![[a case of the blog]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrdW6m_GKpkUaPi56fHU6TFDQPOe1Rd_Lu0S_T5NgEIvzR2rJYBvUU6yRIyH7xtuBt0hVMDAcuqSlLEu9ooq2iwOOnskdsfS9BMjPZJsFJMVIlMJopdnOVjxqeNRR9etLlOY9wUNdSpW6D/s1600/newblogheader19.gif)
May is now upon us, and it’s pretty hard to believe that we have less than a month left before Lost comes to an end. I was actually discussing this with my sister the other night, how my television viewing will shift dramatically next year. Two staples – Lost and 24 – will no longer be on the air, and Heroes is touch and go as it is. But hey, Smallville will keep me around for at least another year. That is, as long as CW doesn’t continually pre-empt it and my TiVo decides to work. Anyway, let’s get to business, shall we?
Continue reading "A Case of the.... Lost - Episode 6-13 Revisited PART 2"....
REVISITING REVISITED
While I didn’t hear back from Colin, last week’s Revisited column – which responded to his critical e-mail – received a bit of feedback. Before I get to that, I do want to make it clear that I wasn’t trying to attack Colin in any way. My response was nothing personal, I just felt that some of his points were nitpicking to the point of ridiculousness, and that while some of his other criticisms were valid, they were nothing to necessarily get hung up over. For example, I wouldn’t be surprised if we never find out what made Walt so special, and to me that would be a disappointment. But is anybody going to be scratching their heads and complaining about how they never explained how the sun inexplicably rose in the span of two conversations? I doubt it. Anyway, here are some of the comments I’ve received:
As far as Kate "suddenly" being able to sail, I thought this was touched upon way back in season one with the raft. Doesn't she say she sailed before in that episode where she fends for a spot on the raft? – Delilah, my original Revisited column
An excellent observation, which acts as further proof that Kate isn’t some willy nilly Renaissance woman who suddenly has an uncanny ability when the plot calls for it. Nonetheless my original point stands: That Sawyer didn’t actually need Kate for her sailing abilities, and that Kate picked up on that. So her nautical training was a moot point.
why is the person even watching Lost? He appears to hate it so much. Now that the internet allows everyone to be a snarky critic it seems as if people waste all of their time watching stuff they hate. Get a life.
Great column. Looking forward to your reviews of the final episodes. Thanks for staying positive...and remembering that it is only a TV show. – cpbasil, my original Revisited column
I can certainly understand Colin’s frustration, as I was significantly snarkier with my Heroes reviews than I ever have been with any other show, but I’m inclined to agree with cpbasil here. Like I said in my original Revisited column – life is too short to devote so much time to something you have such a disdain for.
Hmm, question.
Can Smokey not kill any candidate, past or present? Or only ones who haven't been crossed off?
I ask only because it seems like practically everyone on the Island was on the wall/lighthouse, and I recall how the first time Smokey saw Mr. Eko, he charged him then ran away. The second time he killed him. Could mean something else entirely, but I was just thinking that maybe Eko got crossed off after that first time (if he was even there in the first place). – Kyle, my blog
It was perhaps a bit premature of me to state that Smokey can’t kill any of the candidates, but then again, supposing that people such as Eko was ever a candidate to begin with. Yes, there were loads of names on the cave wall, but also keep in mind that – conceivably – this is thousands of years worth of candidates (or, at the very least, the amount of candidates since chalk was invented). So until I see Smokey directly kill a candidate, I’m sticking with the theory that he’s unable to do so.
And, in the interest of fairness, not everybody was anti-Colin here.
I have to agree about how passive these characters are when they get a politician's answer to something important.
I know that there are no circumstances imaginable that I would stab someone else who I'd never met before, just because a total stranger told me "He's evil." – Jaime, my original Revisited column
While I can sympathize with the notion that these characters are too passive for some to accept, this argument is a bit weak. I’m not sure if this is referring to any particular instance – whether it’s Richard after he arrived on the Black Rock, or Sayid when he was at the Temple – but in virtually every example there were mitigating factors that surely played into their decision to stab somebody. In the instance of Richard, he didn’t receive some vague “politician’s answer.” On the contrary, Smokey spent days physically and psychologically tormenting Richard in order to ensure that he would be easily manipulated. First, he killed everybody on the ship, leaving him to fend for himself in shackles. Then he deprived him of food and water. Then he appeared as Richard’s dead wife in order to solidify his belief that he was in Hell. He preyed on his emotional state, his physical limitations, and his religious beliefs. It wasn’t as if they passed each other on the street and the Man in Black said, “Do me a solid and stab that guy.”
