A Case of the.... Lost - Episodes 5-16 & 5-17 Revisited

“So, Lost is basically one huge Spy vs. Spy episode?” – EW.com comments section

Love it.

Welcome to the final Lost: Revisited of the season! First and foremost, let’s get these nagging matters out of the way. In response to “What lies in the shadow of the statue,” Richard said, “Ille qui nos omnes servabit." This is Latin for, "He who [or that thing which] will save us all.” Also, the title of the book Jacob was reading while Locke was thrown out of the hotel window was “Everything That Rises Must Converge,” a collection of short stories by Flannery O’Connor that focuses on morality and human weakness. And, finally, here is the exact dialogue between Jacob and the Nameless Man in Black, who I believe to be Smokey D. in his human form (most people refer to him as Esau, the biblical figure, for future reference):

NAMELESS: You're trying to prove me wrong.
JACOB: You are wrong.
NAMELESS: They come, they fight, they destroy, they corrupt. It always ends the same.
JACOB: It can only end once. Everything before that is progress.

Good? Good.

Since I was fortunate enough to get a nice chunk of feedback and material for the finale, I’m going to forego the usual “here’s one e-mail, here’s my response” format for a more topic-oriented column. Therefore, certain comments and e-mails may be split up throughout the column. I think this will allow things to flow a little more smoothly.

Click the "Read More" link for the full column.

JACOB AND HIS NEMESIS:

In my review of the episode, I noted the obvious allusion to God and Satan gambling over the nature of mankind. I most certainly got that sense here after reading the exact wording of their interaction, as well. I also got a Matrix-vibe here, that this process continuously happens until humanity finally “gets it right.” Does this perhaps suggest that Jacob’s visits to various Oceanic survivors were to ensure that they arrive at the island acting a certain way and believing certain things? One person on the EW review message board offers this idea:

Jeff and AVClub seems to be assuming that Jacob is the good/white half, but I have my doubts. First, his "touching" of the lives of Kate, Sawyer, and Sayid have serious repercussions. By bailing Kate out, she continues her life as a thief. By giving Sawyer the pencil, he is encouraging Sawyer to nurture his hatred, and by distracting Sayid...well, perhaps he saved Sayid while allowing Nadia to die. Just a thought...

There’s definitely a conflicting mentality regarding Jacob’s “interference.” Indeed, what sort of lesson did he truly teach Kate? Was his intention to set her on the straight and narrow through kindness and compassion, or did he show her that you can always avoid the consequences, no matter your actions? Further, did he save Sayid’s life because he had a destiny to fulfill by returning to the island? Or did his actions lead to Nadia’s death (one could easily argue that had Nadia and Sayid been walking together, she never would have come to a halt when she found her sunglasses, and thus would have never been struck by the car)?

Personally, I’m in the mindset that Jacob IS the good guy here. As we approach the final season, which I believe is only 16 episodes long, I think they’re (for the most part) done with the unexpected character twists. We’ve spent the last few seasons wondering whether Jacob was good or bad, and I’m not sure what they benefit from misdirecting us once we are finally formally introduced to him. While his interactions with Kate, Sawyer, and Sayid are open to interpretation, he also sends Hurley on a path that doesn’t really lead to any dark character repercussions (not yet, anyway). Same goes for Jack, Jin, and Sun. Another thing to consider: They’ve softened the Others considerably over the past few seasons, and they’re Jacob’s main worshippers. The review over at EW.com provides this interesting theory:

Jacob was “quibbling” during his flashbacks; he was building loopholes and failsafe devices into each castaway’s life that will allow them to cheat death by Jughead. By physically touching each of them, he marked them in a magical way. And now, he’s going to draw them to himself, i.e., the Island, just like the electromagnetic anomaly at the Swan site started drawing anything metal into is powerful singularity. Perhaps they will all be immediately beamed to the Island in reincarnated bodies. (The promo for next season seemed to imply as much, what with Jack’s eye shooting open and reflecting back the jungle.) Or maybe it will be like this: the souls of the annihilated castaways will migrate into their bodies at the point in time that Jacob touched them. And more, I’ll bet you that they will retain all the memories of their past lives. Which means, for example, that Young James Ford will have knowledge of his fate — and can choose to try to change it, if he wishes. This is part of the great gift Jacob has given them: Not only new life, but the capacity to create their own destinies — a destiny which could include, if they wish, to go to the Island of their own free will. And they will. Remember Jacob’s last, bloody sputter: “They’re coming.”

