I Am DB

March 2, 2010

LOST S6E5: Lighthouse

Filed under: Lost — DB @ 2:25 pm

THE GOOD SHEPHARD
Jack walks into his apartment to change out of his scrubs and notices a scar on his abdomen. As with the cut on his neck that he noticed on the plane, he doesn’t seem sure where it came from. Moments later, while on the phone with his mother, he asks when he got his appendix taken out. She says he was 7 or 8 years old. But is the scar from that long-ago operation, or is it somehow from the appendectomy Juliet performed on the island?

When I saw Jack driving up to a school, I remembered that his one-time wife Sarah was a teacher, and wondered if they were together in this timeline as well (though this would be a different school than the one we saw her at previously). But to my surprise – as I’m sure just about everyone else’s – Jack was there not for his wife, but for his teenage son David. Definitely didn’t see that coming.

David Shephard appears to be a typical moody, monosyllabic teenager, or maybe he’s just in a bad mood because Jack is late picking him up. Whatever the case, David thwarts all of Jack’s attempts to engage him. Back at his apartment Jack tells his son, “I’m just trying to have a conversation with you, David.”

“Why?” the boy asks. “We see each other like, once a month, can’t we just…get through it?” Ouch. That’s pretty brutal.

Jack has to go to his mother’s house and tells David he’ll be back soon for dinner. David doesn’t much seem to care. At his mother’s, she and Jack go through papers in his father’s office trying to locate his will. (The body, Jack tells her earlier, has still not been recovered.) She asks how David is doing, noting that he had a hard time at the funeral. When Jack says he can barely get a word out of his son, his mother tells him it was the same with him and Christian. Jack says that’s because he was terrified of his father. When his mother suggests that David might feel the same way about him, he can’t understand what reason there would be. “I don’t know, Jack,” she says. “Maybe you should ask him.”

Just after this, she finds the will and sits down to read it. As Jack ponders her remark about David, his mother, reading from the will, asks him if his father had ever mentioned someone named Claire Littleton. The scene ends there, leaving us without a follow-up to that thread…for now.

When Jack goes home, David is gone without a trace. Unable to reach him still hours later, Jack drives over to David’s mother’s house. No one is home, so he lets himself in with a hidden key and goes into David’s room. Desperate for clues, plays David’s voicemail and hears a message from a conservatory confirming a spot for David’s audition that very evening, at that time.

Jack goes to the audition site and finds his son on stage kicking ebony and ivory ass. His eyes well up with pride as he watches. When David finishes and exits offstage, Jack leaves the auditorium, but is stopped by another student’s father, who looks a lot like…wait…holy shit, that’s Dogen! This threw me, I have to say. Whatever the meaning of the sideways timeline is, I’m still assuming it connects to the island timeline and is not, well, an island unto itself. And for reasons completely invented in my head with no evidence whatsoever to back them up, I assume that Jacob is aware of both timelines and can maybe bridge the gap between them. So seeing Dogen there makes me wonder if, through his affiliation with Jacob, he is also aware of both and is crossing paths with Jack for a reason that the Island intends. Or is he really a part of this reality, like Ethan and Ben appeared to be, free of any history with the island? And again, the question may be moot since I’m making total assumptions about Jacob and the sideways reality. But still…weird.

As David gets his bike outside, Jack approaches and tells him how good he was, leading to a heartfelt exchange.

J: David, you scared the hell out of me.
D: You were at grandma’s. I thought I could get back to your place before you got home.
J: I didn’t even know you were still playing.
D: I made mom promise not to tell you.
J: Why?
D: It was always such a big deal to you. You used to sit and watch me practice. You were so…into it. I didn’t tell you I was coming here cause I didn’t want you to see me fail.
J: You know, when I was your age, my father didn’t want to see me fail either. He used to say to me that…he said that I didn’t have what it takes. I spent my whole life carrying that around with me. I don’t ever want you to feel that way. I will always love you. No matter what you do. In my eyes you can never fail. I just want to be a part of your life.

More so than anything else yet this season, this storyline with Jack and David has invested me in the sideways reality, which makes me nervous about what will ultimately become of it (more on that later).

Incidentally, I’ve heard that we will eventually find out who David’s mother is and that it is someone we’re familiar with. Whoever she is, they – or at least Jack – must have been pretty young when they had David, because he’s gotta be in 8th or 9th grade.

WHAT IT TAKES
Jack’s sideways story may have thrown a few curveballs, but the island storyline sees us back in our comfort zone, with Jack emotionally crippled…just the way we like him. In the first shot we see of him, he’s staring at his reflection in the pond outside The Temple as a drizzle creates distorting ripples in the water.

Dogen comes out and sits with him, a little surprised that he’s still there. Last time we saw them together, Dogen described what he believes is happening to Sayid and said the same thing had already happened to Jack’s sister. When Darth Vader mentioned Luke Skywalker’s sister to him in Return of the Jedi, Luke flipped out and launched a brutal attack that culminated in cutting Vader’s hand off. Dogen’s mention of Claire obviously didn’t inspire a similar response, but what did it do? Jack is clearly in a contemplative state by the pond, so how much more did Dogen tell him about Claire and this “darkness” that infected her and now Sayid? Whatever he heard, Jack doesn’t seem too riled up about it.

Later, Sayid comes out to Jack asking why people keep looking at him and why Jack disappeared after advising him not to take the pill Dogen had prescribed. “What are you hiding from me?” he asks. Jack tells him that the pill was poison. “Whatever it is they think happened to you Sayid, they say it happened to someone else too.” Sayid asks who, but of course the scene ends before we see Jack’s response. Does he respond? How would Sayid take that news? How exactly does a conversation like that end? Where does Sayid go after learning that he’s surrounded by people who think he’s evil and want to kill him?

Nearby, Hurley and Miles are passing the time playing tic-tac-toe with leaves and sticks. When Hurley enters The Temple in search of food, he finds Jacob crouching on the steps of the spring with his fingers in the water…the water that apparently turned brown after Jacob died. He tells Hurley he needs his help and advises him to write down instructions. “Someone is coming to the island,” he says. “I need you to help them find it.”

We next see Hurley down a corridor with hieroglyphics on the wall. He’s looking for a certain symbol, and just as he finds it Dogen shows up and says he shouldn’t be there. Jacob appears and tells Hurley that he’s a candidate and can do what he wants. When Hurley says this aloud, Dogen asks with surprise how he knows that. Hurley tells him it doesn’t matter and to leave him alone.

Jacob tells Hurley that he is supposed to bring Jack with him on this “assignment,” but Hurley says you can’t make Jack do what he doesn’t want to. As Hurley expresses his frustration with Jacob’s complicated directions and with making him piss off a samurai, Jacob just looks at him with that blank stare he gave as Ben plead with him, just before killing him. “Look,” Hurley says, “if you have any idea how to get Jack to go on your little adventure, I’m listenin’ dude.” A small smile comes over Jacob’s face.

Hurley finds Jack alone outside and tells him there’s a secret passage out of The Temple that Jacob told him about. “He said you and me have to go…” but Jack cuts him off and says he’s not going anywhere. “He told me you’d say that,” Hurley continues, “so he told me to tell you ‘you have what it takes.’” This gets Jack’s attention. “He said you have what it takes,” Hurley says again. “He said you’d know what that meant.” Jack asks where Jacob is and Hurley says he’s dead and just shows up when he wants, like Obi-Wan Kenobi. But when he adds that Jacob will be at the place where they’re going, Jack agrees to the trip.

OLD SCHOOL
Early in their journey, Jack and Hurley run into Kate, who tells them that Jin went back to The Temple and Sawyer’s on his own. She says that she’s going to look for Claire, saying that she’ll try their old beachfront property first. “Kate, she’s not at the beach,” Jack says with certainty. “The people at The Temple said that something happened to her.”

“Do they know where she is?” Kate asks.

“I don’t know, they didn’t say.” And I’m sure you didn’t ask, Jack. Just like you didn’t ask Eloise Hawking who the hell she was and how she knew so much about the island last season when she spoke to you privately in her office. Like so many characters on this show fail to ask the obvious questions that any normal person would ask in all these crazy situations.

Kate says she has to keep trying. Jack tries to get her to come with them, but she says no and tells Jack she hopes he finds what he’s looking for. Jack watches her walk away, clearly pained to see her go…and to see that she doesn’t seem pained at all.

As they move on, Hurley asks Jack what happened with him and Kate; why didn’t they get married and have kids? “I guess I wasn’t cut out for it,” Jack says. Hurley says Jack would make a great dad, but Jack disagrees. Jack then steps on something that Hurley recognizes as Shannon’s inhaler. They realize they’re back at the caves which had once served as their living quarters. This visit was a clever way for the show to remind us of the Adam and Eve skeletons, one of Lost’s oldest mysteries. Hurley probably speaks for many of the show’s viewers when he says he forgot they were there. “Wait a second,” he wonders. “What if we time traveled again, to like, dinosaur times. And then we died and then we got buried here? What if these skeletons are us?” Some form of that question has been on fans’ minds for six years. Who will the skeletons turn out to be? I’ll come back to this…

Jack finds his father’s smashed coffin and tells Hurley how he found the caves in the first place, “chasing the ghost of my dead father.” If anybody could understand that, it would be Hurley. As they continue on, Hurley gets nostalgic…and Jack gets uncharacteristically introspective.

H: This is cool, dude. Very old school.
J: What?
H: You know…you and me, trekking through the jungle, on our way to do something that we don’t quite understand. Good times. Do you mind if I ask you something?
J: Sure.
H: Why did you come back? You know, to the island?
J: Why’d you come back?
H: Back in L.A., Jacob hopped into the back of my cab and told me I was supposed to, so I came.

Jack laughs and shakes his head, as if he can’t believe Hurley came back because some stranger got in his cab and told him he was supposed to.

H: What? If you have a better reason for coming back, let’s hear it man.
J: I came back here because I was broken. And I was stupid enough to think this place could fix me.
H: Dude…I’m sorry…
J: How much further we got, Hurley?

Hearing Jack judge himself so openly reminded me of how much he has changed since coming back to the island. In Season Four’s finale There’s No Place Like Home (Part II), Locke gives Jack a parting message before he and Ben descend into The Orchid to move the island. “Lie to them, Jack. If you do it half as well as you lie to yourself, they’ll believe you.”

It would seem Jack isn’t lying to himself anymore.

They finally emerge from the jungle onto a cliffside overlooking the ocean, not unlike the one Locke and Sawyer found themselves on, though this one has more grass and vegetation around, not just rock. Right on the edge of the cliff is a tall stone tower, which Hurley says is a lighthouse. “I don’t understand,” Jack says. “How is it that we’ve never seen it before?”

“I guess we weren’t looking for it,” Hurley says.

I ALWAYS FEEL LIKE SOMEBODY’S WATCHING ME
Jack and Hurley ascend to the top, and since I couldn’t find the best words to describe the contraption that greets them, I’ll steal from both Lostpedia and Doc Jensen’s column at EW.com to say that they find a giant dial surrounding a firebowl, with a panel of four mirrors to reflect the firelight and with a list of names handwritten all along the perimeter of the dial, each following a number.

Hurley says they should “get started” while they wait for Jacob. Following the instructions written on his arm, he starts pulling on a chain to turn the dial, asking Jack to tell him when he gets to 108 (one of the show’s magic numbers, of course: the total of 4, 8, 15, 16, 23 and 42, as well as the number of minutes on the countdown to pushing the button in the hatch).

But as the chain spins the dial number by number, Jack sees reflections in the mirrors, then sees the names written on the edge, including Sawyer’s, Sayid’s and his own. He grabs the chain from Hurley and moves it to 23, the number next to his name. When they look in the mirror, Jack sees the house he grew up in. It dawns on him that Jacob has been watching them their whole lives. He can barely sustain the weight of knowing that Jacob may have been influencing events in his life since childhood. When Hurley can’t tell him why Jacob has been watching them and why his name is written on the dial, Jack grabs a spyglass and shatters the mirrors.

Now that I’ve recounted it, take a look at the real deal.

Maybe Jack hasn’t changed so much after all. Another great observation that was made about him came in last season’s Namaste, when Sawyer said that when Jack was running things, he didn’t think; he just reacted. Smashing the mirror seems to fit that side of Jack’s personality to a tee.

It’s all very sad. Jack looks angry and heartbroken as realization dawns on him in the lighthouse. Hurley looks sad and confused as Jack becomes volatile and smashes the mirrors. Jack goes to sit down a little ways down the cliffside, while Hurley sits alone by the lighthouse door. Jacob shows up, looking unconcerned when Hurley tells him what happened.

H: Wait a minute? Did you want Jack to see what was in that mirror? Why?
J: It was the only way for him to understand how important he is.
H: Well if that was your plan I think it backfired, man.
J: Jack is here ‘cause he has to do something. He can’t be told what that is, he’s got to find it himself. Sometimes you can just hop in the back of someone’s cab and tell them what they’re supposed to do. Other times you have to let them look out at the ocean for a while.
H: Well next time, how about you tell me everything up front? I’m not big on secret plans, okay?
J: I couldn’t risk you not coming, Hugo. I had to get you and Jack as far away from that temple as I possibly could.
H: What, why?
J: Because someone is coming there. Someone bad.
H: Dude…we gotta warn them.
J: You can’t warn them, Hugo. I’m sorry, it’s too late.

I don’t like the implication that Hurley is weak or easily manipulated, but what I’m more interested in is Jacob’s attitude about the person coming to the island.  It appears that the name at 108 on the dial, which Hurley was instructed to turn to, is Wallace. There has not been anyone known by that name on the show up to this point, so is Wallace (see here at a different angle) a new character of some unknown significance? Is he the person that Jacob said is coming to the island? Or is it possible that nobody is really coming to the island and that the purpose of the journey was entirely a ruse designed to get Jack to the lighthouse? And what will Jack do once he’s done staring at the ocean? What is Jack on the island to do? Might he be Jacob’s chosen one, the last candidate standing? Could that be why his name is written differently than all the rest on the dial? While most of the names have the first letter capitalized and the rest lowercase, “Shephard” is in all caps, the handwriting looks different and it looks as though it were written more recently, in darker ink.