Sayid was in a similarly unique situation. First, consider all he had seen and personally experienced in his 108 days on the island and in the 3 years he spent off of it. Not to mention that he returned and was magically transported into the 70’s. Second, he was “infected,” which we don’t quite know the full extent of, other than the fact that he’s clearly more prone to animalistic killing.
Now, let’s once again revisit our last new episode, “The Last Recruit.”
THE MAN OF FAITH?
Last season, Jack learned to open his mind to faith. This season, he has learned humility. In ''The Last Recruit,'' he recognized that there was still a place within his recreated self for a rational mind. Indeed, contrary to Sawyer's ''leap of faith'' crack, I think Jack's decision to jump off the Elizabeth was a conclusion reached by logic, and his plunge into the water was a kind of baptism christening Jack the fully integrated hero... but I'm getting ahead of myself. – EW.com review
This is actually a really good point, and one that I didn’t really catch during my initial viewing. I had interpreted Jack’s “man overboard” routine as a literal leap of faith. Which, to a great degree, I think is accurate. But the EW.com reviewer is correct, the reasoning behind Jack’s leap was very much built on a foundation of logic and rational thought. And I think he’s right when he points out that, with this amalgamation of blind faith and logical thinking, Jack may have finally cemented his status as the heroic leader.
it was just an OK episode for me. i loved the opening interaction with Jack and the Locke Ness Monster, but the rest of the episode just felt like they were moving pieces around. i am a big jack fan and i can't understand how anyone can dislike jack after everything we have seen from him. i have to admit, when jack swam back to the beach and stood up, they did that thing with the camera where you know something is about to happen and for a split second i thought jack was going to be toast right there.
i have read theories elsewhere after the episode last night where people think jack was "claimed" by the LNM at that moment. after all, claire was claimed after a similar type of explosion. i dont buy that though for a couple of reasons: 1) because we saw jack the entire time, so i dont think he was dead and 2) because they gave him that ringing in his ear which should also indicate that he was alive the whole time. – DaBooty, my blog
I have to agree with DaBooty here and say that I don’t believe that Jack “died” and was claimed by Smokey. I don’t think the wording was accidental – I do think the writers wanted us to consider the possibility. But like DaBooty alluded to, we were never lead to believe that Jack had died. Remember, when Sayid “died” and was claimed by Smokey, he was dead for two hours. That’s a far cry from what we saw by Jack. And while the scene was a bit more similar to what happened to Claire, without knowing the full circumstances behind her infection, I can’t say for sure whether that’s a fair comparison either. So, no, I don’t believe Jack died and was claimed. I think he was alive the whole time.
good pick up on the parallel between jack's leap off the boat and sawyer's leap off of the chopper. both did it for the betterment of the group, though jack's leap is a little less clear. – DaBooty, my blog
Yeah, methinks Jack’s jump might save their asses if they’re going to be held captive by Widmore.
SMOKE AND MIRRORS
If nothing else, “The Last Recruit” answered one of the “big” questions that many of us (including me) have longed to know: Are Ghost Christian and the Smoke Monster one in the same? According to the Locke Ness Monster, yes they are. I have long believed this to be the case, and only began to waver from it this season when we came to learn more about Smokey’s motives and limitations. And while I was initially skeptical, I’m going to take Smokey’s word on this until something happens to make me think he’s lying.
Back in season 1, Ghost Christian was a storytelling device that revealed Jack's character and solved a castaway survival issue (finding water) — but did it mean anything more than that? Did the writers really know that Ghost Christian was a manifestation of The Monster, or was that something they decided after the fact? I know many of you are debating the question today, and my answer is that I don't really care because either way, I am satisfied with resolution of the Ghost Christian mystery. – EW.com review
This is an excellent question, and something that brings to light an even bigger issue. The writers/creators have constantly said that they had everything planned from the very beginning, but could this possibly be true? For example, the actor who plays Richard was very, very close to being removed from the series because of a conflicting show, which (selfishly, thankfully) got cancelled. And since then, he’s played a significant part in the mythos of the show, and he’s apparently going to play a critical role in the finale (considering that he’s leading a small group of people to square off against Smokey and Widmore). But all of this would have been impossible if the actor was unavailable. So is this whole Richard backstory something they came up with after the fact?
The same can be said for Ben. I’ve heard various places – I can’t recall where – that Ben wasn’t supposed to be a regular character, but the actor wowed everybody so significantly that they permanently added him to the show. And Ben has since played a more crucial role than anybody outside of the original cast. Surely Lost would look dramatically different if Ben wasn’t a central character.
