This episode proved that LOST and I have something in common: we both miss Season One.
The Good:
1. We got our first glimpse as to how deep the rabbit hole goes as far as the sideway’s universe is concerned: Jack has a son. Not really a surprise, considering all the daddy issues that blitzkrieg this show every chance they get, but watching Jack trying to be a father is much more interesting than watching Jack trash a mirror because---gasp---he doesn’t know why his name is on a lighthouse gear!
2. I stand convinced that Claire can handle being the henchmen. It’s clear she’s badass, that’s for sure.
The Bad:
1. Dogen’s sideway’s universe character is a loving, musician-dad? When’s the samurai action coming in?! Come on!
Purgatory:
1. The lighthouse itself. A ship parked at the center of the island, a mysterious hatch, a cave in the side of the island with numbers written all over the ceiling, a crashed plane, an air balloon, the abandoned Dharma stations; the thing that all these ruins have in common is that they are all interesting. Why are they in Purgatory? Because they’re all comfortably interesting; logically interesting. They’re all something one would expect anyone to be interested in. There’s nothing in there that’s daring, that’s bold. Sure, it’s strange that they are there, and that teases the brain, but…I don’t quite know how to explain this and if I suddenly get it spot on I’ll let you know.
The Ugly:
1. Chipping off my shoulder this week comes another reason as to why J.J. Abram’s doesn’t impress me. He always does what’s comfortable. I would really like to see him create something that makes us uncomfortable, that makes us question ourselves; something that challenges himself, makes his audience doubt his abilities. I specifically target Abrams in all this because he did “Star Trek” too; and he made “Star Trek” look like something I’m positive it’s not.
Every time someone tells me that “Star Trek” is about the future, I secretly laugh at them; “Star Trek” is as much about the future as James Cameron’s “Titanic” is about the sinking of the RMS Titanic. I think ole’ J.J. does this because he knows that making it ABOUT the future instead of merely SETTING a story in the future is more comfortable, and will make audience’s feel more comfortable. As much as I loved the new “Star Trek”, there was nothing new in it; nothing that made me start a conversation. “Star Trek” has always been about the betterment of humanity, and all the episodes Gene Roddenberry and the other writers wrote were meant to make the audience look at themselves, and question things they believed. The new “Star Trek” film is very comfortable. It’s made to be likable. One walks out of the movie theater afterwards in a state of “awesomeness”. They see a homeless man on the street, and they walk right by him, like usual. They feel good; why on Earth should they risk losing that? They don’t want to be uncomfortable, and homelessness, poverty, disease, misfortune---all that stuff is just so uncomfortable, let somebody else deal with it. That’s the exact opposite of the Star Trek many fans know and love. Captain Picard would never do that to someone who needed his help. Neither would Kirk(Kirk would also use compassion because he cared, not because it would make him look good in the eyes of the Romulan Empire). Captain Sisko would never walk by someone like that, neither would Captain Archer, or Captain Janeway.
I’m sure Gene Roddenberry knew how to write a good show. I bet he could write something like LOST without breaking a sweat. He was keen to audience’s likes and dislikes, and had years of experience prior to writing “Star Trek”. Instead he chose to show them something he felt they needed to see; with content that he knew would make them uncomfortable. He made a Russian one of the main characters during the middle of the Cold War, made a black woman the first “babe on the bridge”---so to speak---just two years after the end of the Civil Rights Movement and when women were still treated as inferior, put out a message of peace during a time when almost all of America wanted nothing more than to blast the USSR and Cuba off the face of the planet. His show reflected his hopes and his dreams, as well as his own beliefs. It had deeper levels, and deeper meanings. LOST doesn’t. Its meanings simply jump through time, and barely go beneath the surface. They are pre-fabricated and rolled out only when they are needed.
“Star Trek” is the classroom, while LOST is the strip club. That’s what doesn’t impress me about Abrams, Cuse or Lindelof. They satisfy the senses, but do not engage the mind past any novel intelligence.
How many LOST fans will go out and read Slaughter House Five, or Grapes of Wrath, or, in some cases, the Bible? How many fans know that there are still witch-hunts going on in Africa(1)? Or that innocent Nigerians are being rounded up and shot for no good reason(2)?
Probably not too many; they’re all too busy being concerned about what’s going to happen next on LOST. If the media spawned by Abrams and his contemporaries are going to represent our generation in history, the least they could do is tell the truth. Entertainment is not a bad thing at all, and very rarely do writers ever try to sit down and magically produce a “phenomenon”, but as I sit and watch this show, and listen to Cuse, Lindelof, and Abrams spout off their inspirations for their material, it seems as though all they ever want is attention, and don't care how they get it.
Answers:
1. The lighthouse. It’s how Jacob kept watch over his “candidates” and brought them to the island. Check.
Bittersweet episode this week. That’s all. If it was a bit too bitter for some, then enjoy this cool article from a very unique LOST fan (3).
Ciao.
References:
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/world/africa/21gambia.html?_r=1&ref=africa
2. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2010/02/2010298114949112.html
3. http://www.michaeljohngrist.com/2010/02/the-ruins-of-lost/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment