“LOST” RETROSPECT: (2.09) “What Kate Did”

“LOST” RETROSPECT: (2.09) “What Kate Did”

Kate Austen has to be one of the most divisive characters on the ABC series, “LOST”. The character has generated some very extreme reactions from the show’s fans. The latter have either loved her or hated her. I had harbored a good deal of dislike toward Kate, myself for a long period. However, my dislike stemmed from the writers’ handling of her character and a good number of the fans’ attitude toward the mistakes and crimes she had committed. A good example of this attitude could be found in the general reaction to the Season Two episode called (2.09) “What Kate Did”.

This episode followed up on the disastrous first meeting between the remaining Tail Section survivors and the Fuselage survivors in episodes (2.06) “Abandoned” and (2.08) “Collision”. Ana-Lucia Cortez and her fellow Tailies finally made it to the Fuselage camp, but with tragedy in their wake. Ana-Lucia had accidentally shot and killed Shannon Rutherford, after mistaking the younger woman for the Others, following the disappearance of stewardess Cindy Chandler. James “Sawyer” Ford; who had been badly wounded by one of the Others in the Season One finale, (1.24) “Exodus, Part II”, while trying to prevent ten year-old Walt Lloyd from being kidnapped; finally received decent medical attention from leader Dr. Jack Shephard. There was a good deal of marital reconciliations that occurred. Rose Nadler finally reconciled with her husband, Tail Section survivor Bernard Nadler, in the previous episode. And the series’ favorite South Korean couple, Jin and Sun Kwon, celebrated their reconciliation after four days with . . . well, with sex.

Everything seemed to be going well with everyone . . . except for fugitive and Fuselage survivor Kate Austen. While gathering fruit from a tree, she spotted a black horse in the jungle. Later, while feeding the semi-conscious Sawyer with the fruit, he grabbed her by the neck and demanded to know why she had killed him. The black horse and Sawyer’s attack led Kate to speculate on whether the former had been possessed by the spirit of her dead stepfather, Wayne Janssen. Three years earlier, Kate had discovered that her stepfather was actually her real father. Due to Wayne’s physical abuse of her mother Diane and alcoholism, Kate harbored a deep hatred of him. But the realization that he was her biological father led her to murder him via an explosion of the Janssen house and commit insurance fraud in order to provide for her mother. Although U.S. Marshal Edward Mars managed to capture her before she could purchase a bus ticket to Tallahassee, Kate eventually escaped and spent the next three years as a fugitive from justice. The episode’s subplot revolved around the DHARMA film reel discovered by John Locke in a previous episode. While showing the film clip to Michael Dawson and Mr. Eko inside the DHARMA hatch (aka the Swan Station), the latter revealed a small reel of film he had found several days ago inside the empty DHARMA Arrow Station.

Most “LOST” fans tend to regard any episode Kate-centric episode with wary eyes. If I must be honest, most of the episodes featuring Kate Austen as a main character tend to range from decent to mediocre to piss poor. However, there are at least two or possibly three that have struck me as above-average. And “What Kate Did” happens to be one of them. Mind you, it had a few flaws. The episode never really hinted what led Kate to start thinking of her father in the first place. Was the island responsible for Sawyer being possessed by the spirit of Wayne Janssen? Did a badly wounded Sawyer, who reminded Kate of her father, brought back the memories of Wayne’s murder? Inquiring minds . . . well, my inquiring mind would still like to know. And why was U.S. Federal Marshal Edward Mars the one to arrest Kate at the bus station? Would she have to successfully flee across a state line in order to be hunted by a U.S. Marshal? Judging from the comments in many reviews for the episode, I noticed that many fans and critics were intrigued by the subplot featuring the DHARMA 16mm film. I was not. I was not intrigued when I first saw “What Kate Did”. And years later, I still remain bored. I was bored by Locke’s drama queen antics in his revealation of the film to Michael and Mr. Eko in the first place. I was bored by Eko’s little biblical story about King Judah. Looking back, I realize this subplot was basically another addition to the mystery about the Swan Station, which was revealed in late Season Five. But I do not care, because I found this subplot’s presentation rather dull. Only one aspect of this subplot struck me as interesting – namely Michael’s tinkering with the hatch’s computer, and the possibility that he may have contacted his kidnapped son at the end of the episode.

Surprisingly, it was the main plot regarding Kate’s backstory about the murder of her father that proved to be the episode’s backbone. Many fans had assumed that Kate had been forced to commit a crime on behalf of a loved one or framed for a major crime. As it turned out, Kate had committed murder with malice aforethought and a good deal of personal insecurity. I believe she had best revealed her reason for killing her father in the following infamous soliloquy:

“Can you hear me? Sawyer? — Wayne? [Sawyer stirs.] I’m probably crazy and this doesn’t matter, but maybe you’re in there somehow. But you asked me a question. You asked me why I — why I did it. It wasn’t because you drove my father away, or the way you looked at me, or because you beat her. It’s because I hated that you were a part of me — that I would never be good. That I would never have anything good. And every time that I look at Sawyer — every time I feel something for him — I see you, Wayne. It makes me sick.”.