And all of this is relevant to Ghost Christian. Was he ALWAYS intended to be the Smoke Monster, who in turn was always going to be the Big Bad? I mean, if you recall, around the same time Jack saw his dead dad, Kate was also seeing her horse. And Sawyer was being haunted by a boar. So maybe Christian was originally going to be one facet of the island weirdness, and later on they decided to beef up his role (this would also explain certain discrepancies between Christian’s appearances and Smokey’s limitations).
Personally, I don’t mind if the writers are making things up on the fly, as long as it’s entertaining and consistent with the rest of the story. I just want them to own up to these things. I don’t think most fans would fault them.
When Man-Thing said that John Locke wasn't a believer but rather a ''sucker,'' I didn't disagree. The story of John Locke plays like a cautionary tale about faith, not a glorious affirmation of it. Jack and the castaways have surely been negatively impacted by their dead friend's scary need for The Island and his zealous belief in destiny, and so I don't think Jack could intellectually argue the point with Man-Thing. At the same time, did you get the sense that Jack was a a little offended for John? I think Jack could and would say that Locke opened his eyes to the need for faith and helped him see that — to paraphrase Shakespeare — ''there are more things in Heaven and Earth, Jack, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.'' If Jack is capable of recognizing that he's been a pawn in a horrible game between morally dubious gods, he must also be able to see that Locke was used as a pawn, too — maybe more of a pawn than any of the other candidates and castaways. What I'm trying to say is that Jack's proper regard for his former Island rival should now be profound empathy — and maybe even a desire to seek justice on his behalf. ''Sucker''? I say, ''There's no need for name-calling, Mr. Monster.'’ – EW.com review
I, too, sensed that Jack felt a bit slighted by Smokey’s declaration that John Locke was a sucker. But I’m not sure I buy into the EW.com reviewer’s critique, either. Was John Locke easily manipulated? To a very frustrating degree, yes. Was he gullible? Yeah, I’d say so. But a sucker? No, I think that’s a bit harsh. In the end, perhaps John Locke wasn’t as special as he thought he was. Ultimately, it appears that characters such as Hurley and Desmond are more connected to the island and posses more powerful abilities. But nonetheless, I think Locke recognized that there was something special about the island itself long before anybody else did. And while everyone else struggled with this realization – some even outright denied what was happening right in front of their eyes – Locke significant role in helping them come to terms with what they otherwise wouldn’t have been able to believe. And sure, in the grand scheme of things, it seems like Hurley – and not Locke – is Jacob’s golden child, but do you honestly think Hurley would have stuck to his guns throughout season one when a very vocal and aggressive Jack attempted to shoot down his wacky theories?
I’m not quite sure where any of these characters would be if it wasn’t for Locke. Yes, some of his actions were selfish and reckless, but is it fair to say that the castaways have been negatively impacted by what he’s done? I don’t think so. The way I see it, the only person who has ever died because of something Locke did was Boone. Would the reviewer dare say that they’ve been negatively impacted by Jack? Or Sawyer? Or Walt? A lot of these characters, to varying degrees, have blood on their hands.
TEAM WIDMORE
I wish to use this opportunity to acknowledge a school of thought that theorizes that Man-Thing's conflict with Team Widmore is a giant ruse, that The Monster and Charles Widmore are actually collaborators in a conspiracy to manipulate (and ultimately destroy) the castaways in order to achieve mutually advantageous goals. We know that Man-Thing wants to leave The Island. What might Widmore want in this scenario? Here's my thought: Charles Widmore wants to replace Man-Thing as the new monster. Before his not-quite-sure-I-believe-it-anymore turn toward righteousness this season, I believed Widmore was driven by a fear of death; becoming a black cloud of all-powerful disembodied consciousness is his ticket to eternal life. I find myself slipping back into that view. Then again, he hasn't been around lately to convince me different. Out of sight, out of mind — and back in the villain box. – EW.com review
The more we saw of Widmore, the more I sensed that something was….off with him. And this past episode certainly solidifies that feeling. His sudden change of heart, suddenly altruistic and selfless, which was a far cry from what he had wanted in prior seasons, just doesn’t seem to add up at this point. While I’m not certain that I believe he wants to become the new Man in Black, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that this is some sort of con. The final moments of the last episode, where Widmore first held his supposed allies captive execution style by gunpoint, and then recklessly sent missiles to the beach, with no concern for the human lives there, reminded me of the Widmore that instructed his freighter crew to capture Ben and to kill everybody on the island if necessary.
Then again, here’s an alternate theory:
I can't think of her name off hand, but the girl that was speaking to Widmore on the walkie talkie, didn't she say that the 6 of them were on the beach, not realizing that the "6" did not include Jack, but Frank in his place, so that is why Widmore ordered them to shoot at the other beach with Locke not, realizing Jack is over there?? – Jennifer, my original review
That’s a fair theory as well. Maybe Widmore legitimately believed that all of the candidates were safe, and thus viewed everybody else as acceptable losses as long as it meant that the Smoke Monster was destroyed.