The idea that they’re beamed back to the point that they were touched, but with their memories preserved, is very interesting. This would have severe repercussions, for the simple reason that if these characters heed Jacob’s advice, they’ll never end up on the island in the first place.

Consider this: Jack may come to realize that his father wasn’t reprimanding him. Instead, he’ll learn a valuable lesson that he’ll turn to at crucial moments in his life. This, in effect, could easily prevent the downfall of their relationship. If Jack and his father never have a falling out, his father never dies in Australia, and Jack doesn’t end up on that fateful flight.

Likewise, if Sawyer’s memories are retained, he’ll realize that the person he’s going to see in Australia is not responsible for his parents’ deaths. As such, he avoids 815 as well. I can also imagine Jin and Sun choosing the preservation of their relationship over power and wealth. As such, they become independent of Sun’s family, meaning that they don’t end up on the plane either. I’ll spare you from every single example, but you get the point.

Although I’m not quite sure I buy the whole idea that they’d be going to the island based on their free will, because the Oceanic Six and Ben are ALREADY there by choice. To an extent, so are the Oceanic survivors-turned Dharma folks. My personal prediction is that they didn’t change the past, but instead played their part in ensuring that the Incident occurred. And, in turn, the Incident sent all of them back to their natural timeline.

Adding to the idea of Jacob’s visits, long-time reader Creed e-mailed me this point:

A quick note to close - 4 of the 5 people Jacob visited were Jack Shepherd, Kate Austin, Hugo Reyes, and James Ford ... you know him as "Sawyer". Isn't that the list of names Michael was given in Three Minutes, that he was supposed to bring back? (And the 5th person who came anyway was the 5th person Jacob visited, Sayid Jarrah) That can't be coincidence.

For the most part, yes I do think this is coincidence (sorry!) Only because in this case, the easiest explanation is the best one: Ben needed Jack to save his life. He knew Jack wouldn’t do it voluntarily, so he included Kate to act as a pawn. Likewise, Sawyer was there to use as additional leverage in order to ensure that Kate would cooperate. Hurley only came along to act as a messenger. Further evidence that this is merely a coincidence: Jacob also visited Locke, Jin, and Sun, yet they weren’t summoned by the Others. Nevertheless, I seem to recall that one of the Others once mentioned that Jack wasn’t even on Jacob’s list.

I actually fully expect to learn that Jacob visited even more people than was indicated this episode. The Lost method of storytelling typically focuses on the people in that given episode. Would it have made sense for us to learn that Jacob visited Desmond, for example, when he didn’t even appear in the episode?

Before moving onto the next topic, I’d like to touch upon the complex relationship between Jacob and his nemesis. I’ve already stated that I believe the Man in Black is the natural human form of the Smoke Monster. It’s also been hinted that Christian is the Smoke Monster as well. Does this infer that Christian is a messenger for the apparent bad guy? Or is Christian the Mr. Nameless himself, using the dead body as a clever guise (as he did with Locke)? Creed offers this theory:

Christian told Locke to move the island, which would have taken him out of the picture. When Ben moved the island instead, Locke was sent to bring back the people who'd left, including Ben.. and Esau (as Locke) told Richard to tell him that he might have to die. This means Locke leaves the island believing he needs to bring everyone back (including Ben) and would probably die to accomplish this.

But Why?

I believe Esau was on his way to convincing Ben to kill Jacob - 35 years of frustration - until the 815ers showed up. Eko and Locke were both a threat somehow, and they were either killed directly or via Ben; perhaps because they were both 'men of faith' who might have believed in Jacob, or in Locke's case, because John had taken over the leadership of the Other. I believe Ben has been the pawn all along, led by a series of events to think he was doing good work, with the ultimate goal of Jacob's murder.

I’m going to discuss Christian in my next section, so for the moment I’ll just focus on the Jacob/Nemesis/Ben aspect of the e-mail. I’m not quite sure what to make of Ben’s relationship with Nemesis. On the one hand, Ben seems to have some sort of alliance or understanding with the Smoke Monster, based upon the fact that he was able to summon the beast when the freighter mercenaries attacked the barracks. On the other hand, Christian seemed to openly voice his disapproval of Ben during his final talk with Locke at the donkey wheel.

