would be so flippant about her accusation if it were really true.
RE: [Spoilers] Sir Harry Pearce - Tea Lady - 25-01-2010 03:21 PM
Yes I see what you are saying Silktie but Bill was Harry's best friend. Surely no asset is worth loosing your best friend over? Harry would have fought wouldnt he even if he only had a small chance of success? Why would this blow his asset's cover anyway? All I know is that from my own family history in the military, when you left your base in NI, you did so with a pistol down the back of your trousers. You never left without it.
Harry's flippancy could also have been because he knew Tessa couldnt prove he had a gun.
RE: [Spoilers] Sir Harry Pearce - lwhite53 - 25-01-2010 04:18 PM
Harry's Irish sojourn was at the beginning of his service career. Even though he had been in the military previously, spooks don't operate like soldiers. They play a waiting and watching game and feed their intel to others to act upon. I think maybe H found himself in a terrible quandary in the Crombie situation. Did he rescue his friend and blow the operation and their other assests? Did he stand by, keep his cover, and watch his best friend kidnapped by the IRA? A terrible situation for a young, inexperienced officer to be in. It probably all happened very quickly and he needed to make an immediate decision . . . and he stuck to his training which taught him not to blow his cover. And, btw, MI5 officers were not supposed to be carrying guns -- if he had one he would have been in a world of trouble.
Tessa's use of the truth against him is her ace in the hole, she thinks. But I'm not sure that her game is to show he was a coward once upon a time, as much as to let the team know that Harry had lied to them in his explanation of why he was opposed to working with McCann. She wanted them to know that H was manipulating them -- if she could get that across then the damage would be longer lasting than just one op. He needed to get rid of her.
RE: [Spoilers] Sir Harry Pearce - JHyde - 25-01-2010 04:23 PM
Whether Harry had a gun or not, it was all over quickly enough that had Harry frozen for just a moment wavering between the two choices, it was enough time for McCann and the asset to leave with Crombie. Sometimes that's all it takes.
RE: [Spoilers] Sir Harry Pearce - lwhite53 - 25-01-2010 04:27 PM
Yep, that's my point, I think -- young officer, hasn't had enough experience to have learned to think and act quickly, needs to rely on training. Decisiveness is a learned skill.