There are other observations about the lists of names worth mentioning. For one, I wanted to pose the possibility, after seeing the name “Littleton” in the Jacob’s cave in the previous episode, that the name could refer not to Claire but rather to Aaron. More on him in a bit…

And what do the names on the dial reveal that the names in the cave did not? Well, this time we see Kate’s name, at #51 (and not crossed out yet.) Additional names I noticed were Linus (Ben or Roger?), Rousseau (Danielle or Alex?), Lewis (Charlotte, or perhaps one of her Dharma-member parents),  Montand (Rousseau’s team member who lost his arm at the Temple wall) and Friendly (as in Tom Friendly, The Other Formerly Known as Bearded Dude Who Took Walt). Now according to Lostpedia, there are a number of other familiar names which were seen either in the cave (C) or on the lighthouse dial (L) or both:

32 – Rutherford (Shannon, C & L)
48 – Stanhope (Goodwin or Harper, L)
58 – Burke (Juliet, C & L)
62 – Inman (Kelvin, L)
101 – Faraday (C & L)
124 – Dawson (Michael or Walt, C & L)
171 – Straume (Miles, C)
195 – Pace (Charlie, C)
226 – Carlyle (Boone, C)
301 – Mars (Edward, C)

I didn’t see any of those initially, and I did a lot of freeze framing and slow motion tracking through these scenes. Many names were just not clear enough to read, and maybe if I had an HDTV that wouldn’t have been an issue and I would have been able to make these out. But I’m not convinced. Lostpedia does offer a freeze-frame confirming Faraday’s name in the cave (lower right, a little above the ABC logo). They also claim that this picture shows Charlie’s name, and I’ll admit I can make out the number 195 starting just below the “A” of Mattingley, but there is no way you can tell that the rest says Pace, especially since it’s obscured by Sawyer’s torch. There are no other pictures on the site confirming the appearance of these other names, and frankly I don’t think they’re seen at all, so I don’t know where the Lostpedia people are getting their info. But just for yuks and giggles, let’s say I’m wrong and those names are confirmed. It should be noted, then, whose names aren’t on that list: Desmond, Ana Lucia, Eko (though we don’t really know his last name), Libby, Bernard, Rose, Frank, Arzt, Charles Widmore, Eloise Hawking and other miscellaneous characters who have been connected to the island.

Oh and finally, is it the Man in Locke who is headed to The Temple? Is that who Jacob is worried about? And whoever it is, he says it’s too late to warn them. So what’s in store for Sayid, Miles, Dogen, Lennon, Cindy and everyone else there?

GIRL GONE WILD
While all this has been going, we’ve also been getting reacquainted with Island Claire…though reacquainted may not be the best word since she seems like an entirely new person. Last seen on a ridge saving Jin’s life from Aldo, she comes down looking all Jane of the Jungle with her dirty face, tangled, unkempt hair, plaid shirt and rifle. Jin asks how long she’s been out here. “Since you all left. How long ago was that?” she asks, casually. When he says three years, she doesn’t have much of a reaction. She doesn’t seem too surprised to see him and she doesn’t have questions about what happened to all of them. She helps him up and says she has to get him somewhere safe.

He wakes up later in a sort of thatched hut, a primitive structure of sticks and branches, partly covered by a tarp. He is alone, and sees that the hut is filled with all kinds of junk and materials, as well as a box of dynamite that must have come from the Black Rock. It seems that in Rousseau’s absence, Claire has won the role of the Crazy Island Lady who lives in the jungle and sets traps (she confirms that the bear trap Jin stepped in was one of hers). Need further evidence of Claire having flown over the cuckoo’s nest? How about the bassinet with the freaky animal skull and fur all made up to look like a baby. It looks like something Buffalo Bill would do in The Silence of the Lambs.

Claire returns with Aldo’s companion Justin, still alive. She ties him up across from Jin and says she plans to have a talk with him about where they’re hiding her son. She treats Jin as if no time has passed, as if it’s not strange that she hasn’t seen him in three years and he suddenly showed up. Where has she been? Did she move through time with the rest of the 815ers and freighter folk? She also doesn’t comment on the fact that Jin speaks fluent English, a completely new development since last she saw him. “Claire, have you been out here all this time, by yourself?” he asks her with concern. “Oh no, I’m not by myself,” she says, once again very casual.

As she stitches him up, Claire says she’s had to move around to avoid being caught by Justin’s people. When Jin asks what she’s going to do with him, Claire says, “He’s gonna tell me where they’ve got my baby. Where they’ve got Aaron.”

“We don’t have your kid!” Justin insists, but she is convinced he’s lying.

J: Claire, how do you know they took him? How can you be so sure?
C: How can I be so sure? Okay well first my father told me, and then my friend told me, so I’m pretty damn sure.
J: Your friend? Who’s your friend?
C: My friend. You’re still my friend, aren’t you Jin?

This exchange is the first time she calls Jin by name. Of course he’s still her friend, he tells her, but he is clearly freaked out by her personality makeover. After fixing him, she picks up an axe and begins questioning Justin. When Jin tries to calm her down, she says the Others took her to The Temple, stuck her with needles, branded her and tortured her. She says they would have killed her if she hadn’t escaped. Justin counters that they captured her because she was out in the jungle alone, picking off his people. He says she’s remembering wrong. She’s had enough and is about to go in for the kill when Jin shouts, “Kate took her! Kate took Aaron. She took him with her when she left the island.”

“What do you mean she took him?” Claire asks with confusion.

“He’s been with her, with Kate, for the past three years. Aaron is three,” Jin says.

Justin says Jin is telling the truth. “We had nothing to do with this.” Claire looks confused and distressed, not unlike the way Jack looks when discovering his house in the lighthouse mirror. Justin says if she lets him go, he won’t tell his people he saw her. But Claire suddenly swings the axe at him, landing a fatal blow. She walks outside, leaving the axe buried in his chest. Too bad. As Others go, Justin seemed like a nice guy and a straight shooter. He was willing to reveal info, even if Aldo kept shushing him Dr. Evil-style; he seemed to be looking out for Jin and Kate’s safety; and he was upfront with Claire, even if she couldn’t see it.

When she comes back in, she tells Jin that if she hadn’t killed him, he’d have killed her.

J: Claire, please, whatever you’re thinking…
C: Why’d you say that Kate was raising Aaron?
J:  I was lying.
C: Why?
J: Because I wanted to save his life. But you were right. The Others have your baby. Aaron is at The Temple. I know because I saw him there. But you’ll need me to get him.
C: How do we get in?
J: There’s a secret way. No one will see us.
C: Thank you, Jin. Thank you. And I’m so glad to know you were lying, because if what you said was the truth, if Kate was raising Aaron, I’d kill her.

At first she looks like she sees through him when he says Aaron is at The Temple, but she comes around so suddenly it’s like somebody flicked a switch inside her. Is Claire in command of her own faculties, or is she being manipulated by an outside force? Perhaps a force like the one who enters her hut at that moment: the Man in Locke. A quick look of surprise crosses his face when he sees Jin, who is equally surprised to see him. “John?” he says.

“This isn’t John,” Claire says with a smile as if it should be obvious. “This is my friend.” How does she know this isn’t John? And who or what does she think he is? What does she remember about previous events on the island leading up to her disappearance?

I’m now worried about Jin, not just because he’s with the Man in Locke, but for saying he saw Aaron at The Temple. What happens when they go there and she finds out he was lying? Just please tell me that Jin won’t die. After Sun thought he was dead, found out he was alive, came back to island but ended up in the wrong time and is now finally getting close to reuniting with him…if he dies before she reaches him, or just after, it will be beyond cruel.

READER’S COMMENTS
Last week, I put a question to you all asking if you think Jacob is essentially a good guy and the Man in Black a bad guy, or if their presumed roles might be reversed. Thanks to everyone who sent me their thoughts. All three of you. Okay, so the responses didn’t come gushing in, but as I expected, each reply I did receive offered some great opinions and perspectives, so allow me to share.

We’ll begin with Denise B., who thinks we’re in for a wide-open ending:

I think we will get to a point where the writers will set it up so that the audience will have to decide for itself whether Jacob is the good guy and the Man in Black is the bad guy. And the new storytelling convention of the sideways timeline indicates to me that the writers want to show the fanbase the range of possibilities to please those who would want to see our favorite characters have a different life without a devastating plane crash on a mysterious island AND to please those who want to see most of the mysteries solved. I think the finale will leave it open-ended in way. I keep thinking it will end like The Sopranos where at first we’ll be like “WTF?! They ended it like that!” but then we’ll see the great genius behind it – we’ll just have to fill in our version of a happy ending – or not. I could be totally wrong and maybe they’ll resolve everything important but I just doubt they’ll be able to hit it all in the next 15 hours or so left.

I agree that not everything important is likely to be resolved, but of course we probably all have a different view of what’s important. But I don’t think we’re headed for as open-to-interpretation a scenario as Denise does. I think there will be some things to keep us talking after the final scene, even some big things, but I think Damon and Carlton have a pretty solid end in store. My guess is this will not be a Sopranos repeat. Also, I don’t think that the sideways timeline is just a way to please everyone. I don’t think the show would go so far to cater to the fans. In my mind, there has to be a significant reason for the sideways timeline and it has to connect to the island events that we’ve been observing all along. But Denise is onto something when she comments on the 15 hours that are left (only 13 actually, as we head into tonight); there’s an awful lot of ground left to cover.

Next up is Nic A., who drew some insightful comparisons between Jacob/Man in Black and a couple of minor characters from The Bible. I’m sort of reluctant to post his comments, as they’re smarter and deeper than anything I’ve written in three years of doing this. But I’m ready to have my thunder stolen:

Personally I don’t think we’re headed for a total flip of who represents good versus evil. I think they will stick to Jacob being the ‘good guy’ and MIB the bad. But to quote one of your comments, I wouldn’t be surprised if the overall message ends up being “often times, the water does get muddied.”

 

I also get the sense this feeds into the common Western myths of good and evil. Jacob’s agenda is ‘good,’ he cares and loves humanity. But like the God of the Old Testament he acts in ways that appear cryptic, at times frustrating.  Calculated, manipulative even. MIB of course is the other side of human nature: he appears more impulsive, passionate, genuine even in some sense. Someone (something?) we can all relate to, closer to the human animal.

 

It’s a notion commonly used to depict the way Evil lures us away from good: the Devil whispers in our ear that he is one of us, that he cares about us and is just another pawn in the game played by an uncaring God. All He wants is to return to the home He’s been cast from, take the power that should never have been kept to just one being and spread it among us all, where it all belongs. The ultimate man of the people versus the ultimate captain of industry.

 

And isn’t that almost exactly the story MIB tries to sell those he wants to ‘recruit’ That all he wants is to go home? That he was a man who could feel anger, love, sadness, just like the rest of us? After all, who is Satan but God’s once most powerful, faithful angel? The one whose original sin was only to question God’s omnipotence and demand the infinite knowledge be shared with all instead?

 

In his own version of the facts the Devil was struck by a vengeful, selfish God, punished and imprisoned. Merely for being human. Of course in the myth that’s a warped truth, the better to seduce us into giving in to our basest instincts.

 

And in that lies another critical device that is often used in popular myths (and in Lost) to help us examine the question of ‘free will’: Temptation.

That’s good shit, Nic. Good shit indeed.

Finally, Taryn I. didn’t say much about this Jacob/MIB question, but had some interesting thoughts on the blonde kid who showed up in the jungle. First, this:

When the blonde kid says “you can’t kill him,” isn’t he talking about James because he is one of the candidates? It seems like the kid shows up because he knows Man in Locke might kill the people he’s not supposed to (Richard and James) and is reminding him of the rules.

This is interesting to me, because while in some ways it definitely makes sense that the kid would be there to warn Man in Locke that he can’t kill Sawyer (or Richard, earlier), I never got the sense that Man in Locke asked Sawyer to accompany him so that he could kill him. From their initial encounter at Sawyer’s house, I absolutely got the impression that Man in Locke did want to show Sawyer the cave and then enlist his help. Now maybe he is planning to use Sawyer for his plan and kill him later, and the boy detected that. But I didn’t think that his intention was to kill Sawyer at this time. Maybe I’m in the minority, though. Nic got the same feeling that Taryn did:

Cool to see how the same moment can be interpreted by different people; when ‘Young Jacob’ tells MIB “You can’t kill him” I didn’t think for an instant he was referring to anyone other than Sawyer. A writer’s trick to draw out the suspense and make us anticipate MIB’s intentions re: Sawyer – but you’re right, he could in fact be talking about any number of ‘hims.’ Interesting.

Taryn’s second musing on the mystery tyke also sparks my interest:

I like the idea that the kid is little Jacob, but if that’s the case, why would Man in Locke tell James that Jacob is dead? The blonde hair reminded me of Aaron, but that might be a stretch. You’ll remember what the build up was about Aaron when Claire saw the psychic…wasn’t there some gravity to what Aaron could become? The fact that they never really played that out fully makes me think that he’ll have a bigger role in this final season, especially with Claire back.

She is definitely correct in saying that Aaron has been built up over the years. In the past, I’ve cited a comment from J.J. Abrams going way back to Season One that Aaron is supposed to factor into Lost’s conclusion in a pretty major way. Now that was a long time ago; Abrams hasn’t been directly involved with the show’s storyline since Season One, and lots of things could have changed since then as Damon and Carlton have plotted the meta-arc. Still, the idea that this kid could be Aaron…I dig that.

Thanks to Denise, Nic and Taryn for stepping into the spotlight. The rest of you are condemned to obscurity.

IF YOU BUILD IT HE WILL COME
Feeling the pressure to compete with Nic, I decided to share something I was going to hold off on. Don’t get overexcited, but I’m pretty sure I’ve solved a huge piece of the Lost puzzle. Are you ready to have your minds blown? Here it is: Remember Field of Dreams? Well take out the word “Field” and replace it with the word “Island.” In Field of Dreams, protagonist Ray Kinsella built a baseball field on his farm so that his late father’s hero, Shoeless Joe Jackson of the Chicago White Sox, could return from the dead and play ball. But really, Ray was trying to make peace with his father, who he’d had a contentious relationship with since his teenage years, even refusing to play catch in the yard. His father died before they made peace, and that has affected him ever since.

Okay, now stay with me. At one point in the episode What Kate Does, Jack finds Dogen sitting at a desk and rolling a baseball around. When Jack asks him what it is, Dogen answers directly: “It’s a baseball.” Then in the preview for tonight’s episode, I saw a quick shot of that baseball falling onto the ground. And it hit me! Jack just wants to play catch with his dad! This whole thing is about Jack trying to make peace with his father!  The whole damn thing is a delusion playing out in Jack’s head. He “built” the island and created this complex mythology because he was never able to deal with Christian’s disapproval head-on. Now that Christian is dead, Jack has created this elaborate fantasy as a coping mechanism.

It’s all gonna fall into place. Just watch.

You’re welcome.

LOOSE ENDS/FOOD FOR THOUGHT
-For the record, I do not actually think that (well no, I do think there’s a little bit of truth to the Jack-needs-to-make-peace-with Christian thing, but the whole Island of Dreams scenario is just me wasting your time). And because I feel guilty for subjecting you to my mostly dumb, mostly fake theory, I’m going to make it up to you with some real intel about the rest of the season. For starters, and you may have heard this one already, it has been confirmed that Shannon will return to the show before all is said and done. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg o’tease. What else have Damon and Carlton said lately?