Part of me believes that Locke was always the end game for Nameless. The Smoke Monster has repeatedly showed him mercy, when he hasn’t others, and Christian in particular has taken an interest in him. With that in mind, I think perhaps Locke was the pawn all along, and he simply took advantage of an opportunity with Ben.

JACOB’S CABIN:

There’s been a lot of questions revolving Jacob’s cabin. Was it ever his house? Was it a ruse all along? Frequent blog visitor Kyle offers this on Jacob’s cabin:

So was Jacob's cabin ever Jacob's cabin, or was that always a lie? I think Jacob's enemy from the beginning was the one in that cabin, maybe imprisoned by the ash (hence why the fact that the circle of ash was "broken"...allowing him to get out). And maybe he was the one asking for help back when Locke and Ben visited the cabin.

Which then raises the question...does this mean Christian Shephard is working for him and not Jacob? Or is he in fact disguised as Christian? Because while we dont know his motivation in terms of Sun, Christian trying to get Locke off the island and telling him he had to die now seem like a plan by Jacob's enemy all along.

I’m inclined to believe that, at one point, the cabin belonged to Jacob. My main reasoning is that Ilana somehow knew to check it when trying to find Jacob, and her comment that he hasn’t been there in a long time seems to imply that he was there at one point.

The Christian factor is a very interesting one, because I daresay that much of what has happened is turned on its head if it turns out that Doc Shephard Sr. is actually working for the bad guys. We’ve seen Ghost Christian interact with Jack, Locke, Claire, Sun, and Frank (am I missing anybody), and each of those encounters have led the character down a very specific path. To discover that they were essentially led astray, after all this time, would be rather significant.

As it relates to the ash and the person inside being imprisoned, Creed adds:

On the cabin - when I first saw the ash circle in Curtain, it made me think of a binding, especially when we heard 'Help Me'. But Richard said Jacob lives in the statue, and Ilana said Jacob hadn't been there in a very long time. Which makes me think Esau was the one living in the cabin, and that he asked Locke for help to free him from the binding.

To answer both of you: I’m also leaning towards the theory that the Man in Black was living in the cabin and that the circle of ash was some sort of force field, but I can’t quite recall when we first discovered the circle had been broken? Was the circle intact when Locke visited the cabin for the first time? Because if it was, that might poo-poo on the theory that Smokey and the Man in the Black are one in the same. But yes, I do think that “Esau” – and not Jacob – was the one who said, “Help Me.”

THE INCIDENT:

So we finally found out what happened to Dr. Chang’s arm. But the question remains: Did Jack’s actions cause the Incident, or did it successfully rewrite history? Of course, we won’t know the answer until next season, but long-time reader Dan e-mails:

I'm glad Miles pointed out that setting off the bomb could cause the incident. I was thinking Faraday had this planned out all along, but that would mean everyone is now dead for good. Plus, Miles' dad dying means he couldn't have made the video talking about the incident, the village would have to have been rebuilt exactly the same, etc, so I guess they did change the future, at least somehow. Or did the force suck in all the energy from the bomb and leave everyone outside ok? That would explain why Daniel said it had to be as close as possible.

I also appreciated the fact that Miles recognized the possibility that they were actually causing the very thing they’re trying to prevent, especially because that’s all they’ve really done since arriving. Sayid shot Ben to prevent him from becoming the monster he turns into, which ultimately led to him losing his innocence. My understanding of the hydrogen bomb’s detonation was that the intense electromagnetic activity would contain the blast to that specific point. That is to say, the explosion would prevent the electromagnetism, but wouldn’t harm anybody outside of the well. Which is why it had to happen at that specific time (if it didn’t, why not just blow the damn thing up at any moment?) Regarding the success of the mission, Creed adds:

So part of me is really hoping that they stick with the simple, less-convoluted "What Happened, Happened" philosophy and Miles is right - this IS the Incident and they didn't change a thing in history. (Although it leaves the unpleasant thought that while the journey to Dharma Days was fun, what was the point? Other than perhaps bringing those stranded in 1974 back to the present, if The Incident resolves by sending Jack, Kate, Hurley, Sawyer, Jin, and friends back to the present day)

Actually, I disagree with the notion that the Dharma days will prove inconsequential if they don’t successfully change the future. On the contrary, I love the idea that their actions set forth the obstacles they’d face later (earlier?) in life. Case in point, consider this cool observation from the EW website:

WHAT IF : The radiation from the bomb mixed with the electro magic is what causes women to die during pregnancy. It would be prety ironic that Juliet has responsible for the very thing that she was brought to the island to fix. How's that for loophole

I absolutely love this idea. It’s right up there with how Ethan played a part in recruiting Juliet, which caused her to come to the island, which ultimately led to Juliet going into the past and preventing Ethan from dying during his birth. Most people complain about these apparent paradoxes (that can’t possibly be the right plural form, can it?), but I find them a lot of fun.