DOING THE DESMOND DEED
Island Desmond has become Jacob in the same way that "Locke" has become the Man In Black. That's why FLocke pushed Desmond down the well, and that's why he sent Sayid to kill him, since we already know MIB can't do it himself. Desmond was also able to potentially convert Sayid back into a decent soul. – EW.com comments section
And in response, another EW.com visitor added this:
Desmond reminded me of Jacob too. The way he's been visiting everyone...and the fact that he seems to be a huge threat to Flocke – EW.com comments section
This is an excellent observation. I especially like how Desmond’s various visits with the castaways in the sideways world, which in turn leads each person to a desired place, is very Jacob-esque indeed. The next comment, also from the EW.com comments section, takes a similar approach. But instead of Desmond representing Jacob, he represents the opposite of Smokey himself:
I agree with something Zac said last night on the Instant Reaction post: "I'm thinking Desmond has the opposite effect on Sayid that MIB did. Sayid let him talk and his soul is now infiltrated again….with redemption." – EW.com comments section
An interesting theory, which I can buy into, but it brings up a bit of a qualm I have with television writing in general. And that’s the idea that every character needs to have a relatively happy ending. Nobody can be a truly tragic story. And I’m not talking “tragic” in the Locke sense. I’m talking about a once likable character losing his way and never finding it again. I have LONG argued that, on Heroes, Mohinder’s character should have been killed off at the conclusion of the “Villains” volume. His story was a perfect case of somebody falling from grace. His initial motivations were pure, but in the end he became so obsessed with his need to outshine his father that he literally became a monster. A monster who killed innocent people. But instead of killing him off as a once noble man who had descended into a beast, he was covered in magic lotion and all was forgiven. And what purpose has his character served since?
And part of me hopes the same happens with Sayid. Is there any particular reason why this man needs to be redeemed? In the past two seasons he attempted to murder a (at the time) innocent kid, he murdered two people for his own selfless cause, and then allowed the Smoke Monster into the Temple which lead to even more people dying. And then he killed some of Widmore’s men for shits and giggles as well.
I think Sawyer hit the nail on the head at the beginning of the season. This guy just doesn’t deserve to be saved.
I think Man-Thing wanted Sayid to make that choice. That's why Man-Thing didn't do the reasonable thing and check Sayid's work. What Man-Thing wants is for Sayid to move in the direction of escape/death — which is to say, Hydra Island. If Desmond rekindled Sayid's humanity and soul, and if that fire drives him into harm's way on Hydra Island, mission accomplished. Whatever it takes. – EW.com review
Yeah, I can see this being true. I really don’t see Sayid pulling a fast one on Smokey here.
FAMILY REUNION
It was pretty creepy and unsentimental, as it should have been. Claire seemed to be expecting more out of the moment. She latched onto Jack, claimed him easily and heartily as her big brother — and also made it passive-aggressively clear that she didn't appreciate being abandoned and would be quite pissed if it happened again. To be honest, I think the Jack-Claire twist hasn't panned out to be as cool as it first seemed to be. Making them related by blood nourished the important thematic idea of interconnection between characters that existed prior their Island meeting. It also ratcheted up Jack's angst over abandoning the castaways and during his Oceanic days. Perhaps there's time to squeeze more out of it. – EW.com review
THAT’S the word I was looking for! Unsentimental! That perfectly describes the scene between Jack and Claire. It’s not so much that it lacked emotion – it simply lacked the emotion you’d expect from a brother and sister who hadn’t seen each other in three years. And during this time, they had no idea if the other was even alive. It was, quite simply, unsentimental.
I also agree with the notion that this Jack/Claire thing was better in theory than practice. And I think a big part of why it hasn’t played out better is that they decided to make Kate, and not Jack, completely invested in Claire’s well being. And on top of that, they needed to limit Kate’s references to Claire, in order to tease the audience into believing that she returned for Sawyer. And, in storyline terms, if Kate is returning for Claire but can’t talk about it, you certainly can’t have Jack hung up over it. So, as a result, it just comes across as him not caring a whole lot. And as a result, the relationship as a whole hasn’t reached the appropriate level of emotion.
i also thought for a split second that claire was going to shoot kate when she had her at gun point. i guess i am on edge right now expecting major characters to die. – DaBooty, my blog
I know what you mean. As we near the end of this series, I am beginning to believe that we’ll not only see some significant deaths, but that they’ll be done in the same fashion as Ilana: Blink and you’ll miss it! I’m sure in the finale we’ll see some a Charlie-type death scene, where it’s built up and scripted beautifully. But I also can’t help but feel like we’ll see a character like Jin or Sun or Kate or Sawyer or Claire just got shot in the head out of no where.