Frank, Ilana, Miles and Claire will not receive sideways-centric storylines, though they will feature prominently in other character’s sideways experiences; Jacob was telling the truth about someone coming to the island; we will learn more about Libby’s backstory, like perhaps why she was in the mental hospital with Hurley; we will see Charlie again; we will see Vincent the dog again; we might see Walt again; we will find out whether Desmond was really on Sideways Flight 815; we will probably not find out what happened to Ben’s childhood gal pal Annie; we will probably get an answer about the Hurleybird (if you don’t know what that is, check out these brief clips: uno, dos, tres); and they wouldn’t say whether or not we’ll learn why pregnant women were dying on the island. Episode 15 is currently shooting, and the series finale – episodes 17 and 18 – are being written right now. Quite possibly as you read this, Damon and Carlton are holed up committing the finale of Lost to paper. So far off, and yet so close.

-I want to come back to the skeletons in the cave and a few other things related to them. There is an interesting pattern unfolding this season, which Doc Jensen predicted last year in his EW.com write-ups. Back in Season One, the flashbacks in the two-hour pilot episode didn’t focus on one character in particular. Then beginning with the third hour, the character-centric flashbacks began. First Kate. Then Locke. Then Jack, in the series’ fifth episode, which was called White Rabbit. So far, this season is following the same course: a two-hour premiere with no central figure in the flashes. Then a Kate-centric sideways episode, then Locke, and now Jack. It was in White Rabbit that Jack discovered the caves and his father’s empty coffin. Now in this episode, we re-visit the caves and the coffin. The bodies weren’t actually seen until the following episode, House of the Rising Sun, which centered on…well, take a guess. And then see tonight’s title below for a clue as to whether this pattern might continue.

So in House of the Rising Sun, Jack, Kate, Locke and Charlie go to the caves and discover the bodies. Jack examines the remains and says that as far as he can tell, there is no trauma to the bones. He also says it takes clothes 40 to 50 years to degrade to the point of the rags on these corpses. And in a pocket on one of the bodies, he finds a pouch. And in that pouch he finds this.

Just after Locke dubs them Adam and Eve, the scene cuts away…to Jin and Sun.

I’m just sayin.’

Oh and one other thing. When Jack goes to his ex’s house to see if his son is there, he lets himself in with a key that is hidden under a little ceramic statue. A statue of a white rabbit. Just one of many direct and indirect uses of rabbits over the show’s history. But still…pretty cool.

-If there was still any question as to whether the Man in Black has been using Christian Shepherd, this episode settles it, right? After all, Claire was last seen on the island in Christian’s company, and now she tells Jin that she’s sure the Others have Aaron because first her father and then her friend told her so. And seeing as her friend is the Man in Locke, it all connects. But why did the Man in Black/Christian go after Claire? And if the Man in Locke is now stuck in the form of Locke, as Ilana told Ben in the previous episode, will we see Christian again? All those times we saw Christian, was it really the Man in Black, just as it’s him when we see Locke now? Or was it actually Christian, somehow quasi-resurrected and being controlled indirectly by the Man in Black? I have to think that we’ll see Christian again, especially as whatever is in store for Jack unfolds. Maybe they aren’t really headed for a sentimental game of catch, but “father” and son have to meet, don’t you think?

-On a related note, in the opening scene, Jack tells his mother over the phone that Oceanic thinks Christian’s coffin went through Berlin. Should we assume this is true, or is the airline just saying that to cover up that they still haven’t found him? Even in this timeline, could the island still have a role to play in Christian’s vanishing…even though Ben and Ethan’s (and maybe Dogen’s) presence in the sideways timeline suggests that the island is “inactive” and possibly on the ocean floor?

-Cheers to Matthew Fox for a great performance in this episode.  Whether assuring his son of his unflagging love and support, admitting to Hurley – and to himself – that he’s a broken man or pleading with Hurley to tell him why his name is on the dial, he gave us Jack at his most vulnerable and broke our hearts each time. Check out the clip of the lighthouse scene in the link further up, if you can. After seeing his house reflected in the mirror and realizing that Jacob has been watching them, he asks again, “Hurley, where’s Jacob?” Fox’s delivery in that three-word moment – the quiet desperation in his voice, the redness of his eyes – is pitch-perfect. And Jorge Garcia deserves praise too, as he always does, for matching Fox in those scenes.

LINE OF THE NIGHT
It’s the line Dogen says when Hurley hesitantly stands up to him and sends him away. According to Lostpedia, it translates as, “You are lucky that you are protected. Because if you were not protected, I would cut your head off.” Ha! Love it.

Tonight’s Episode: Sundown

 

February 23, 2010

LOST S6E4: The Substitute

Filed under: Lost — DB @ 2:32 pm

SUBURBAN COMMANDO
As the episode began, I thought for a moment that I had mistakenly tuned into Desperate Housewives, as a minivan rode down a rather Wisteria looking lane. Turned out this suburban paradise was home to Locke, and in this opening sequence I got answers to some questions I had asked about him after watching the season premiere. Yes, he is still with Helen in this timeline, and no he did not wind up in the wheelchair as a result of an altercation with his father (which we know because Helen suggests they ditch the big to-do and instead have a shotgun wedding with her parents and his father). Helen finds Jack’s business card in Locke’s pocket and says he should take the doctor up on his offer for a free consult.

Locke still works at the box company under the supervision of Randy Nations (who will later be described by Hurley – accurately, I might add – as “a huge douche”). Although this time around, I have to side with Randy. He’s totally within his rights to fire Locke for going to a conference in Australia on the company’s dime and then not attending the conference. The bigger questions here, of course, are A) what the hell kind of conference does someone from a box company need to attend, and B) what the hell kind of conference does someone from a box company need to attend that would be worth the company paying for a trip to Australia? Two of Lost’s questions that I suspect will remain mysteries forever…

After his firing, Locke goes to the parking lot and finds the wheelchair accessible door of his van blocked by a yellow Hummer, which we soon find out is Hurley’s. After venting his frustration, Locke calms down and Hurley introduces himself as the owner of the company. This too is consistent with earlier events. Back in the Season One episode Numbers, Hurley learned from the accountant who was managing his lottery winnings that his growing collection of assets included a box company in Tustin. Also consistent is the yellow Hummer; we saw it when Hurley drove his mother to the house he had bought for her – which was on fire when they arrived.

To make up for the blocked parking space and the firing, Hurley tells Locke to go to a temp agency which he also owns and have them hook him up with a new job. His initial interview there is with some freaky lady who asks him questions about what kind of animal he would describe himself as and whether or not he sees himself as a people person.

There was something odd about this scene, not just because the lady was creepy but because there seemed to be an extended bit of time devoted to her. When Locke asks to see her supervisor, the camera holds on her close-up for an inordinately long time before she says yes and gets up. Unless her appearance is significant and foreshadows something (and I can’t imagine what that would be) then why are we lingering on her?

Wait…I think maybe I just found my answer. Turns out we’ve seen this woman before. In Season Three’s Tricia Tanaka Is Dead, Hurley’s dad takes him to see a psychic who claims she can rid him of his curse. Turns out his dad had paid her off. But guess who the psychic is?

Now that that pointless side trip is over…

I felt better when Rose showed up and announced herself as the office manager. When she hesitates to place Locke in a position at a construction site, calling it “unrealistic,” he asks her what she knows about realistic. She frankly reveals that she has terminal cancer, and that her initial reaction to the news was a refusal to accept it. Eventually she decided to stop the denial and live whatever life she had left. I bring this up because it is yet another plot point that ties to an earlier episode: Season Two’s S.O.S., in which Rose’s cancer is revealed. There is a scene where she and Locke briefly meet at the airport in Sydney, him in his wheelchair. Later on the island, she alludes to him that they’ve both been healed (she explains to Bernard still later that she knows the cancer is gone; she can feel that it’s not in her body).

On a side note, it’s kinda weird that Rose works for Hurley and just happened to be on the same flight from Sydney to Los Angeles with him. Maybe everyone from the temp agency had been to a conference. For temp agency employees. In Australia.

Back at home, just as an Oceanic rep arrives with his suitcase of knives, Locke tells Helen about being fired because he ditched the conference to go on a walkabout. He says they wouldn’t let him go (another of my questions from two weeks ago answered) and that he yelled at them not to tell him what he can’t do. But this time, he acknowledges that they were right – showing an insight that the other Locke didn’t posses (and which the Man in Locke mocked him for when he spoke to Ben in Jacob’s cave). He pulls out Jack’s business card and tells Helen that he doesn’t want her to spend her life waiting for a miracle because there’s no such thing. She assures him that he was the only thing she was ever waiting for was him, but also says, “There are miracles, John.”

Soon we see John is his new temp position: middle school substitute teacher. He seems to like it, and when he heads into the teacher’s lounge for lunch, he exchanges a friendly introduction with the European History teacher: Ben Linus. So it appears that Ben, like his younger colleague Ethan, has a whole other life in this timeline that suggests he was never on the island.

Huh.

THE FUNERAL PARTY
Ben enters Jacob’s chamber and finds Ilana alone crying – probably more over the death of Jacob than the death of her team members (sorry Bram). She asks how they died, and Ben tells her that Locke turned into a pillar of black smoke and killed them all. He lies when he says that this was how Jacob died as well. Whether this is significant or not I don’t know, but Ilana is now under the impression that the Man in Black killed Jacob while in the form of the Smoke Monster. I wondered previously if the Man in Black can harm Jacob when he’s in smoke form. If the answer is no – which it probably isn’t, but if –  Ben’s lie might be a signal to Ilana that something is amiss.

When Ben says that Locke kicked Jacob’s body into the fire and it burned away, Ilana walks to the now-flameless pit, pulls out a sack and fills it with ash. Will these ashes provide the same protection that the ash around Jacob’s cabin provided? That the ash Bram poured around himself or that The Temple inhabitants used around the perimeter provided? The ashes Ilana takes can’t just be Jacob’s, can they? Wasn’t there wood burning in the fire? How exactly do the ashes we’ve seen provide protection against the Man in Black? That’s starting to emerge in importance to me as far as our many, many mysteries go. Is the fire pit the key to the protection? Does anything burned in this location take on a protective quality?

Ben asks llana if she knows why Locke carried Richard out into the jungle. With no tone of doubt, she says it’s because he’s recruiting.

The real Locke is still lying on the beach. I felt a pang of sadness at seeing him lying there with a crab on his head. It scurries away as Frank covers him up and says, “He’s gettin’ pretty ripe.”

When Ilana and Ben emerge, only Sun and Frank are left on the beach. Sun says the others all went to The Temple. “Right now it’s the safest place on the island,” Ilana says. “We should go there too. Come on, let’s get out of here.”

S: What makes you think that I’m going with you?
I:  Because you want to find Jin.
S: What do you know about my husband?!
I:  I know that if he’s on the island and he’s alive, then he’ll be at The Temple.

Why does she think that? It’s a big island, lots of people, lots of places. Why would she assume Jin would have found his way there?

Sun says they have to bury Locke – an especially generous gesture given how anxious she must be to arrive at the place where Jin supposedly is. As they carry Locke’s body across the beach, Ben asks Ilana why she had to bring Locke’s body to the statue.

I:  Because the people there needed to see the face of what they’re up against.
B: And what’s to stop what they’re up against from changing his face?
I:  He can’t, not anymore. He’s stuck this way.

So how much does Ilana know and understand about what’s happening? She seemed unphased upon hearing that a man turned into a giant puff of smoke and killed her comrades. Presumably she knows that the Man in Black and the Smoke Monster are one and the same, and she knows that he can’t change his form again now that he’s picked Locke. Although there must be some way of taking on a new form, however difficult it may be, seeing as he’s done it once (that we know of). We still don’t understand exactly how the Man in Black took over Locke’s body. I’ve speculated that he used Christian Shephard to get Locke off the island so that Locke might be killed and brought back, enabling him to take over the body (though he didn’t really “take over” Locke’s body; he just took on his form). I don’t know how he would have guaranteed Locke being killed off the island, but maybe there was some way he would have been able to arrange it had Ben not stepped in and taken care of it for him. When the Man in Locke first entered Jacob’s chamber and confronted his old nemesis, he said that he had found his loophole and that Jacob had no idea what he – the Man in Black – had to do to get there. At this point, we don’t have any idea either. So why is he stuck in the form of Locke?

Getting back to Ilana, she also knows that The Temple is the one safe haven left on the island. And she knows about Jin, which means she probably has information about some of the others too. Sayid, for example, who she “escorted” onto Ajira 316…

The group comes back upon the old 815 camp, and they bury Locke where some of the other island bodies are buried (I think the makeshift cemetery is home to Libby, Ana Lucia, Boone and Shannon). The skeleton of Eko’s unfinished church is nearby. When Ilana asks if anybody wants to say something about Locke, Ben finally steps forward. “I knew him. John Locke was a…a believer. He was a man of faith, he was…a much better man than I will ever be. And I’m very sorry I murdered him.” This is one of the few things Ben has ever said on the show where I actually believed him. I think his growing understanding and remorse, as well as being thrown into the position of not knowing what the hell is going on – a position to which he is unaccustomed – will continue to fuel him toward a sacrifice he will ultimately make.
Ben’s brief eulogy is touching, and as much as I love all things Frank Lapidus (seriously, how much does that guy rule?), I sort of wish the scene hadn’t ended with a joke. (Frank’s line, a runner-up for the episode’s best: “This is the weirdest damn funeral I’ve ever been to.”)

RECRUITMENT
With the arrival of Season Six and the revelation of the Man in Locke as the Smoke Monster comes a brilliant new device I hope we’ll get more of: SmokeyCam! I loved watching the Smoke Monster’s POV as he barreled around the island, stopping right outside Sawyer’s house (his billowing reflection visible in the window) and then retreating…the crazy sound effects – something mechanical as well as what sounds like an animal’s cry – on full audio display. That’s such a cool sound effect. What the hell is it?

After locating Sawyer, Smokey retreats back to the jungle and unties a sack from a tree which contains Richard. (That cracked me up. He had poor Richard strung up in a sack in a tree.) The Man in Locke tells him it’s time to talk.

R: What do you want?
L: What I’ve always wanted. For you to come with me.
R: Why do you look like John Locke?
L: I knew he’d get me access to Jacob. Because John’s a candidate. Or at least he was a candidate.
R: What do you mean? What do you mean a candidate?
L: Didn’t Jacob tell you any of this?
R: Any of what?
L: Oh Richard…I’m sorry. You mean you’ve been doing everything he told you all this time and he never said why? I would never have done that to you, I would never have kept you in the dark.
R: And what would you have done?
L: I would have treated you with respect. Come with me and I promise I’ll tell you everything.
R: No.
L: Are you sure about that, Richard? Because people seldom get a second chance.
R: I’m not going anywhere with you.