MOTIVATIONS:

A lot of people have been irked by the apparent character motivations for blowing up the future Swan Station. Long-time reader Dan sent this observation:

I'm not really getting some of the characters motivations. Juliet and Jack both wanted to set off a nuke so they don't have to deal with a breakup, and Eloise tried to set it off so she could kill Daniel a second time?

I don’t think avoiding the break up was the main motivation for Jack or Juliet – a lot of people seem to be making this mistake (if you read the latest edition of Entertainment Weekly, there is one article – written by the same author who pens the episode reviews on their website – criticizes Jack for his incorrect assumption that he wants to blow up the island for a “second chance with Kate”). In his e-mail to me, Creed echoes this sentiment:

And Jack is a bad person, in my opinion - when asked why he wanted to change the past, no mention of Boone, Shannon, Eko, or any of the other people who died... just a regret about a relationship he messed up with bad choices. Wow.

This is incorrect. When Jack first discusses the plan with Kate while being held captive by the Others, the first thing he mentioned was all the lives that would be saved. In my eyes, THAT was always his intent. Wiping the slate clean and preventing the pain caused from Kate, in my opinion, was only his emotional attachment to the situation. I think Juliet was in much the same boat. Things had gotten to the point that her happy little life with Sawyer was a virtual impossibility. Preventing all of this from happening in the first place was the lesser of two evils.

What I find interesting, though, is that everybody chastises Jack and Juliet for wanting to rewrite history because of the relationships in their lives, while Kate and Sawyer want to retain the timeline for the very same reason. For all intents and purposes, Jack’s plan saves 50 plus people who were on the Oceanic flight and, conceivably, prevents the Purge. Even if they may be motivated by the fact that they won’t be spurned, there’s a lot of good that can come from rewriting history. Meanwhile, what argument do Sawyer and Kate have? It’s only personal gain for them. Sawyer is living a relatively honest life with the woman he loves. Kate met two cute boys, avoided jail, and got to become a mother. Neither of them want to give up what they have, even if it means good, innocent people they had lost get to live.

I think the EW review again points out the bias for Sawyer and against Jack. The author twice mentions Jack's weak excuse for wanting to reset history because it will give him a possible second chance with Kate, but never once does he mention the fact that Sawyer was perfectly willing to let everybody on the island die. Including Hurley, who never hurt a fly and was basically a bystander in all of this. And Jin and Miles, who he had spent the past three plus years getting to know. And, presumably, he would have left Kate behind too. It was actually Juliet who made the decision for them to go back.

For that matter, I also think Juliet’s insecurities proved to be pretty baseless. Sure, Sawyer laid his eyes on Kate a few times, but if you think about it, Juliet’s got her on a pretty short leash. Like I said above, he was willing to leave Kate behind if it meant leaving safely with Juliet. And even when Kate joined them in the sub, he continuously rejected her attempts to stop Jack. It wasn’t until Juliet intervened that he decided to join in. Likewise, he gave up fighting Jack when Juliet indicated that the best thing to do would be to let Jack proceed. And finally, when Kate urged everybody to go help Jack, Sawyer turned to Juliet for her thoughts on the matter. Everybody seems to be wondering who Kate’s in love with. It may be a moot point, because it seems pretty obvious that Sawyer is head over heels for Juliet (which in and of itself could be a moot point, if she’s dead).

This brings up a legitimate question: What’s more selfish? Preventing your unhappiness or ensuring your happiness no matter the consequences?

And the more I think about it, the more I enjoyed the scene in which Jack spilled his heart out to Sawyer. We rarely see Jack so emotionally vulnerable, and he rarely explicitly expresses his feelings for Kate. It was nice seeing him be honest with himself, and pouring out to his perceived competitor, no less.