Well, that’s it for me this installment. Check back following the new episode for my immediate thoughts. Hopefully the shakes will go away from this Lost withdrawal.
Continue reading "A Case of the.... Lost - Episode 6-13 Revisited PART 2"....
REVISITING REVISITED
While I didn’t hear back from Colin, last week’s Revisited column – which responded to his critical e-mail – received a bit of feedback. Before I get to that, I do want to make it clear that I wasn’t trying to attack Colin in any way. My response was nothing personal, I just felt that some of his points were nitpicking to the point of ridiculousness, and that while some of his other criticisms were valid, they were nothing to necessarily get hung up over. For example, I wouldn’t be surprised if we never find out what made Walt so special, and to me that would be a disappointment. But is anybody going to be scratching their heads and complaining about how they never explained how the sun inexplicably rose in the span of two conversations? I doubt it. Anyway, here are some of the comments I’ve received:
As far as Kate "suddenly" being able to sail, I thought this was touched upon way back in season one with the raft. Doesn't she say she sailed before in that episode where she fends for a spot on the raft? – Delilah, my original Revisited column
An excellent observation, which acts as further proof that Kate isn’t some willy nilly Renaissance woman who suddenly has an uncanny ability when the plot calls for it. Nonetheless my original point stands: That Sawyer didn’t actually need Kate for her sailing abilities, and that Kate picked up on that. So her nautical training was a moot point.
why is the person even watching Lost? He appears to hate it so much. Now that the internet allows everyone to be a snarky critic it seems as if people waste all of their time watching stuff they hate. Get a life.
Great column. Looking forward to your reviews of the final episodes. Thanks for staying positive...and remembering that it is only a TV show. – cpbasil, my original Revisited column
I can certainly understand Colin’s frustration, as I was significantly snarkier with my Heroes reviews than I ever have been with any other show, but I’m inclined to agree with cpbasil here. Like I said in my original Revisited column – life is too short to devote so much time to something you have such a disdain for.
Hmm, question.
Can Smokey not kill any candidate, past or present? Or only ones who haven't been crossed off?
I ask only because it seems like practically everyone on the Island was on the wall/lighthouse, and I recall how the first time Smokey saw Mr. Eko, he charged him then ran away. The second time he killed him. Could mean something else entirely, but I was just thinking that maybe Eko got crossed off after that first time (if he was even there in the first place). – Kyle, my blog
It was perhaps a bit premature of me to state that Smokey can’t kill any of the candidates, but then again, supposing that people such as Eko was ever a candidate to begin with. Yes, there were loads of names on the cave wall, but also keep in mind that – conceivably – this is thousands of years worth of candidates (or, at the very least, the amount of candidates since chalk was invented). So until I see Smokey directly kill a candidate, I’m sticking with the theory that he’s unable to do so.
And, in the interest of fairness, not everybody was anti-Colin here.
I have to agree about how passive these characters are when they get a politician's answer to something important.
I know that there are no circumstances imaginable that I would stab someone else who I'd never met before, just because a total stranger told me "He's evil." – Jaime, my original Revisited column
While I can sympathize with the notion that these characters are too passive for some to accept, this argument is a bit weak. I’m not sure if this is referring to any particular instance – whether it’s Richard after he arrived on the Black Rock, or Sayid when he was at the Temple – but in virtually every example there were mitigating factors that surely played into their decision to stab somebody. In the instance of Richard, he didn’t receive some vague “politician’s answer.” On the contrary, Smokey spent days physically and psychologically tormenting Richard in order to ensure that he would be easily manipulated. First, he killed everybody on the ship, leaving him to fend for himself in shackles. Then he deprived him of food and water. Then he appeared as Richard’s dead wife in order to solidify his belief that he was in Hell. He preyed on his emotional state, his physical limitations, and his religious beliefs. It wasn’t as if they passed each other on the street and the Man in Black said, “Do me a solid and stab that guy.”
Sayid was in a similarly unique situation. First, consider all he had seen and personally experienced in his 108 days on the island and in the 3 years he spent off of it. Not to mention that he returned and was magically transported into the 70’s. Second, he was “infected,” which we don’t quite know the full extent of, other than the fact that he’s clearly more prone to animalistic killing.
Now, let’s once again revisit our last new episode, “The Last Recruit.”
THE MAN OF FAITH?