Man in Locke stops short when he looks past Richard and sees a boy standing there, looking all Children of the Corn. Dressed in Others garb, he is standing Christ-like with bloody arms and palms facing outward. Richard turns to see what Man in Locke is looking at, but the boy is either gone or invisible to Richard. This creepy moppet’s appearance is among the biggest WTF moments of the new season, and the fact that it seems to scare the Man in Locke fascinates me.

But he’s not the only one who’s frightened. Richard is still completely unnerved by the Man in Black’s presence (and especially in this new form). He also looks genuinely bewildered by the talk of candidates. Is it true that he has had no idea what Jacob was up to for all these many years? I also wondered if there’s any particular reason that the Man in Black has always wanted Richard to come with him, or if his desire for Richard’s allegiance is just part of an attempt to win followers.

Of course, the Man in Locke’s line that “people seldom get a second chance” carries a nice irony since he himself seems to be enjoying exactly that. And most of the 815ers seem to be as well, thanks to the alternate timeline (although since we don’t understand the nature of that yet, we can’t really say if it’s a second chance).

Man in Locke leaves Richard, promising to see him sooner than he thinks, and returns to Sawyer’s, this time in human form. Sawyer is just beginning a new stage of mourning: severe intoxication. The house is a mess, music is blaring and he’s sitting in the bedroom in boxers and a wifebeater, drinking whiskey from the bottle (sounds like my typical Wednesday night). Locke walks into the room, and Sawyer slowly takes in his visitor. Luckily he’s not too drunk yet, though he must think he is. “I thought you were dead,” he says.

“I am,” Locke answers.

When Sawyer tells him to get out of his house and Locke counters that it’s not his house but just the place where he lived for a while, Sawyer seems to take him in more fully.

S: Who are you? Cause you sure as hell ain’t John Locke.
L: What makes you say that?
S: Cause Locke was scared. Even when he was pretending he wasn’t. But you? You ain’t scared.
L: What if I told you I was the person who could answer the most important question in the world?
S: And what question is that?
L: Why are you on this island?
S: I’m on this island because my plane crashed. Cause my raft blew up. Cause the helicopter I was on was ridin’ one
too heavy.
L: That’s not why you’re here. And if you come with me, I can prove it.

WHEN YOU GOT NOTHING YOU GOT NOTHING TO LOSE
So they head off into the jungle, and while making their way, Sawyer sees the boy from earlier standing beyond the Man in Locke. This time the boy’s arms are by his side and don’t appear to be bleeding. Man in Locke is surprised that Sawyer can see him. He runs after him and trips on the way (why doesn’t he just turn into Smokey?). When he looks up, the barefoot, blonde boy is standing right above him, staring down at him with contempt.

“You know the rules,” the boy says. “You can’t kill him.”

The Man in Locke gets to his knees and borrows his physical predecessor’s common refrain: “Don’t tell me what I can’t do.”

The boy shakes his head dismissively and walks away. Locke repeats himself, yelling this time.

So who’s the kid? Well I had no idea upon watching the show, but a number of friends have suggested with confidence that it’s young Jacob…though they all admit they don’t know why or how that makes sense. I confess that this possibility didn’t even enter my mind, but it certainly seems to make sense. Well…okay, it makes sense in Lost-world. He does look sort of like Jacob (actually I’d say he looks more like a young David Marcus, who you Trekkies know as the son of one James T. Kirk. But I digress…).

More importantly, he and the Man in Locke recognize each other and speak to each other with common understanding. But if this is Jacob, who is the “him” he refers to? Is he saying that he himself can’t be killed by the Man in Black? If so, why does he say “him” instead of “me?” When Man in Locke and Ben first entered Jacob’s chamber, even Jacob acknowledged that the Man in Black had found his loophole. So could the boy be referring to someone else that the Man in Locke intends to kill? Again with these rules and who can and can’t be killed. According to Ben, Charles Widmore broke the rules when he repeatedly left the island and had a daughter with an outsider, and when Keamy killed Alex. Upon visiting Widmore on the mainland, Ben says they both know he can’t kill Widmore. So many unexplained rules…

Is the boy even real? If he is Jacob, will he re-grow at an accelerated rate? Reader Nic A. pointed to (if I might make another Star Trek reference) Spock’s resurrection and rapid growth from boy to man in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. What does the boy’s presence mean for the Man in Locke’s plans? Whatever it means, Man in Locke doesn’t seem too concerned about it when he returns to Sawyer, even playing dumb when Sawyer asks if he caught up with the kid. “What kid?” he asks.

But before that happens, while Sawyer is alone, Richard runs out of the jungle in a panic.

Richard runs off as the Man in Locke returns. He and Sawyer continue their trek through the jungle, but now Sawyer is thrown off by Richard’s warning. He soon pulls a gun on Locke and asks what would happen if he pulled the trigger. Cool as can be, Locke asks, “Why don’t we find out?”

S: What are you?
L: What I am is trapped. And I’ve been trapped for so long that I don’t even remember what it feels like to be free. Maybe you can understand that. But before I was trapped I was a man, James, just like you.
S: I have a hard time believin’ that.
L: You can believe whatever you want, that’s the truth. I know what it’s like to feel joy, to feel pain, anger, fear, to experience betrayal. I know what it’s like to lose someone you love. You wanna shoot me, shoot me…but you are so close James, it would be such a shame to turn back now.

Sawyer relents and they press on.

CAVE OF WONDERS
They arrive at a cliff face overlooking the ocean. A number of ladders descend to a cave opening. Man in Locke goes first, and as Sawyer follows, his ladder snaps and falls. The Man in Locke saves him and they make their way down to the cave. A scale sits on a table, holding fist-sized rocks – one dark, one light. The dark one seems to be slightly heavier. Locke picks up the light one and throws it into the ocean, telling Sawyer it’s an “inside joke.”

He leads Sawyer further into the cave and makes his revelation: names, scrawled in white all over the cave walls and ceiling, each preceded by a number and almost all of them crossed out. “That’s why you’re here,” he tells Sawyer. “That’s why you’re all here.”

Of all the names I could discern which were crossed out, the only one I recognized was Littleton (Claire). I didn’t see Cortez (Ana Lucia), Carlyle (Boone), Rutherford (Shannon), Dawson (Michael), Pace (Charlie) or Smith (Libby). I think I saw Goodspeed (Horace?), but didn’t notice any other names of people from the Dharma Initiative, the freighter or the Others. The only other names I could make out – and I didn’t recognize any of them – were Mattingley, Troupe, O’Toole and Sullivan.

But of course there were those names which were not yet crossed out, as Sawyer and Man in Locke discuss:

The absence of Kate’s name among the un-crossed out strikes me as quite conspicuous, as I assumed that the list hidden in Jacob’s ankh – which Dogen found when Jack and Co. arrived at The Temple with a dying Sayid – would correspond to the names remaining on the wall. So has she been crossed out? She must have been on there to begin with, right?

And the questions keep coming. Why did Jacob choose these people as potential candidates? What happens when someone’s name is crossed off? Claire’s name is struck out, but we don’t know how long ago that happened. She appears to be alive, but we also don’t know yet what her story is, so we can not be sure how long one can survive on the island after being crossed off. We don’t even know if being crossed off means that person is going to die (though Man in Locke refers to the names in the cave as “people whose lives he [Jacob] wasted.” And then there’s the fact that Locke had not yet been crossed off; his surrogate does that now.

Why did Jacob decide these people weren’t candidates? Is this list related to the lists that I assume have been handed down from Jacob to Richard to Ben? What about the list that Michael was given, instructing him to bring Hurley, Sawyer, Jack and Kate to the Others? Is everybody from Flight 815, or at least all those who survived the crash, on the island because of Jacob? What about the Ajira passengers?

What does it mean, if anything, that Hurley and Sayid were selected by Jacob after coming back from the island? Did they just happen to be on the plane and survive, only being identified as candidates later and prompting Jacob to lure them back to the island? Does the Man in Black have a place like this, where he has been scoring names, perhaps with a dark rock?

A QUESTION…AND THIS ONE’S NOT RHETORICAL
Okay, enough of me talking at you. It’s time to let the people speak, and I have a question to pose. I think we all assume that in this great duel of the fates for the island, Jacob is the good guy and the Man in Black is the bad guy. But what if we’re wrong?

What if Jacob is the selfish manipulator and the Man in Black is the one trying to save everyone? What if everybody who’s been doing Jacob’s bidding – Richard, Dogen, Ilana, Ben, etc. – have all been misled and misguided? I know some fans out there on the internets have mentioned this possibility. Considering that Jacob has been represented as “white” and the Man in Black, well, there it is, it would be a bold move to subvert a lifetime of cultural conditioning as to what those two colors represent. Or at the very least, it would muddy that viewpoint enough to show that we all have the capacity for both sides – something Lost‘s producers have always aimed to explore.

The show has provided clues that could suggest either outcome. In this episode, Richard told Sawyer that the Man in Locke is “not gonna tell you anything. He’s gonna kill you.” But the Man in Locke shows Sawyer exactly what he promises. And not only does he not kill him, he saves his life. He then talks about Jacob’s belief that that the island needs protecting and refers to all the names in the cave as lives Jacob has wasted. On the other hand, the way Man in Locke talked to Ben after Jacob’s death showed him to regard the castaways’ pre-island lives as pathetic and miserable. He seems to have a healthy contempt for them.

So in the spirit of interactivity, and of me finding out if more than three people are reading these things, let me know what you think. Is Jacob the good guy in all of this, with the Man in Black as his murderous enemy? Or are we headed for a flip?

LOOSE ENDS/FOOD FOR THOUGHT
-I’ve noticed that Henry Ian Cusick’s name is still listed among the main cast members. I had read that Desmond would not be a series regular this year, though this suggests otherwise. I wonder why he wasn’t in any of the Lost Supper photos. And speaking of regulars, I’m wondering how Ilana and Frank will factor into the story as we move through the final season. I would think that if they’ve been bumped to regulars this year, there must be some pretty big stuff coming down the pike for them. I can’t wait to find out what.

-You gotta love that Helen was wearing a shirt that says “Peace & Karma.”

-I wanted to circle back to Locke’s conversation with Helen about miracles. While many elements of Locke’s flash-sideways connected to Locke’s original backstory, there were some notable differences (like acknowledging that the walkabout organizers were right to tell him he couldn’t go). Sideways-Locke’s opinions of miracles is another stark contrast to the Locke we’re familiar with. His belief in miracles comes up directly in the Season Four finale, There’s No Place Like Home (Part II). Locke tells Jack he’ll have to lie about everything that happened since they got to the island. He says it’s the only way to protect it. “It’s an island, John. No one needs to protect it!” Jack shoots back.

L: It’s not an island. It’s a place where miracles happen.
J: There’s no such thing as miracles.
L: Well…we’ll just have to see which one of us is right.

Not only does Locke feel differently in the sideways world, but apparently Jack “Nothing is Irreversible” Shephard does too.

-Seeing Locke’s body laying in the ground as Lapidus and Ben threw dirt over him was a final, sad reminder that Locke as we’ve known and loved him for years is no more. We have the sideways Locke and the Man in Locke, but we’d be remiss not to say goodbye to the original Man of Faith. RIP, John.

-Obviously one the Lost’s big themes is destiny vs. free will. Do we control our own fate, or has our course been predetermined? Eloise Hawking believes in destiny, as she told Desmond when they first met, using the example of a man on the street who gets killed in an accident. She says it wouldn’t matter if she had intervened to save him. If it wasn’t one thing today, it would be something else tomorrow. She also sets her own son, our friend Daniel Faraday, on a course that she knows will result in his death.

Faraday, on the other hand, winds up at the opposite end of the spectrum. His whole argument for detonating Jughead is that the past can be changed because people are variables. “We think, we reason, we make choices, we have free will. We can change our destiny,” he tells Jack and Kate. And until we know the meaning of the alternate timeline, we won’t know if he’s right.

But the question raised its head again in this episode, and I was obviously intrigued by the Man in Locke’s assertion that ever since Sawyer’s contact with Jacob, his choices have not been his own. Jacob met Hurley a day before Ajira 316 departed, so his influence in that case is a lot easier to consider than Sawyer’s, or Kate’s, both of whom met Jacob in their childhood. There are a lot of decisions to be made between the age of 10 and…whatever age they are now. I’m left wondering if this is the kind of issue the show would even attempt to resolve, or if in the end we’ll see that neither fate nor destiny control our lives in full, leaving Jacob and the Man in Black – or perhaps their replacements – to play out their game for all eternity. If that mysterious boy on the island is indeed Jacob, maybe that’s why he’s there and that’s what he means about the rules and not being able to kill the unknown “him.” If one is light and the other is dark, then both must exist, always. Like The Joker says to Batman in The Dark Knight, “I think you and I are destined to do this forever.”

There you go: destiny.

LINE OF THE NIGHT
“Well I guess I’d better put some pants on.” – Sawyer

Tonight’s Episode: Lighthouse

February 20, 2010

Favorite Movies of 2009

Filed under: Movies — DB @ 1:24 pm
Tags: , ,

A traditional Top Ten list doesn’t make much sense to me. I can pick out my absolute favorite few movies in a given year, but beyond those, I’m not really sure what distinguishes my seventh favorite movie of the year from my eighth. By the same token, cutting the list off at ten seems equally pointless if the idea is to highlight the movies from the year that meant the most to me. Again, I’m not sure how to differentiate number ten on my list from number twelve. So what follows is a look at my favorite movies from the year, period…starting with the top of the top and working my way through the rest alphabetically rather than assigning arbitrary rankings.

And away we go…

#1:
PRECIOUS

If you’ve been afraid to see this movie, get over it. Yeah, it’s not exactly the feel-good movie of the year….but for my money, it was easily the best, so no excuses. You may think that the story of Claireece “Precious” Jones – an obese, illiterate 16 year-old, abused every which way by her monstrous mother and pregnant with her second child by her father – will be unbearably dark and depressing, but you couldn’t be more wrong. Remember last year’s crowd-pleasing indie (and winner of eight Academy Awards) Slumdog Millionaire? Precious is satisfying in much the same way. It doesn’t have the same stand-up-and-cheer momentum going for it, but like Slumdog‘s protagonist Jamal,  Precious refuses to be defined by her environment or background and will not allow others to set her limitations. From an audience’s perspective, the more important similarity between the two films is the emotional response they earn. As unforgiving as Precious’ circumstances are, she has the courage to fight against the forces that threaten to keep her down, and in her struggle is beauty and hope. She may still face a bleak future, but she’ll face it on her own terms, and not without a fight. Precious is not depressing; it’s inspired and inspirational.