KATE’S CHOICE:

Television relationships can be crazy sometimes. Take The Office, for example. For the first few seasons, everybody was all about the Jim/Pam relationship. Now that the characters are actually together and happy, there’s a legion of viewers who literally want their characters to die. We’re in a similar situation here. In the beginning, most people loved the complex Jack/Kate/Sawyer love triangle. Now heading into the series’ sixth and final season, a lot of fans just sit back and annoyingly ask “Still?” whenever this subject is hinted upon. One reader at the EW website says:

I strongly dislike Kate as well, but I think there were multiple points in last night's episode when she could've redeemed herself a bit just by making a choice. Either by not supporting Jack (= not choosing him) or by telling Jack she loved him (when she hesitated before he took off with the bomb). So I'm guessing my dislike will continue into next season.

I’ve stuck up for Kate a fair amount this season, but I think this is a fair argument. What’s the expression? “It’s time to crap or get off the pot”? A bit crude, I know, but I think it fits the bill. They’ve been riding the “Who will Kate choose?” fence for five years now, and as I noted, a lot of people are getting impatient and frustrated.

I find it funny that the person who commented used these exact examples, because I totally expected her to say “no” when he asked if she’s with him (which would have been a first, I believe). Then when she didn’t, and they shared that long stare as he walked away, I expected her to say she loves him (which would be the first time she openly expressed her feelings for one of the guys in front of the other). But neither happened. Nevertheless, Creed notes in his e-mail:

So at this point, with the show progressing to deeper levels of 'good versus evil', small matters like "Who will Kate choose?" become insignificant. Though personally I wish Kate had gone down the whole instead of Juliet, she seems to just cause misery and sadness wherever she goes. I really liked Juliet, even when she got out of that 'I have information you want, and I won't share it" mode. It was nice to see James find happiness past Kate and move on, a shame that either way that is over.

The thing is, even when Kate “chooses,” she doesn’t really. When she first hooked up with Sawyer, it was for convenience (Sawyer was in the cage next door, while Jack was living underwater) and then jealousy (Jack was buddying up with Juliet). And then when she was with Jack during her post-island years, she was sneaking around doing favors for Sawyer. It’s never been a solid decision on her part, and I think the writers are taking a risk if they plan on holding that off until the very last episode.

A lot of people seem to be riding Kate because she essentially forced Sawyer and Juliet into helping her stop Jack, only to end up helping him, which ultimately got Juliet killed. I can see why that might make some sneer at her, but I don’t really question her actions. People have coined this episode a “Game Changer,” and I’m going to use that phrase to explain Kate’s behavior. She and Jack had a philosophical difference. He thought they should use a hydrogen bomb to rewrite history, and she felt they should preserve the timeline. Both would have severe repercussions if they were wrong. So what changed?

Basically, Jack laid it all out on the table. Instead of arguing about fate and destiny, and hurting her with his harsh belief that it is worse to have love and lost than to never have loved at all, he told her how right this felt and how he just knew he was supposed to do this. And then he asked her that seemingly simple question: “Are you with me?” And that was a very powerful and purposeful question. He’s asked her this question in the past, and she’s always said yes (even when she’s initially resisted). And when they got off the island, she made this specific assurance. That question, coming from him, was a real game changer for her. And I think it was perfectly consistent for her character (for better or worse) for her to say yes, despite how strongly she had felt otherwise.

What I find interesting about this threesome is that, in the season two episode “What Kate Did,” Kate reveals that she’s fighting her feelings for Sawyer. Yet I find her far more emotionally guarded around Jack. That photo of Jack and Aaron in her home is very telling. To me, that’s her dream. Perhaps she’s hesitant to openly, fully fall in love with in out of fear that she could lose that dream should things not work out.

As a side note, I think it's somewhat appropriate how when Jack got knocked out, Kate immediately ran to his aid. However, while tending to him, she attempted to rescue Juliet, which required Sawyer's assistance. Unfortunately, they failed. But when Jack woke up, what does he see? What appears to be Kate assisting Sawyer. In actuality, she had run to Jack. Her being by Sawyer's side was happenstance.

To close out the season on a light note, here are two tongue-in-cheek observations (I’ve come across this on various sites, so I don’t have a proper credit): The episode started with Jacob gutting a fish and throwing it on a fire, and ended with him getting gutted by a Pisces and then thrown on the fire. And the fish that Jacob caught was a Red Herring.

I want to genuinely thank everybody who has contributed to this column. Writing the Revisited articles would not have been as fun or successful as it was without all of your e-mails and blog comments. Thanks so much, and continue visiting my blog with some exclusive tidbits on Lost and other shows over the summer (and don’t hesitate to leave your comments there as well!) See you next season!