Last season, Jack learned to open his mind to faith. This season, he has learned humility. In ''The Last Recruit,'' he recognized that there was still a place within his recreated self for a rational mind. Indeed, contrary to Sawyer's ''leap of faith'' crack, I think Jack's decision to jump off the Elizabeth was a conclusion reached by logic, and his plunge into the water was a kind of baptism christening Jack the fully integrated hero... but I'm getting ahead of myself. – EW.com review
This is actually a really good point, and one that I didn’t really catch during my initial viewing. I had interpreted Jack’s “man overboard” routine as a literal leap of faith. Which, to a great degree, I think is accurate. But the EW.com reviewer is correct, the reasoning behind Jack’s leap was very much built on a foundation of logic and rational thought. And I think he’s right when he points out that, with this amalgamation of blind faith and logical thinking, Jack may have finally cemented his status as the heroic leader.
it was just an OK episode for me. i loved the opening interaction with Jack and the Locke Ness Monster, but the rest of the episode just felt like they were moving pieces around. i am a big jack fan and i can't understand how anyone can dislike jack after everything we have seen from him. i have to admit, when jack swam back to the beach and stood up, they did that thing with the camera where you know something is about to happen and for a split second i thought jack was going to be toast right there.
i have read theories elsewhere after the episode last night where people think jack was "claimed" by the LNM at that moment. after all, claire was claimed after a similar type of explosion. i dont buy that though for a couple of reasons: 1) because we saw jack the entire time, so i dont think he was dead and 2) because they gave him that ringing in his ear which should also indicate that he was alive the whole time. – DaBooty, my blog
I have to agree with DaBooty here and say that I don’t believe that Jack “died” and was claimed by Smokey. I don’t think the wording was accidental – I do think the writers wanted us to consider the possibility. But like DaBooty alluded to, we were never lead to believe that Jack had died. Remember, when Sayid “died” and was claimed by Smokey, he was dead for two hours. That’s a far cry from what we saw by Jack. And while the scene was a bit more similar to what happened to Claire, without knowing the full circumstances behind her infection, I can’t say for sure whether that’s a fair comparison either. So, no, I don’t believe Jack died and was claimed. I think he was alive the whole time.
good pick up on the parallel between jack's leap off the boat and sawyer's leap off of the chopper. both did it for the betterment of the group, though jack's leap is a little less clear. – DaBooty, my blog
Yeah, methinks Jack’s jump might save their asses if they’re going to be held captive by Widmore.
SMOKE AND MIRRORS
If nothing else, “The Last Recruit” answered one of the “big” questions that many of us (including me) have longed to know: Are Ghost Christian and the Smoke Monster one in the same? According to the Locke Ness Monster, yes they are. I have long believed this to be the case, and only began to waver from it this season when we came to learn more about Smokey’s motives and limitations. And while I was initially skeptical, I’m going to take Smokey’s word on this until something happens to make me think he’s lying.
Back in season 1, Ghost Christian was a storytelling device that revealed Jack's character and solved a castaway survival issue (finding water) — but did it mean anything more than that? Did the writers really know that Ghost Christian was a manifestation of The Monster, or was that something they decided after the fact? I know many of you are debating the question today, and my answer is that I don't really care because either way, I am satisfied with resolution of the Ghost Christian mystery. – EW.com review
This is an excellent question, and something that brings to light an even bigger issue. The writers/creators have constantly said that they had everything planned from the very beginning, but could this possibly be true? For example, the actor who plays Richard was very, very close to being removed from the series because of a conflicting show, which (selfishly, thankfully) got cancelled. And since then, he’s played a significant part in the mythos of the show, and he’s apparently going to play a critical role in the finale (considering that he’s leading a small group of people to square off against Smokey and Widmore). But all of this would have been impossible if the actor was unavailable. So is this whole Richard backstory something they came up with after the fact?
The same can be said for Ben. I’ve heard various places – I can’t recall where – that Ben wasn’t supposed to be a regular character, but the actor wowed everybody so significantly that they permanently added him to the show. And Ben has since played a more crucial role than anybody outside of the original cast. Surely Lost would look dramatically different if Ben wasn’t a central character.
And all of this is relevant to Ghost Christian. Was he ALWAYS intended to be the Smoke Monster, who in turn was always going to be the Big Bad? I mean, if you recall, around the same time Jack saw his dead dad, Kate was also seeing her horse. And Sawyer was being haunted by a boar. So maybe Christian was originally going to be one facet of the island weirdness, and later on they decided to beef up his role (this would also explain certain discrepancies between Christian’s appearances and Smokey’s limitations).
Personally, I don’t mind if the writers are making things up on the fly, as long as it’s entertaining and consistent with the rest of the story. I just want them to own up to these things. I don’t think most fans would fault them.