As the producer of films like Monster’s Ball and The Woodsman, Lee Daniels has shone a light on dark, complex stories that ask more of us than another empty Mummy sequel or Katherine Heigl romantic comedy…and which give us more in return. Now he reveals himself as a director just as willing to tackle challenging material and find a way to make it accessible to a mainstream audience. With a script by Geoffrey Fletcher, adapted from the novel Push by Sapphire (the film’s full title cites its source material), Daniels strikes a delicate balance between the harsh realities of Precious’ life and the fantasies that provide her an escape, and he employs carefully measured cinematic flourishes to keep the gritty elements from becoming too overbearing. He is aided in this effort by the terrific, undersung cinematography of Andrew Dunn, who keeps dark the stifling apartment Precious shares with her cruel mother, but also bathes it in an orange glow as if the fires of hell are burning just offscreen. He contrasts this with brighter, more natural lighting for the classroom where Precious begins to come into her own.

In the title role, newcomer Gabourey Sidibe does more than just fulfill the highly specific physical requirements of the character. She nails the girl’s soul, and her performance is only more impressive once you see an interview with her and realize what a transformation she makes, holding every part of her physical self differently in order to become Precious. Lenny Kravitz and Mariah Carey shine in smaller roles as a nurse and social worker, respectively. Carey, especially is a wonderful surprise. Shedding her known persona entirely, she plays an average woman working a difficult job that takes its toll, and the strength of her performance is that in just a few scenes she shows us more about this woman than the movie has time to tell. She’s really excellent. At the alternative school where Precious begins her new journey, she finds a friend and supporter in the lovely Miss Rain, played by Paula Patton with an open heart and a tough edge lurking below the surface. The girls who play Precious’ classmates are also essential to the film’s success. Each brings a unique charm to the table and gives the sense that they could be the subject of their own compelling story.

Then of course, as Precious’ mother Mary Jones, there is Mo’Nique. Where did this woman come from? I don’t think I had seen her in anything prior to this, and only had marginal awareness of her as a comedic actress. Well there’s nothing comedic about her work here. Mo’Nique strikes with the fury of a hurricane, delivering a performance so powerful, so searing, so scary and riveting that for all of the character’s savagery, you just want more of her. You can’t take your eyes off her, and every single one of her scenes packs an unforgettable punch to the gut. The movie, and Mo’Nique’s performance, challenge the audience to understand that even a monster has its motivations. We aren’t asked to excuse or forgive anything Mary does, but in seeing what drives her, we are made to see that evil has roots. It doesn’t simply spring from nothing, and Mo’Nique drives that point home in the year’s best performance.

Don’t be afraid of Precious. You know it was showered with awards and accolades, you know you’re supposed to like it, but maybe it just sounds like so much work. Well listen to the words being typed by my fingers: this is a great, great film that will, in the best way possible, knock you on your ass. Vibrant characters, wonderful acting, humor, heart, drama…do not miss it.

The Rest:
(500) DAYS OF SUMMER

Writers Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber and director Marc Webb have pulled off one of the hardest types of films to do: a refreshing, original romantic comedy. Forgoing the gloss of such by-the-numbers studio efforts that have kept the likes of Kate Hudson and Matthew McConaughey busy over the last several years, (500) Days of Summer enjoys a breezy indie feel in its structure (jumping around through days in the relationship), its look (there’s a nice earthtone palette employed by cinematographer Eric Steelberg, and it actually makes Los Angeles look like a pleasant place to live) and certainly in its casting of Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel as the couple. As the romantic Tom and the cynical Summer, Gordon-Levitt and Deschanel embody a relationship that is sweet, sad and authentic in all its ups and downs. I’m not even sure it’s fair to label it a romantic comedy; that might be limiting. The more dramatic elements feel real, rather than tacked on in order to hit story beats. It reminded me of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind in its capturing of a moving, believable relationship that evokes the yearning, excitement, joy, confusion, frustration and heartache that will be recognizable to anyone who’s ever been young and in love.

x

ADVENTURELAND
I’ve never worked at an amusement park; there wasn’t a lot of sex or drugs in my youth; and I was only 10 years old in 1987, the year in which this film is set. So I’m not quite sure what it was that I so personally connected with in the story of a college grad forced to take a summer job at a local, old-school fun park. Perhaps it was just the pleasure of watching a winsome story in an interesting setting with a colorful, appealing group of characters. Or maybe I’m just a sucker for movies where kinda nerdy guys get to hook up with hot girls. Whatever it was, the film slowly, warmly snuck up on me, just as the experience does on the protagonist James, played by Jesse Eisenberg. It’s evident that writer-director Greg Mottola (The Daytrippers, Superbad) has a lot of affection for this story and these people, and the cast – including Kristen Stewart, Martin Starr, Ryan Reynolds and Bill Hader – couldn’t be better. A few lesser-known actors also stand out: watch for Margarita Levieva as the park’s resident fantasy girl Lisa P. and Matt Bush as its resident bonehead, Frigo. Great movie for a warm summer night.

x

AVATAR
Despite its less-than-original story and simplistic characters, Avatar succeeded for me as a thrilling and transportive cinematic experience, introducing the beautiful but dangerous world of Pandora. Sure, I wish that James Cameron’s vivid imagination could have extended far enough to, say, create a less obvious name than Unobtanium for the planet’s elusive mineral sought by the humans as an energy source. (Seriously….Unobtanium?) It doesn’t hold up to Cameron’s past films, and its allure will probably fade over time, but right now in its recent wake I can say that the technical and creative achievements won me over. Plus, Sigourney Weaver makes everything better.

x

DISTRICT 9
The mysterious marketing campaign peaked people’s curiosity, and Peter Jackson’s name as producer didn’t hurt, but once we showed up it was co-writer and director Neill Blomkamp’s vision that carried the day. The film thrusts viewers immediately into the action, offering the minimal amount of history needed to set-up the story of an alien population in Johannesburg being forced out of the slum they’ve occupied for 20 years in favor of new, government-sponsored housing further outside the city, all while their massive, immobile mothership hovers overhead. How did the aliens and the humans learn to relate? How did they learn each others’ language? The answers may be interesting, but we don’t get them and we don’t need them. We accept the world as it is and dive into the story.

Using a combination of documentary-style footage with traditional narrative structure, Blomkamp and co-writer Terri Tatchell introduce us to Wikus Van De Merwe (impressive newcomer Sharlto Copley), a mid-level bureaucrat at Multi-National United, a global corporation which has been placed in charge of the massive alien evacuation operation. A seemingly minor incident in the field winds up having life-altering consequences for Wikus and puts him at odds with MNU, forcing him to seek help from the creatures he’s trying to displace.

It’s interesting to me that in this strong year for science-fiction, when genre god James Cameron returned to the game with a film huge in scope and budget, young filmmakers like Blomkamp and Duncan Jones (see Moon further down) are still carrying the torch of  ingenuity that Cameron displayed 25 years ago with The Terminator. With its simple but imaginative premise, low-tech style and adrenalizing tension, District 9 reminded me of Cameron’s 1984 breakthrough. If we’re lucky, this is the first step in a similarly awesome career.

x

FANTASTIC MR. FOX
Wes Anderson’s foray into stop-motion animation manages to be a completely original film even while sharing the now-familiar DNA that runs through all of the director’s work (including 1960’s rock and roll from artists like The Rolling Stones and The Beach Boys, appearances – vocally only, in this case – by Bill Murray, Jason Schwartzman and Owen Wilson, and camerawork that slides and glides over immaculately designed sets). The fact that the film fits so snugly into Anderson’s oeuvre reinforces what a singular talent he is. His charming take on Roald Dahl’s classic story perfectly casts George Clooney as the voice of the title character who, despite his effort for a normal, domestic life, can’t turn away from his natural hunting instincts. His brazen thievery from the local farmers Boggis, Bunce and Bean endanger the entire animal community as well as his marriage. Among the pleasures of the adaptation by Anderson and Noah Baumbach is one of my favorite characters of the year, and one not featured in Dahl’s source material: Mr. and Mrs. Fox’s outcast son Ash, voiced by Schwartzman. Ash is frustrated that he lacks his father’s suave style and athleticism, and it upsets him all the more when his seemingly perfect cousin Kristofferson comes to stay. Ash gives the film much of its humor, and much of its heart as well.

x

THE HANGOVER
The high-concept premise of this hilarious comedy is sort of brilliant in its cleverness and simplicity: three men wake up in their wrecked Vegas hotel suite the morning after a bachelor party, unable to find the groom or recall anything about the previous night’s activities. Going off what few clues they have – including a tiger in the bathroom and a baby in the closet – they try to piece together what happened in time to find their friend and get back to L.A. for the wedding. The journey is full of belly laughs, but the trio itself is the key to the movie’s magic. Bradley Cooper is the cool party boy, Ed Helms is the uptight straight-arrow and Zach Galifianakis is…well, words really can’t do justice to Galifianakis’ oddball man-child, but he’s nearly worth the price of admission alone. If you don’t have the taste for a little raunch in your comedy, this probably isn’t for you. But if movies like Old School and Wedding Crashers are up your alley, The Hangover will have you rolling.

x

HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE
As a die-hard fan of the Potter books, I have (like many such fans, I suspect) a complicated relationship with their movie adaptations. This one was no exception, and my list of “why did they change that” and “it makes no sense to keep this if they didn’t include that” was long. Still, there’s a lot to enjoy about Half-Blood Prince. Director David Yates and screenwriter Steve Kloves manage some magic of their own in the balance they strike between the darkness encroaching on all the characters and the humor that comes as a result of the students’ raging hormones. To the latter point, two standout additions to the cast are Jessie Cave and Freddie Stroma as Ron’s girlfriend Lavender Brown and Hermione’s suitor Cormac McClaggen, respectively. Both are welcome and, at times, hilarious additions to an already amazing cast. Jim Broadbent, the latest British stalwart to join the series, shines in the key role of a professor from Hogwarts’ past. And as a teenage Voldemort in some too-brief flashbacks, Frank Dillane is frighteningly good, ever-so-subtly capturing the malice and menace that lurks just below the respectable prefect’s surface. Cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel casts a spell as well, with striking camerawork that moves furtively in and out of the shadows and helps conjure the feeling of dread that hangs over the story. Unfortunately the film oddly and frustratingly deflates in its last few scenes, when it should be hitting its emotional heights. But up until then it’s the moodiest, funniest and most beautiful film in the series so far.

x

THE HURT LOCKER
Director Kathryn Bigelow’s best film since Near Dark is an unrelentingly intense experience that places viewers alongside a three-man bomb squad in Iraq. Jeremy Renner plays the daredevil leader Will James, whose apparent lack of fear and casual discarding of protocol troubles his fellow soldiers, the cautious J.T. Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) and the nervous, struggling Owen Eldredge (Brian Geraghty). Even amidst the heart-pounding set-pieces, the film manages to be an intimate character study, drawing the audience close to the three men through simple glimpses into their days and nights, on duty and off. Working from a solid script by Mark Boal, a journalist who spent time with bomb squads in the field, Bigelow directs with restraint and a documentary-like unobtrusiveness, letting the natural tension of each situation do the work. She’s also not afraid to exercise the patience required to convey the men’s quieter challenges, demonstrated by a sequence in which they fall under attack in the middle of the desert by a sniper and must wait their enemy out for hours. This is a tight, compelling drama offering an unflinching look both at the broad experience of contemporary warfare and the personal experiences of the soldiers who fight it.

x

INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS
“Once upon a time in Nazi Occupied France…” is the kickoff to Quentin Tarantino’s long-gestating World War II tale. Over the course of five chapters, the writer-director tells two stories: one about a squad of Allied soldiers hunting and scalping Nazis across the French countryside; the other about a young Jewish woman, the sole survivor of her family’s murder at the hands of the SS. The two threads meet in a bravura, 40-minute final act that finds Tarantino audaciously and thrillingly re-writing world history. Along the way, he plays with tension like he never has before. He’s described his efforts as equivalent to stretching a rubber band as far as it can go before snapping. Scenes are often lengthy, and he wrings the maximum amount of suspense he can before delivering the payoff. The film’s ensemble – winner of the Screen Actor’s Guild award for Best Performance By a Cast – features Brad Pitt, hamming it up amusingly as the U.S. lieutenant in charge of the Basterds; Melanie Laurent as the Jewish girl; Michael Fassbender as an undercover British officer; Daniel Bruhl as a Nazi war hero; and Diane Kruger as a German movie star. But the standout performance belongs to Christoph Waltz as the cunning Nazi colonel Hans Landa, a simultaneously genial and sinister detective. It’s a great role, and in his American film debut, the veteran Austrian actor makes an unforgettable impression. He’s won nearly every acting prize available to him since the film premiered at last May’s Cannes Film Festival. All the hallmarks we expect from Tarantino are here: brilliant dialogue, shocking violence, great performances and an obvious love of films and filmmaking.

x

IN THE LOOP
This hilarious satire of diplomatic relations between the U.S. and the U.K. in the days leading up to a Middle East war flew under the radar last summer, but demands to be seen by anyone who likes their comedy whip-smart and their language extra-salty. The Oscar-nominated screenplay combines the rapid-fire wordplay of Aaron Sorkin with the precise and artful profanity of David Mamet. Few of the players are household names (James Gandolfini and Steve Coogan are the biggest stars on hand), but they are a sensational group of new and familiar faces who helped make this one of the best surprises I’ve had at the movies in recent memory. See it as soon as you can. And check out the lengthy collection of deleted scenes on the DVD – they’re every bit as good as what remained in the movie.

x

THE LOVELY BONES
I know that in offering praise on this film, I’m in the minority. Adapted from the 2002 best-seller by Alice Sebold, it received mixed to savage reviews, with Roger Ebert calling it “deplorable.” (Even if you weren’t a fan of the movie, I think a look a Ebert’s review shows that he’s way off base in his interpretation). Having not read the book – in fact, having the opinion that the story of a murdered teenage girl observing her family and her killer from heaven sounded kinda stupid – I came to the film only with the expectation that Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson would create something interesting. As far as I’m concerned, he succeeded. Saoirse Ronan plays Susie Salmon, the murdered girl caught between earth and heaven in a place whose landscapes are constructed from her own memories and from where she watches her family (Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz portray her parents) deal with her loss while her neighbor and killer (Stanley Tucci in a creepy, change-of-pace performance) covers his tracks.

The movie is not without problems. The role of Susie’s grandmother, played by Susan Sarandon, seems to exist mainly for comic relief, but I expect there was more to it in the book. Similarly, a plot thread involving a classmate of Susie’s who seems able to sense the dead girl’s presence is underdeveloped and probably had more significance on the page. From what I’ve seen, most of the negative reviews come from critics who’ve read the novel and feel that Jackson buried its beauty and soul in an orgy of CGI. (The “In-Between” that Susie occupies in death is aggressively art directed, no doubt.) Still, I think that overall Jackson created an engrossing and haunting movie that finds power in the depiction of a family torn apart, a killer trying to keep himself together and young victim trying to make sense of what happened to her and where she’s headed.

x

MOON
There’s something cool about Duncan Jones, the son of David Bowie, making his feature directorial debut with a science-fiction film whose haunting quality evokes his father’s classic song “Space Oddity.” The film centers on astronaut Sam Bell, the lone occupant of a lunar space station, as he enters the final two weeks of a three-year stretch running an operation in which the moon’s surface is mined for a substance that is sent back to Earth and converted to energy. As Sam’s departure looms, he has an accident which leads to a devastating discovery.