When Man-Thing said that John Locke wasn't a believer but rather a ''sucker,'' I didn't disagree. The story of John Locke plays like a cautionary tale about faith, not a glorious affirmation of it. Jack and the castaways have surely been negatively impacted by their dead friend's scary need for The Island and his zealous belief in destiny, and so I don't think Jack could intellectually argue the point with Man-Thing. At the same time, did you get the sense that Jack was a a little offended for John? I think Jack could and would say that Locke opened his eyes to the need for faith and helped him see that — to paraphrase Shakespeare — ''there are more things in Heaven and Earth, Jack, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.'' If Jack is capable of recognizing that he's been a pawn in a horrible game between morally dubious gods, he must also be able to see that Locke was used as a pawn, too — maybe more of a pawn than any of the other candidates and castaways. What I'm trying to say is that Jack's proper regard for his former Island rival should now be profound empathy — and maybe even a desire to seek justice on his behalf. ''Sucker''? I say, ''There's no need for name-calling, Mr. Monster.'’ – EW.com review
I, too, sensed that Jack felt a bit slighted by Smokey’s declaration that John Locke was a sucker. But I’m not sure I buy into the EW.com reviewer’s critique, either. Was John Locke easily manipulated? To a very frustrating degree, yes. Was he gullible? Yeah, I’d say so. But a sucker? No, I think that’s a bit harsh. In the end, perhaps John Locke wasn’t as special as he thought he was. Ultimately, it appears that characters such as Hurley and Desmond are more connected to the island and posses more powerful abilities. But nonetheless, I think Locke recognized that there was something special about the island itself long before anybody else did. And while everyone else struggled with this realization – some even outright denied what was happening right in front of their eyes – Locke significant role in helping them come to terms with what they otherwise wouldn’t have been able to believe. And sure, in the grand scheme of things, it seems like Hurley – and not Locke – is Jacob’s golden child, but do you honestly think Hurley would have stuck to his guns throughout season one when a very vocal and aggressive Jack attempted to shoot down his wacky theories?
I’m not quite sure where any of these characters would be if it wasn’t for Locke. Yes, some of his actions were selfish and reckless, but is it fair to say that the castaways have been negatively impacted by what he’s done? I don’t think so. The way I see it, the only person who has ever died because of something Locke did was Boone. Would the reviewer dare say that they’ve been negatively impacted by Jack? Or Sawyer? Or Walt? A lot of these characters, to varying degrees, have blood on their hands.
TEAM WIDMORE
I wish to use this opportunity to acknowledge a school of thought that theorizes that Man-Thing's conflict with Team Widmore is a giant ruse, that The Monster and Charles Widmore are actually collaborators in a conspiracy to manipulate (and ultimately destroy) the castaways in order to achieve mutually advantageous goals. We know that Man-Thing wants to leave The Island. What might Widmore want in this scenario? Here's my thought: Charles Widmore wants to replace Man-Thing as the new monster. Before his not-quite-sure-I-believe-it-anymore turn toward righteousness this season, I believed Widmore was driven by a fear of death; becoming a black cloud of all-powerful disembodied consciousness is his ticket to eternal life. I find myself slipping back into that view. Then again, he hasn't been around lately to convince me different. Out of sight, out of mind — and back in the villain box. – EW.com review
The more we saw of Widmore, the more I sensed that something was….off with him. And this past episode certainly solidifies that feeling. His sudden change of heart, suddenly altruistic and selfless, which was a far cry from what he had wanted in prior seasons, just doesn’t seem to add up at this point. While I’m not certain that I believe he wants to become the new Man in Black, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that this is some sort of con. The final moments of the last episode, where Widmore first held his supposed allies captive execution style by gunpoint, and then recklessly sent missiles to the beach, with no concern for the human lives there, reminded me of the Widmore that instructed his freighter crew to capture Ben and to kill everybody on the island if necessary.
Then again, here’s an alternate theory:
I can't think of her name off hand, but the girl that was speaking to Widmore on the walkie talkie, didn't she say that the 6 of them were on the beach, not realizing that the "6" did not include Jack, but Frank in his place, so that is why Widmore ordered them to shoot at the other beach with Locke not, realizing Jack is over there?? – Jennifer, my original review
That’s a fair theory as well. Maybe Widmore legitimately believed that all of the candidates were safe, and thus viewed everybody else as acceptable losses as long as it meant that the Smoke Monster was destroyed.