Among the smartest things that Jones does with his movie is casting the great Sam Rockwell in the lead role. The discovery that Bell makes and the situation he finds himself in as a result provide a great showcase for the actor, who deserves every opportunity to show off his stuff. Even with a setting as expansive as the moon and the emptiness of space around it, Jones keeps the film feeling intimate and Sam’s isolation palpable. And while, like many space stories, this one may seem a bit cold and cerebral, the director and his leading man offer something strangely moving and highly satisfying. This one really stayed with me.

x

THE ROAD
Director John Hillcoat and screenwriter Joe Penhall don’t mess with Cormac McCarthy’s Pulitzer Prize-winning source material in their adaptation. The story is so sparse, there’s not much messing that could be done. They faithfully tell the story of a father and son moving through the cold, dismal, ashen landscape that remains after an undefined natural disaster has destroyed the world. They search for food, they search for shelter, they try to avoid other survivors – many of whom have turned to cannibalism – and they try to reach the coast, where they hope to find warmer weather and perhaps hope itself. That’s it. Boring? Never. Viggo Mortensen is at his understated best as the protective father, striking a natural rapport with Kodi Smit-McPhee as his compassionate son. Watch for a brief but astounding performance by Robert Duvall, who digs deeper in five minutes of screen time than many actors can go in a whole film.

x

A SINGLE MAN
The impressive feature directorial debut of fashion designer Tom Ford looks as great as one would expect, but luckily Ford is concerned with something more than just the scenery. In the best performance of the year by a male lead, Colin Firth plays George Falconer, a college professor struggling and failing to deal with the sudden death of his partner. Taking place over the course of one day (with flashbacks illuminating the relationship between George and Jim, played by Matthew Goode), the film gives us a character perilously close to losing his way but still in possession of a desire for life, even if he doesn’t realize it. The journey of discovery that comes as George navigates his grief is one experienced by the audience as much as the character, for we get to see Firth dig into a role deeper than anything he’s done before. The scene where he receives the phone call about Jim’s death is a masterful example of restraint and internalization.

x

STAR TREK
An epic, imaginative reboot of the beloved but recently stalled-out Star Trek franchise that successfully introduces yet another new crew to follow, succeeding despite the challenge of having audiences accept this new team as younger versions of the original cast. Director J.J. Abrams pulls it off thanks to a smart script by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (how is it that these guys write so well for Abrams and so poorly for Michael Bay?) that takes the Trek continuity fans are familiar with and through that most wondrous and liberating storytelling device known as time travel, spins it into an alternate reality that paves the way for a new franchise. Some fans cried foul, accusing the filmmakers of using time travel as a cheat that would let them ignore the history of a universe already deeply established. Others heralded the bold choice as just what Star Trek needed, a creative jolt that shows respect to its roots but frees the filmmakers from the shackles that had begun to hold the series back. I agree with the latter, and the fact that Leonard Nimoy shows up to bridge the gap – just as William Shatner appeared alongside Patrick Stewart in Generations to help pass the baton to The Next Generation crew – helps smooth the transition.

Abrams and his technical crew have created a great looking film, one that revels in widescreen glory and fills the frame with icy blues and sunbright oranges. ILM’s gorgeous visual effects enhance the cinematography and art direction, and advances in technology have allowed Abrams to ramp up the intensity and speed of Trek’s space battles. (Even in the original spate of Trek movies, working with higher budgets and fewer limitations than the TV series, the battling ships didn’t move very fast or evasively. The climactic pursuit of the Enterprise by the Reliant in Wrath of Kahn was less cat and mouse than two blind mice). Credit also goes to the cast assembled to fill the shoes of the beloved original Trek crew. When Chris Pine’s casting was announced, I was skeptical. I hadn’t seen him in anything, but he looked like a dime-a-dozen pretty boy. Watching the movie, I was pleased to find he had charisma to spare and that, at moments, was able to almost capture that elusive Shatner magic. Zachary Quinto’s casting, on the other hand, seemed too good to be true from the get-go, and the story crafted by Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman allows him to add surprising new dimensions to Spock, a character we thought we knew so well. Quinto and Karl Urban, as Dr. McCoy, most successfully channel their predecessors, although Simon Pegg is full of promise as Scotty and Zoe Saldana is a smart, sexy Uhura.

Abrams does occasionally falter, most glaringly in a brief but distracting segment involving not one but two over-the-top CG creatures that serve no real purpose. He also has a tendency towards humor that goes a little too goofy, as when Kirk’s hands swell like balloons as the result of an injection he’s given by McCoy. Luckily these moments are brief and forgivable, overshadowed by a sense of fun and excitement that whets the appetite for continuing voyages.

x

UP
The Pixar formula might be getting boring if there was actually anything formulaic about what they do. But building a movie around a grumpy, 80-year old man isn’t exactly playing it safe. The fanciful adventure is set in motion when widower Carl Frederickson (voiced by the great Ed Asner) equips his house with enough helium balloons to carry him to Paradise Falls, an idyllic South American locale that he and his wife Ellie always dreamed of visiting but never managed to reach. The plan first goes awry when Carl discovers an inadvertent stowaway named Russell, a neighborhood boy trying to earn his latest Scout badge. Things continue to unravel from there, with talking dogs, an exotic bird and a mysterious figure from the past all standing between Carl and his dream. Among the movie’s many pleasures is an early montage depicting Carl and Ellie’s life together, and it is among the best and most moving scenes all year, a beautiful example of economic and emotional storytelling. It seems Pixar’s only formula is to come up with great stories and tell them superbly. If only they could share the secret, maybe all movies would be this imaginative and touching.

x

UP IN THE AIR
Avatar wasn’t the only movie released in December to feature wondrous three-dimensionality, and it wasn’t the best either. That honor belongs to this shimmering comedic drama from Jason Reitman, whose script (also credited to Sheldon Turner, who worked on earlier drafts, and based on a novel by Walter Kirn) provides three of the year’s richest roles, as well as a timely commentary on how the economic disaster affects the lives of everyday working folk. George Clooney, continuing to exhibit superb taste in material, plays Ryan, a consultant hired by companies to come in and handle layoffs. He loves the traveling-man life that goes along with the job, and has perfected the art of living simply and efficiently. Then the arrival of two women into his perfect world has unexpected effects. One is co-worker Natalie (Anna Kendrick), a recent Cornell grad with big ideas to redefine Ryan’s company; the other is Alex (Vera Farmiga), a fellow frequent flier with whom Ryan becomes romantically involved.

None of the three are quite what they appear to be, and Reitman’s generosity as a writer and understanding of great characters and relationships is beautifully displayed, particularly between Ryan and Natalie. They’re forced to go on the road together so Ryan can show her the ropes, and Reitman doesn’t just coast by throwing them into a constantly contentious relationship that finally thaws after one special moment finally brings them to a mutual understanding. Their relationship is more layered than that. There is tension, but Ryan doesn’t treat Natalie with total contempt or disrespect. He wants her to understand what he does and how her proposal would affect that. Though his goal is to stop her plans from going into practice, he’s supportive of her as she learns the job. She, in turn, is open to his guidance even as she wants to prove herself as more than the naive girl she feels he takes her for. As she watches him handle the challenge of firing someone, she knows that she has overlooked the nuance involved, and the more Natalie learns, the more Kendrick shines. None of this may sound like much, but many movies wouldn’t give its characters such shadings. Reitman doesn’t present us with archetypes; he presents us with realistic people…who admittedly, have perhaps unrealistically great dialogue to speak. There is so much to enjoy about this movie, from the Oscar-nominated performances of Clooney, Kendrick and Farmiga to the supporting players that include Danny McBride, Amy Morton and Reitman’s Juno alums Jason Bateman and J.K. Simmons; from the crisp editing and cinematography that visually convey the precision of Ryan’s lifestyle to the inspired stroke of weaving in scenes with non-actors who really were laid off from their jobs; from the blend of levity and thoughtfulness to the lack of a tidy resolution. With his third film, Jason Reitman cements his standing as one of contemporary cinema’s great storytellers.

x

WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE
Director Spike Jonze and his co-screenwriter Dave Eggers accomplish a small miracle with their adaptation of the classic children’s book by Maurice Sendak, turning the story known as much for its brevity as its charm into a psychologically fascinating meditation on loneliness, love and family. It’s  the best, most honest and moving depiction of adolescent isolation and longing I’ve seen since E.T. Actor Max Records is a natural as the rambunctious, lonesome protagonist with whom he shares a name, but the wild things are the real stars. Beautifully realized by Jim Henson’s Creature Shop, enhanced by the visual effects team at Double Negative and voiced by James Gandolfini, Catherine O’Hara, Forest Whitaker, Lauren Ambrose, Chris Cooper and Paul Dano, they are a stunningly original group of characters. I could not get enough of them, and my only disappointment with the film is that at an hour and a half, I didn’t get to spend nearly as much time with them as I wanted. The movie got a bit lost in the crowded fall schedule, and has been disappointingly overlooked during the awards season. I hope that in time, it will be re-visited, re-evaluated and eventually appreciated far and wide for the work of art that it is.

x

ZOMBIELAND
Because a certain faction of my friends were going through a big zombie-phase – from video games like Left 4 Dead to graphic novels like The Walking Dead to regular novels like World War Z – I felt compelled to rally the troops for what looked like a fun little movie on a favorite subject. I had no idea just how much fun it would be. It was, in fact, the most fun I had at the movies all year. Opening night, a packed house – always a good way to see a comedy – and from the first moments to the last (a post-credits easter egg worth sticking around for), Zombieland delivered bigtime. The pairing of Jesse Eisenberg (who had the A to Z “land” spectrum covered in 2009) and Woody Harrelson is inspired, the former’s nervous, nebbish energy providing a great counterpoint to the latter’s cool, cavalier alpha male. Adding to the fun are Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin as too-cool-for-school (if-there-were-still-school-but-there-isn’t-because-all-the-teachers-and-classmates-are-zombies) sisters out for themselves. The movie’s aim is firmly to have fun, but it goes just deep enough to remind us what these four characters have endured and lost, which enriches the story in a small but meaningful way. It also boasts the best surprise celebrity cameo of the year; maybe the best ever. So avoid all spoilers, and remember: double-tap!

x

There we have it. I could list plenty of other movies from the year that I enjoyed a lot, but these are the ones that left the strongest initial impressions. The film lover in me feels bad leaving certain others out, but I’ll exercise some restraint and leave you with these montages posted to YouTube from other movie fans out there, honoring the year in film.

(Click here for the creator’s blog listing all the clips featured here)


February 16, 2010

LOST S6E3: What Kate Does

Filed under: Lost — DB @ 3:00 am

Yes, S6E3. Apparently last week’s episode counts as 2 even though both hours were contained within the LA X heading.

First off, I would like to begin with an apology. If you read last week’s message, you may have noted that I referred to the character Cindy as a “stewardess.” Reader Chelsey S. offered a friendly reminder that the proper term in this day and age is “flight attendant,” and that I should get with the times and stop clinging to sexist, politically incorrect terminology. So let me take this opportunity to assure all of my readers that I meant no disrespect to any of the devoted women and men who fly the friendly skies and attend to our needs and comfort at 20,000 feet.

Now then, this episode’s title references the Season Two episode What Kate Did, in which we learned that she tucked her stepfather Wayne into bed for a drunken night’s sleep and then blew up the house, sending her on the run from the most persistent on-screen U.S. Marshal since Tommy Lee Jones. This episode doesn’t offer anything so revealing – at least not as far as we can tell at this point – but we did get a number of interesting tidbits throughout the hour.

TAXI DRIVER
We pick up with L.A. Kate as she jumps into that cab occupied by Claire and demands at gunpoint that the driver take off. She looks out the rear window and sees Jack standing by the curb, talking on a cell phone. At the sight of him, Kate seems to experience a déjà vu moment similar to the ones that Jack had on the plane. I asked in my last write-up why Jack was the only one experiencing that sensation, but I guess we’ll see the others have it at different points. Seeing Jack from inside the cab isn’t the first time she’s laid eyes on him; they bumped into each other on the plane. But the look she gives definitely says that he is familiar to her in a deeper way.

As they cab driver makes his way out of the airport, he has to abruptly stop at a crosswalk for Arzt, whose bags have fallen into the road. Arzt’s presence also sends me back to last week’s rumination about why we’re seeing characters that died on the island re-appear in this new timeline. I wondered about Arzt specifically last week because unlike Charlie and Boone, he was a side character who didn’t have a big story on the island. So whereas there might be things to explore with Charlie and Boone in L.A., what purpose could Arzt serve? It’s still early in the season, but I wonder if his role is to continually pop up in all of their lives, appearing in these small ways and reinforcing that fate connects these people whether or not they ever landed on the island. He might not influence the story in a big way, but maybe he’s a poster boy for the interconnectedness of the Flight 815 family.

After they clear the airport and the cab driver abandons ship, Kate jumps into the driver’s seat and orders Claire out of the cab, leaving her stranded without her luggage and purse. Once she has a chance to breathe and get the cuffs off, she goes through Claire’s bags. Upon seeing the baby gear and a photo of Claire pregnant, her conscience kicks in. She goes back to the spot where she booted her, and finds her on a bench waiting for a bus. She returns her bags and after asking where she’s headed, offers to give her a ride. Claire is skeptical, but given her unfamiliarity with the area, Kate’s calmer demeanor and a general lack of options, she agrees.

When they arrive at the Brentwood home of the adopting couple, Claire asks Kate to go to the house with her. But the woman who answers the door says that her husband left her and she can’t take the baby. Perhaps due to the sudden onset of stress, Claire starts having contractions, so Kate takes her to the emergency room. I tried to recall Los Angeles geography to see if Brentwood was near Jack’s hospital, but realized seconds later that this was still just a short while after the plane landed and Jack wouldn’t be there anyway. Another familiar doctor is there, however: Ethan.

I FEEL THE NEED…THE NEED FOR GOODSPEED
Ethan introduces himself as Dr. Goodspeed. Makes sense, seeing as he is the son of our Dharma Initiative friends Horace and Amy, though it is a little jarring to hear him use that surname. (On the island, he was known as Ethan Rom – an anagram for Other Man).

Ethan’s appearance here got me thinking – always a bad sign since half of what I think about is 95 percent likely to be utterly irrelevant to the plot. I assume, based on his name, that Ethan is still the son of Horace and Amy. Remember though, that the first time we met Horace, it was outside Portland when he came upon Roger Linus carrying his pregnant and barely conscious wife Emily. She gave birth to Ben right there, and then died. The woman with Horace at the time was named Olivia (played by actress Samantha Mathis of Pump Up the Volume, Little Women, The American President, etc.). Some years later, when Roger and Ben arrive on the island to join the Dharma Initiative at Horace’s invitation, Olivia is still there. She was teaching Ben’s science lesson about volcanoes when there was supposedly an invasion of the Dharma compound by the Hostiles.

Now jump ahead to last season’s 1970’s storyline. Olivia is gone, and Horace is married to Amy. The show offers no explanation for this, though the behind-the-scenes story is that Mathis was either unavailable or uninterested in returning, and so Amy was created and paired with Horace. These things happen, but the fact remains that Olivia is now part of Lost‘s history. It was never officially established on the show, but visual clues and press information from ABC seemed to make it clear that Olivia was Horace’s wife. And it’s fair to guess that if Ethan is now living a respectable life off the island, he might never have been to the island at all. So was Horace ever on the island? If he wasn’t, how did he meet Amy? Is Ethan Amy’s son, or Olivia’s? Was the Dharma Initiative ever on the island in the new timeline? The sweeping camera shot across the underwater island revealed the Dharma barracks, but were those houses and swing sets actually built by the Dharma Initiative, or did they belong to another group first? Does anyone else care about this? No? I should move on?

 

Okay, so Ethan tells Claire that she can deliver her baby then and there – a little early but not dangerously so – or wait. You gotta laugh when he tells her that waiting will involve him administering some drugs. “It’s perfectly safe. I just don’t want to have to stick you with needles if I don’t have to.” Not a concern he had on the island…

During a brief moment of beeping-machine induced alarm, Claire shouts, “Is my baby okay? Is Aaron okay?” Kate has another moment, very brief, when Claire says the name Aaron. Like the appearance of Jack back at the airport, this jogs something inside her, but the moment quickly passes. Later, when they’re alone in the hospital room and Kate is about to leave, Claire asks why she’s wanted. “Would you believe me if I said I was innocent?” Kate asks.

“Yeah,” Claire answers. “Yeah I would.”  In fact, Claire and Kate have come so far in so short a time that Claire even gives her credit card to Kate as a thank you…and a little something to help her as she remains on the run. Kate then tells her that Aaron is a great name. “I don’t know why I said it,” Claire laughs. “It’s like…I don’t know, I knew it or something.” Kate says Claire should keep the baby, and then departs. So what is Kate’s crime in this timeline? Did she still kill her stepfather? Or is it someone else’s murder she is wanted for?  During the Lost panel at last summer’s Comic-Con, Damon and Carlton played a video containing an excerpt from an America’s Most Wanted-type show. The segment was on Kate, and said that in an attempt to blow up her stepfather at his place of business – a small office he operated out of as a plumber – she inadvertently killed his co-worker instead. Don’t know whether that will come up on the show or not…

RESURRECTION REDUX
Like John Locke before him, Sayid appears – and that’s the key word, here – to have come back to life. He is weak and confused and obviously doesn’t know what the Temple is or how he got there. His wound is almost completely healed, and he thanks Jack for saving him. Mr. Miyagi comes bursting onto the scene, having been notified of Sayid’s return by Daniel-san. (Maybe significant, maybe not, but when Miyagi hears the news, he instinctively clutches whatever it is he’s wearing around his neck. It looks like a narrow capsule.) They want to take Sayid for a private talk, but Jack says that’s not going to happen until he gets some answers. The ensuing scuffle is broken up when Sawyer fires a gun and says that Miyagi can do whatever he wants to the others, but that he’s leaving. “Please, you have to stay,” Miyagi calmly but firmly implores him, as if so much depends on it. Sawyer ain’t buying it. Before ditching the party he warns Kate, “Don’t come after me.”

But of course, that’s what Kate does. That’s “what Kate does.” She goes after people who tell her not to go after them. So when Daniel-san can’t get an answer out of Jack about where Sawyer is headed, Kate says she can track him and bring him back. Jin offers to go with her. Miyagi agrees, sending along two Others to accompany them: Aldo and Justin.

I instantly recognized Aldo from an earlier season; it’s a symptom of my unhealthy knowledge of the show, although his adult-Haley Joel Osment looks make him easy to recall. Before he even brought it up I placed him as the guard that Kate, Sawyer and Alex knocked out when they rescued Karl from that crazy Clockwork Orange room back in Season Three’s Not in Portland.

 

THE IRAQI PATIENT
Miyagi straps Sayid down, blows some sort of dust or ash over him (the ash?), attaches electrodes to his chest and cranks a machine which electrocutes him. It was a lot smaller and more high-tech, but I still thought about Count Rugen’s Machine from The Princess Bride, which he used to torture Westley (also known as the Man in Black!). I missed the Albino, but I guess since Sayid’s wound was already healed, he had no purpose there.

After the electrocution, Miyagi goes a bit more primitive, burning Sayid with a hot poker. Sayid keeps asking what he wants and why he’s doing this, but Miyagi says nothing. Daniel-san returns with a couple of men and offers yet another unhelpful explanation – the kind that the Others are so good at. “I’m sorry we had to put you through that,” he says. “It was a test. We had to be sure.”

“Test to be sure of what?” Sayid counters.

‘Don’t worry, you passed,” Daniel-san says reassuringly as the men lead Sayid out. When he’s gone, Daniel-san says to Miyagi, “I just lied to him, didn’t I?”

“Yes,” Miyagi answers solemnly.

When Sayid is brought back to Jack and the others and he tells them what happened, Jack storms out and finds Miyagi and Daniel-san, who…okay wait. Since we find out later in the episode what Miyagi’s real name is, let’s go ahead and start using it: Dogen. And since we’re not calling him Miyagi anymore, Daniel-san doesn’t make much sense. His real name hasn’t been spoken on the show yet, but he has been named behind the scenes as Lennon. So with that…

When Jack arrives, Lennon is looking at a book – a little casually if you ask me, given all that’s going on. “Hey Shephard,” he says. “We were hoping you’d come on your own.” Lennon tries to explain that Sayid is sick, and says there’s not really a literal translation for Dogen’s explanation, but that the closest thing is “infected.”

L: He says you have to give your friend this pill.
J: Are you serious? Why don’t you give it to him?
L: Because it won’t work unless he takes it willingly, and he won’t take it willingly from us.
J: Well then maybe you should have asked him to take it before you tortured him.
L: We didn’t torture him. We were…diagnosing him.
J: To see if he was infected?
L: Yes.
J: I’m not going to give anything to Sayid unless I know what’s in it.

Dogen decides to put aside the bad taste English leaves on his tongue at this point, and joins the conversation directly.

D: Tell me Shephard. Your friend, how did he get shot?
J: He was… he was helping me.
D: So it was your fault?
J: Yes.
D: And there have been others who were hurt, or died, helping you?
J: Yes.
D: Well, then this is your chance to redeem yourself. It’s medicine. And your friend needs it.
J: What happens if I don’t give it to him?
D: The infection will spread.

Once again, as in last week’s episode, Dogen asks how Sayid got shot. And once again, Jack doesn’t answer the question directly. Oh Jack, why must you make everything so complicated? Couldn’t you just say, “We were in 1977, carrying the core of a hydrogen bomb through the Dharma Initiative barracks hoping to slip through unnoticed since they knew we weren’t who we claimed to be, and then Benjamin Linus’ father shot him?” Sounds perfectly simple to me. But no, Jack can never take the simple route. Instead he says only that Sayid got shot helping him. Dogen uses that to play on Jack’s guilt, but I don’t feel like that’s where his line of questioning is going. Why do they keep asking what happened to Sayid? Why does it matter?

Jack returns to Sayid and presents the pill, explaining their claim that he is infected and that the pill will help him. When Sayid asks Jack’s opinion, he admits he’s not sure what to think.

J: You know before, when you thanked me for saving your life, I didn’t have anything to do with it Sayid. I didn’t fix you; they did.
S: I don’t care who fixed me. I only care about who I trust. So if you want me to take that pill Jack, I’ll do it.

Jack soon returns to Dogen and takes a seat across from him as Dogen rolls a baseball around his table.

J: You speak pretty good English for someone who needs a translator.
D: We both know that I don’t need a translator.
J: Then why do you have one?
D: Because I have to remain separate from the people I’m in charge of. It makes it easier when they don’t like the decisions I make for them.
J: Who are you?
D: My name is Dogen.
J: Are you from here? The island?
D: I was brought here, like everyone else.
J: What do you mean “brought here?”
D: You know exactly what I mean.

What do you mean “brought here?” It’s not the first time Jack has heard this. In Season One’s finale Exodus, while transporting the dynamite from the Black Rock to the hatch, Locke and Jack had a conversation that is one of the most pivotal in the entire series: the one in which Locke says they were all brought to the island for a reason.

Jack wasn’t buying Locke’s theory then, but we know that he’s since come around to accept much of what Locke had told him. Now when Dogen talks about being brought here, Jack doesn’t question it. His silence is admission that he does understand…even if he doesn’t quite understand.

He admits to Dogen that he hasn’t given Sayid the pill, because he doesn’t know what’s in it. Dogen keeps harping on the “infection” and Jack keeps asking what’s in it. Dogen finally tells Jack that he has to trust him. “I don’t trust myself,” Jack says. “How am I supposed to trust you? Let’s see where trust gets us,” he adds, before taking the pill himself. Dogen leaps forward and Heimlichs the shit out of him until he spits up the pill. “Now are you gonna tell me what’s in it?”

“Poison,” Dogen admits. When Lennon rejoins them a few minutes later, Dogen pours Jack a cup of tea.

J: Why would you people want to kill Sayid?
D: We believe he has been…[something in Japanese]
L: The closest translation is “claimed.”
J: Claimed? By what?
D: There’s a darkness growing in him, and once it reaches his heart, everything your friend once was will be gone.
J: How can you be sure of that?
D: Because it happened to your sister.

Now a few people have asked me if Jack knew he had a sister. The answer is yes. At his father’s funeral, Claire’s mother approached him and told him about her affair with Christian and about Claire. But Dogen’s statement doesn’t answer how he’s sure of what’s happening to Sayid, so is he just saying this thing about Claire as a way to get Jack invested in what they are trying to do? What do they know about Claire?

After Jack asks why they would want to kill Sayid, there is an ominous bit of music that plays before Dogen answers that Sayid has been claimed. And I’m almost certain that faintly contained in that brief bit of music is the mechanical sound of the Smoke Monster. In my previous write-up, I pondered two questions. Well…I pondered a lot more than two, but two in particular are relevant at the moment. The first is the idea that Jacob and the Man in Black are “collecting” the 815ers and perhaps others on the Island, in some sort of cosmic chess game. The other was that the ash around Jacob’s cabin was being used to keep the Man in Black trapped inside. The hole in that theory was that the Smoke Monster has been running wild all over the island. I wasn’t sure if that wrecked my theory or if there could be an explanation. All this new information – the idea of Sayid being “claimed,” along with that sly foreshadowing in the music, brings me back to those questions.

If the Man in Black has been “claiming” people on the island, do they have to die in certain ways or under certain circumstances? Is that why Dogen and Lennon keep asking how Sayid was injured? If Claire has indeed been claimed by the Man in Black, then it lends credence to the idea that Christian Shephard has been claimed as well and has been doing the Man in Black’s bidding, seeing as the last time we saw Claire alive she was with Christian. (If she was alive then; many fans speculate that she did not survive the explosion of her house when Keamy’s team attacked New Otherton, despite the fact that she got up and was walking around with Sawyer, Locke, Hurley, Ben and Miles.)

And to the second question, if the Man in Black was confined to the cabin, could he have somehow been using these claimed souls to do his work in Smokey form?

Also, let’s not forget that this concept of “infection” dates back to Season One. From the beginning, Rousseau spoke of an infection that claimed the members of her team. We even saw it in action, sort of, during one of last season’s flashes when Jin came upon Young Rousseau having an argument on the beach with her lover Robert. With her gun pointed at him, she said, “You’re not Robert. You’re someone else. That thing changed you. You’re not Robert. You’re sick. That monster made you sick.” (Robert and the rest of her team had gone down the opening at The Temple wall to try and rescue Montand, who had been dragged down there by the Smoke Monster.)

Robert replied, “It’s not a monster. It’s a security system guarding that temple.” When he convinced her that he meant no harm to her or their baby, she lowered her gun. Then he raised his and fired at her. But it jammed, or was empty, and she shot him down.

Other allusions to a sickness on the island include the vaccine used by the Dharma Initiative to inoculate new arrivals on the island, by Desmond when he was manning the hatch and by Ethan on Claire when the Others had her in the medical station. Also, Desmond was convinced that the island air was unsafe and that he could not go outside without a hazmat suit. Even though he eventually realized that was a lie told to him by his hatch-mate Kelvin, he still seemed to cling to the idea until the arrival of Locke, Kate and Jack in the hatch.

So what is the true nature of this infection? Does Claire really have it? Does Christian? Does Sayid? How did the torture diagnose him? He seemed to react just as one would be expected to react to electrocution and burning: with a lot of pained screams. So what did those tests tell Dogen and Lennon that led them to diagnose him as “claimed?” What does the long delay in Sayid’s revival suggest to them? And if they successfully administered the pill and poisoned him to death, what’s to stop the Man in Black from claiming him again? Oh, and why would the pill only work if Sayid took it willingly?

IT’S ALWAYS SUNNY IN NEW OTHERTON
On their journey to track Sawyer, Kate asks Aldo and Justin why they’re being held at The Temple. Aldo says it’s to protect them from the pillar of black smoke that “looks pissed off.” Jin then asks if they know anything about the Ajira plane. Justin replies, “I think he means the one that landed…” but Aldo obnoxiously cuts him off with a curt, “Justin…shut up.”

He has to repeat that warning a minute later, when they come across a trip wire for a net filled with rocks hanging above them, which Jin says must be one of Rousseau’s traps. All Justin has a chance to say before Aldo intervenes is, “The French woman? She’s been dead for years, this couldn’t be one of…”

At first that line caught my interest in a big way. Later, in talking with reader David E., I remembered that it has been a few years since Rousseau was gunned down by Keamy’s team, so maybe there’s nothing about Justin’s comment to read into it. But still, three years is not that long a time. The way Justin says it suggested to me that Rousseau has been dead for much longer. And why does Aldo get so testy? What’s the harm in talking about Rousseau? Or the Ajira plane? By this point, Kate’s had about enough of Aldo’s attitude. She knocks him and Justin out and starts to continue moving.

J: Where are you going?
K: Catchin’ up with Sawyer.
J: So you never planned to bring him back to The Temple?
K: No. I’m not interested in being a prisoner, are you?
J: Where did your plane land, Kate?
K: What?
J: The Ajira plane that you, Jack and Hurley came in on. Where did it land?
K: I don’t know.
J: Sun was on that plane too. I have to find her.
K: You think they’re gonna tell you? You think they care about you, or about Sun, or about any of us?
J: Who do you care about, Kate?
K: Good luck, Jin.