DOING THE DESMOND DEED
Island Desmond has become Jacob in the same way that "Locke" has become the Man In Black. That's why FLocke pushed Desmond down the well, and that's why he sent Sayid to kill him, since we already know MIB can't do it himself. Desmond was also able to potentially convert Sayid back into a decent soul. – EW.com comments section
And in response, another EW.com visitor added this:
Desmond reminded me of Jacob too. The way he's been visiting everyone...and the fact that he seems to be a huge threat to Flocke – EW.com comments section
This is an excellent observation. I especially like how Desmond’s various visits with the castaways in the sideways world, which in turn leads each person to a desired place, is very Jacob-esque indeed. The next comment, also from the EW.com comments section, takes a similar approach. But instead of Desmond representing Jacob, he represents the opposite of Smokey himself:
I agree with something Zac said last night on the Instant Reaction post: "I'm thinking Desmond has the opposite effect on Sayid that MIB did. Sayid let him talk and his soul is now infiltrated again….with redemption." – EW.com comments section
An interesting theory, which I can buy into, but it brings up a bit of a qualm I have with television writing in general. And that’s the idea that every character needs to have a relatively happy ending. Nobody can be a truly tragic story. And I’m not talking “tragic” in the Locke sense. I’m talking about a once likable character losing his way and never finding it again. I have LONG argued that, on Heroes, Mohinder’s character should have been killed off at the conclusion of the “Villains” volume. His story was a perfect case of somebody falling from grace. His initial motivations were pure, but in the end he became so obsessed with his need to outshine his father that he literally became a monster. A monster who killed innocent people. But instead of killing him off as a once noble man who had descended into a beast, he was covered in magic lotion and all was forgiven. And what purpose has his character served since?
And part of me hopes the same happens with Sayid. Is there any particular reason why this man needs to be redeemed? In the past two seasons he attempted to murder a (at the time) innocent kid, he murdered two people for his own selfless cause, and then allowed the Smoke Monster into the Temple which lead to even more people dying. And then he killed some of Widmore’s men for shits and giggles as well.
I think Sawyer hit the nail on the head at the beginning of the season. This guy just doesn’t deserve to be saved.
I think Man-Thing wanted Sayid to make that choice. That's why Man-Thing didn't do the reasonable thing and check Sayid's work. What Man-Thing wants is for Sayid to move in the direction of escape/death — which is to say, Hydra Island. If Desmond rekindled Sayid's humanity and soul, and if that fire drives him into harm's way on Hydra Island, mission accomplished. Whatever it takes. – EW.com review
Yeah, I can see this being true. I really don’t see Sayid pulling a fast one on Smokey here.
FAMILY REUNION
It was pretty creepy and unsentimental, as it should have been. Claire seemed to be expecting more out of the moment. She latched onto Jack, claimed him easily and heartily as her big brother — and also made it passive-aggressively clear that she didn't appreciate being abandoned and would be quite pissed if it happened again. To be honest, I think the Jack-Claire twist hasn't panned out to be as cool as it first seemed to be. Making them related by blood nourished the important thematic idea of interconnection between characters that existed prior their Island meeting. It also ratcheted up Jack's angst over abandoning the castaways and during his Oceanic days. Perhaps there's time to squeeze more out of it. – EW.com review
THAT’S the word I was looking for! Unsentimental! That perfectly describes the scene between Jack and Claire. It’s not so much that it lacked emotion – it simply lacked the emotion you’d expect from a brother and sister who hadn’t seen each other in three years. And during this time, they had no idea if the other was even alive. It was, quite simply, unsentimental.
I also agree with the notion that this Jack/Claire thing was better in theory than practice. And I think a big part of why it hasn’t played out better is that they decided to make Kate, and not Jack, completely invested in Claire’s well being. And on top of that, they needed to limit Kate’s references to Claire, in order to tease the audience into believing that she returned for Sawyer. And, in storyline terms, if Kate is returning for Claire but can’t talk about it, you certainly can’t have Jack hung up over it. So, as a result, it just comes across as him not caring a whole lot. And as a result, the relationship as a whole hasn’t reached the appropriate level of emotion.
i also thought for a split second that claire was going to shoot kate when she had her at gun point. i guess i am on edge right now expecting major characters to die. – DaBooty, my blog
I know what you mean. As we near the end of this series, I am beginning to believe that we’ll not only see some significant deaths, but that they’ll be done in the same fashion as Ilana: Blink and you’ll miss it! I’m sure in the finale we’ll see some a Charlie-type death scene, where it’s built up and scripted beautifully. But I also can’t help but feel like we’ll see a character like Jin or Sun or Kate or Sawyer or Claire just got shot in the head out of no where.
Well, that’s it for me this installment. Check back following the new episode for my immediate thoughts. Hopefully the shakes will go away from this Lost withdrawal.
No comments:
Post a Comment