A) Am I the only one who still finds it weird to hear Jin speaking fluent English? And B) Kate sounds pretty put out by his questions, and is especially dismissive when she says, “Good luck Jin.” Call me crazy, but I think she could stand to be a little bit less of a bitch considering that she is somewhat responsible for Jin and Sun being separated in the first place. Or so one might argue.

She arrives at New Otherton and finds Sawyer in his house. She watches undetected as he pries up a floorboard, removes a shoebox and takes out what looks like a small piece of fabric. He sees her there and she follows him to out to the old submarine dock. She tells him that she came back to the island to find Claire and followed him from The Temple because she thought he could help find her. If she could bring Claire back to Aaron, than this wouldn’t have all been for nothing.

Sawyer tells her that Juliet’s death was his fault, recalling how in the very spot where they’re sitting he had convinced her not to take the submarine home. “I made her stay on this island because I didn’t want to be alone. You understand that, right? But…I think some of us are meant to be alone.”  He holds the piece of fabric in is hand, and we see that it’s a pouch containing a ring; the ring he was going to give to Juliet when he asked her to marry him. Now he stands up and throws the ring in the water.

There’s something about seeing how far Sawyer has come that makes his loss of Juliet that much sadder. They both came from troubled backgrounds, but after all of their bad deeds and failings and heartaches, they brought each other hope and a fresh start. Each was the good thing that the other had come to deserve. Now that she’s gone, what will Sawyer’s new path be? Based on the preview of tonight’s episode, perhaps we’ll find out. It didn’t look too bright…

Once again, I have to praise Josh Holloway’s performance. He portrays Sawyer’s sense of loss with such honesty, building on his sensational work last season. You watch him in these scenes – the way he walks, the way he sits, the way he breathes – and you really, really feel it. This is what grief looks like. The writing and direction doesn’t showcase his grieving; they just allow it to happen, and thanks to Holloway it happens with incredible truth.

Movie Geek Moment: As he holds the ring, Sawyer says that maybe some people are meant to be alone. He might be right. In The Fellowship of the Ring, Galadriel says to Frodo, “You are a ringbearer, Frodo. To bear a Ring of Power is to be alone.” And what ring is more powerful than one that represents love? It’s the power of love, which is of course the theme song from another movie oft mentioned in these write-ups: Back to the Future. And once again I make a completely irrelevant pop culture connection seem like it was planned by the producers all along. That takes a special kind of genius, people. I hope you appreciate it.

Back in the jungle, Aldo and Justin catch up with Jin, demanding to know where Kate went.

Ji: I don’t know. You don’t understand; I’m going back to The Temple.
A: Yeah, right.
Ju: It looks like he’s alone. Maybe we should take him back.
A: Or maybe we didn’t find him alive.
Ju: Aldo, no! We can’t! He’s one of them!
A: He may be one of them.

Hmmm…one of who?

Jin tries to run but gets his leg caught in a bear trap. Aldo raises his gun to shoot him when suddenly he takes two to the chest from off-screen instead. Justin is shot as well. Jin looks up, and standing on a ridge just above him…is a rifle-toting, dirty-faced, Seattle grunge-wearing Claire. So…that should be interesting.

LOOSE ENDS/FOOD FOR THOUGHT
-The sound effect that transitions between the flashes is not the same as it’s been for the past five seasons. It’s still got the airplane “whoosh,” but there’s something else mixed in there that I can’t identify. What does it say about the flash-sideways device?

-Dogen is seen at different points using a typewriter and writing in books. What is he recording?

-In the previous episode, Lennon advised Jack that there were risks to bringing Sayid into the spring. Does what’s happened to him now have anything to do with those risks? Is “infection” one of the risks?

-In my last write-up, I asked why Man in Locke went to the effort of leading Ben to The Temple tunnels for his judgment from Smokey rather than turning into the monster earlier. In thinking about it since then, I suppose it’s because he didn’t want to reveal that side of himself to Ben, and only did so in Jacob’s chamber because he was forced to deal with Bram and his other attackers. Hence the line, “I’m sorry you had to see me like that.”  So what are his intentions with Ben? Has he had to change his gameplan as a result of Ben finding out he’s a smoker?

-Something I noted in LA X but forgot to mention: when the customs officer leads Jin away, and the other officer stays and asks Sun if she understands English, the officer addresses Sun as Miss Paik…Paik being her maiden name. There’s no way this was just a slip-up. But what does it mean? Are Sun and Jin not married in the L.A. timeline? Would she have still learned English if they weren’t together? And if they aren’t married, why are they traveling together?

LINE OF THE NIGHT
There were so many to pick from in his episode, I couldn’t begin to single one out. For your consideration…

“Course he’s fine. He’s an Iraqi torturer who shoots kids, he definitely deserves another go-round.” – Sawyer

“As you can see, Hugo here has assumed the leadership position so…that’s pretty great.” – Miles

“I’m sorry, is this a press conference?” – Aldo

“We’ll be in the food court if you need us.” – Miles

Tonight’s Episode: The Substitute

February 11, 2010

Oscars 2009: And The Nominees Are…

Filed under: Movies,Oscars — DB @ 11:36 pm
Tags: , , , ,

 

Complete List of Nominees

It’s been over a week since the nominations were announced and I can’t believe it’s taken me this long to shoot off my reactions. I’ve been too busy writing about Lost. And running my meth lab. So for those who might care, here are my thoughts – where I have some – on what made the cut.

BEST PICTURE/BEST DIRECTOR
So the highly anticipated “10 Best Picture nominees” cat is out of the bag, and all in all I’d say it’s a good list. Like a lot of people – most people, probably – the nomination for The Blind Side caught me way off guard. When the trailers for this movie ran last fall, I thought it looked sentimental and cheesy, and even if it was a true story I was still turned off by a movie about rich white people coming to the rescue of a poor black boy. Which is weird, ’cause I loved me some Diff’rent Strokes back in the 80s. Anyway, it didn’t surprise me that people turned out in droves. When Sandra Bullock started winning awards, I finally broke down and saw it. And I’ll admit that it was better than I thought it would be. I give credit to writer/director John Lee Hancock for showing restraint with a story that could so easily have gone down the road I was expecting based on those trailers. But that said, there is no way this film should be singled out as one of the year’s best. It is a nice, “heartwarming” movie, but completely ordinary. With movies like Where the Wild Things Are, The Road, A Single Man, Fantastic Mr. Fox, The Messenger and In the Loop all in the mix, a nomination for The Blind Side is a joke.

Other than that, the list went pretty much as expected. Consensus is that Avatar, The Hurt Locker, Inglourious Basterds, Precious and Up in the Air would have been the five nominees if the category hadn’t been expanded, so it’s interesting that those films’ directors all earned nominations. Usually one or two of those people would have missed. But James Cameron, Kathryn Bigelow, Quentin Tarantino, Lee Daniels and Jason Reitman is a great list to represent 2009 (he had no chance, but I wish Spike Jonze had been recognized for Where the Wild Things Are).

My only other comment here is that as I’ve followed the award season since it began in early December, one of the most pleasant surprises has been how well Inglourious Basterds has done. Christoph Waltz was a shoo-in nominee from the moment the film’s first scene was over, and the screenplay was also a safe bet early on. But I honestly didn’t expect Tarantino’s gonzo revisionist take on World War II to fare so well across the board – critics’s awards, guild awards, ten best lists, etc. I would never have predicted it, but I’m happy that it came to pass, earning QT his second nominations for directing and screenwriting.  Bravo.

BEST ACTOR
No surprises here. Nice to see a young up-and-comer like Jeremy Renner hang in there with the big boys. He impressed me in North Country and The Assassination of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford, so I’m happy for him and the opportunities that are sure to come his way as a result of this film.

I also have to take a moment and ask of the people who saw Invictus: do you think Freeman deserved to be nominated? I suppose there are some minor spoilers ahead, so continue at your own risk…

I was so excited about him in this role. Freeman is one of my favorites, and the thought of him playing Nelson Mandela was full of such promise. It’s too bad he blew it on this movie. It’s not that Invictus is bad or that Freeman isn’t good in it. It’s just…this is basically a sports underdog movie. It’s Hoosiers. Remember the Titans. Hell, it’s Major League. It’s the familiar story of a sports team rising above low expectations to win big, and maybe learning some important life lessons along the way. There’s nothing wrong with that per se, but here you have one of the great actors of our time playing one of the great lives of our time, and this is the story he chooses to tell? Freeman does well, but the script doesn’t allow him to dig into the character at all. There are a few moments that hint at what he could have done and where he could have gone had he chosen to do a film that was really about Mandela. But this one – he’s hardly even in the second half/last third of the movie. There’s so little depth for him to play that the film wound up being a pretty big disappointment for me. Freeman delivers as best he can with what’s there, but when you think about how much more he could have done? It makes me sad to say so, but I don’t think he should have been nominated. Viggo Mortensen (The Road), Matt Damon (The Informant!), Ben Foster (The Messenger), Joaquin Phoenix (Two Lovers) and Sam Rockwell (Moon) all had the chance to do much more in their films than Freeman got to do in Invictus, and I wish that Academy members had recognized one of them instead of doing the obvious thing and nominating Freeman for a performance that, through no fault of his own, failed to meet expectations.


BEST ACTRESS
Sandra Bullock’s nomination was no surprise by this point in the season, but it shocks me that she has moved up to take frontrunner status alongside Meryl Streep. She just doesn’t belong here. I’ve always liked Sandra Bullock; she has great comedic timing and her small role in Crash was, for me, one of the film’s highlights. But she has chosen bad movies almost exclusively throughout her career; it’s almost like a gift she has. The Blind Side is better than most of the films on her resume, but there is nothing about this performance that calls for award talk. Bullock can do sassy, she can do tough, she can do sweet – these are not stretches for her, nor does this particular character leap off the screen. I enjoyed her, but at the end of the day it was Erin Brockovich Lite. So what is this nomination for? Is it for finally picking a decent movie? For having a good year? Okay, I get that between the huge box office success of this film and last summer’s The Proposal, Bullock is having a Moment (though everyone apparently chose to ignore that her third film – All About Steve – was widely considered one of the year’s worst). But does making two adequate movies that become commercial hits merit an Oscar nomination? No, especially not when Saoirse Ronan (The Lovely Bones), Emily Blunt (The Young Victoria), Abbie Cornish (Bright Star) and even Maya Rudolph (Away We Go) are sitting the race out. Does it merit a Golden Globe win over Precious‘ Gabourey Sidibe? No way. A SAG award over Sidibe and Meryl Streep? Seriously, no way. This performance isn’t in the same league as her competition. Sorry Sandra. I can only hope the voters come to their senses by the time they mark their ballots.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Matt Damon has proven to be a great and versatile actor, and it’s surprising that this nomination is his first since Good Will Hunting. But it’s like Academy members filled out their ballots on auto-pilot. “Hmm, Clint Eastwood movie, Morgan as Mandela, important subject matter, scene where he gives an inspirational speech…I think by some Academy bylaw we’re required to nominate this.” Snore. Like Freeman, Damon is good in the film, don’t get me wrong. But also like Freeman, the role doesn’t ask much of him. And like Bullock, Damon finds himself in this race without really doing anything that special. Matt Damon did give a nomination-worthy performance this year; it just wasn’t in this movie. I really don’t get it. There had to be a significant number of people who listed Damon as their first choice – their favorite Supporting Actor of the year – in order for him to score a nomination. I can’t fathom that, even in such an unusually weak year for this category.

The rest of it looks good. It’s nice to see Christopher Plummer earn his first nomination after so many years of excellent work, and Stanley Tucci too. He doesn’t have Plummer’s years under his belt, but he’s been playing the game well for a long time. And it’s great to see Harrelson back in the field. He’s done some terrific work these last several years.

Too bad they’re all gonna lose to Christoph Waltz.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Last year’s winner Penelope Cruz scored her second consecutive nomination, and while I would have singled out Marion Cotillard from Nine‘s ensemble, Cruz was good and probably caught voters’ attention with one of the film’s more comedic performances, as well as general hotness. I think Maggie Gyllenhaal benefitted from an all-around appreciation for Crazy Heart. There were stronger performances to choose from – I’d have gone with The Messenger‘s Samantha Morton – and Gyllenhaal’s been overlooked for performances more interesting than this one, but I can’t begrudge her finally getting some recognition. And seeing Up in the Air‘s ladies is no surprise; each is deserving.

Too bad they’re all gonna lose to Mo’Nique.

BEST ORIGINAL/ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
I was off by one in my predictions for both of these categories, but I was happy that in both cases the movie I failed to predict correctly was on my list of personal choices. I thought The Messenger‘s chances were slim given that the Writer’s Guild failed to nominate it even when other sure-thing contenders like Up and Basterds were ruled ineligible, so kudos to the Academy’s writer’s branch for acknowledging this small gem. And major kudos for including In the Loop in the adapted race. Without a doubt one of the best scripts of the year – smart, tight, topical and hilarious. I thought the movie might get overshadowed by something higher profile, but it totally deserves the nomination. Rent this movie NOW.


BEST ANIMATED FILM
What the hell is The Secret of Kells? Whatever it is, I was just glad that for the first time since 2002 there were enough eligible films to have five nominees instead of three. It’s a testament to how much great animation there is these days that any one of these would totally deserve the prize….this Kells thing notwithstanding, since I haven’t seen it.

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
Once again, I scored with one of my personal picks even though I didn’t predict it would make the cut. The nomination for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince took a lot of the pundits by surprise, but they must have forgotten how beautifully photographed the film is and how frequently the cinematography was mentioned in reviews. Great to see it recognized.

BEST MAKEUP
Another snub for The Road. Dirt, grime and muck may never have been so artfully applied as they were in this movie. I have no idea what Il Divo is, so no comment on that one, but The Young Victoria?! Over The Road?!? Are you kidding me?? For what? I can’t wait for this category to come up on the show so I can see exactly what sketches, behind the scenes footage and finished clip will highlight how this could possibly have taken a spot. Ed Helms’ missing tooth in The Hangover would have been more nomination-worthy than anything I can think of in The Young Victoria. And Star Trek was nominated? Maybe I’m forgetting something, but that seems to be a nomination for pointy ears and some tattoos on Eric Bana’s head. Big deal. I suppose someone else would look at The Road and say, “It’s just dirt. Big deal.” But of course, they would be wrong. How about something for Zombieland or District 9 in lieu of Trek and Victoria?

As there were no other huge surprises or snubs like last year’s Dark Knight/Bruce Springsteen omissions, that’s all I really have to say about the nominees until it’s time to predict the winners in a few weeks. Prepare to be schooled….in boredom and obsessive movie awards analysis.

« Previous PageNext Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.