The sad thing is that many fans – especially female fans – refused to accept Kate’s confession as the truth. Many began to speculate that “dear” Daddy Wayne had not only physically abuse his wife, Kate’s mother, but also sexually molested Kate when she was a child. Kate’s soliloquy and the rest of the series have never supported this. But many preferred to believe this theory than accept the fact that Kate had never been molested by her father. When the molestation theory failed to pan out, many decided that Kate had killed her father in order to protect Diane from further abuse. This theory became very popular after the Season Three episode, (3.15) “Left Behind” aired. Kate used this excuse to lie to her mother, but Diane had exposed her in the end. Nowadays, it is popular to deride Kate Austen as a badly written character. In a way, I agree . . . but for reasons that had nothing to do with Kate’s act of murder. Many had used the reason behind Kate’s murder of her father as a reason why she was badly written. Apparently, an act of cold-blooded murder by a television series’ leading female character is a no-no with fans. Sexism, even when exposed in the form of feminist sensibilities, reared its ugly head.

I have to give kudos to screenwriters Steven Maeda and Craig Wright for not exposing Kate’s motive for murdering her father. They revealed the actual murder at the beginning of the episode and spent the remainder slowly unveiling not only Kate’s family history, but also her motive. I found this narrative structure very clever. I was also impressed by how Maeda and Wright utilized another subplot about the aftereffects of Shannon’s death into the main story. It seemed that Kate’s murder of her father failed to wipe out her own personal insecurities. One particular scene in “What Kate Did” made it apparently clear that Kate had yet to overcome those insecurities. When Jack confronted her for leaving behind the seriously injured and unconscious Sawyer on the hatch’s floor, Kate responded in a vehement manner:

“Yeah, I’m sorry. I’m sorry that I am not as perfect as you! I’m sorry that I’m not as good!”

Fans are aware that Jack had suffered from his own insecurities due to the emotional abuse he had received from his father. But listening to those words come out of Kate’s mouth made wonder if part of her problems with Jack stemmed from this belief that he was some kind of figure of perfection. And if Sawyer reminded her of Wayne, why would she become emotionally attached to him, as well? Is it because she suspected that deep down, she shared a good number of character traits with her despised father? I have always felt so. Perhaps it was easier for Kate to bond with someone who strongly reminded her of Wayne, and through familial extension, herself. Who knows?

If there is one thing I cannot deny, “What Kate Did” featured some first-rate acting. Despite my annoyance at the subplot featuring the DHARMA film, it was easy for me to see that Terry O’Quinn, Harold Perrineau and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje gave fine performances. Naveen Andrews continued his superb portrayal of a grief stricken Sayid Jarrah. The episode featured solid, yet minonr performances from cast members like Daniel Dae Kim, Yunjin Kim, Josh Holloway, Jorge Garcia, Emilie de Ravin, Michelle Rodriguez, Cynthia Watros, L. Scott Caldwell, Sam Anderson and especially Dominic Monaghan. I certainly cannot complain about the performances from the episode’s guest stars. Beth Broderick, Lindsey Ginter and James Horan gave first-rate performances as Kate’s mother, step-father and father respectively. I was especially impressed with each actor/actress’ individual scenes with Evangeline Lilly. Fredric Lane continued his colorful performance as Kate’s nemesis, U.S. Marshal Edward Mars. However, there were moments I found his performance a little too theatrical.

The two best performances in the episode came from Matthew Fox and especially, Evangeline Lilly. Fox, was excellent, as always. I was especially impressed how he conveyed both Jack’s love for Kate and his frustration with her occasionally flaky behavior. Also, he and Lilly had a great kissing scene. I find this surprising, considering that when Season Two first aired, I never considered them as a really potential on-screen couple. However, Lilly proved to be the real surprise in this episode. I believe this is the first time she really proved her potential to be an excellent actress. She managed to convey the various emotions that Kate felt throughout the episode without resorting to mechanical acting tricks she utilized during the series’ first season.

I had a few complaints about “What Kate Did”. As I had earlier pointed out, one of them was the dull subplot featuring the DHARMA training film clip. I had noticed that no one had bothered to express concern for Walt Lloyd’s situation. And I found this very strange. My real disappointment with the episode happened off-screen and in the future. I feel that producers Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse did a piss poor and half-ass job in effectively developing and drawing the plot regarding Kate’s crime to a close. Despite these disappointment, I cannot deny that “What Kate Did” was a well-written episode that did an excellent job in exploring Kate’s personal demons and the crime that led to her becoming a fugitive, thanks to Steven Maeda and Craig Wright’s screenplay. Their work was helped not only by solid direction from Paul Edwards, but also excellent performances from a cast led by Evangeline Lilly and Matthew Fox.

“Disturbing Deaths”

“DISTURBING DEATHS”

Ever since I had watched (3.01) “The Heart of the Truest Believer”, the Season Three premiere for ABC’s “ONCE UPON A TIME”, I have been experiencing troubling thoughts about the series’ writing. And those troubling thoughts centered around the deaths of two recurring characters.

Anyone who had watched both the Season Three premiere and the Season Two finale, (2.22) “And Straight On ‘Til Morning” would know to what I am referring. The latter episode saw two recurring characters, Greg Mendell and Tamara, attempt to destroy Storybrooke in an effort to rid the world of any magic. Before Regina Mills aka the Evil Queen and Emma Swan could foil their plans, they kidnapped the pair’s son, Henry Mills, and took him to Neverland using a magic bean. Apparently, the leader of their anti-magic organization called “the Home Office”, had ordered them to take Henry to Neverland, claiming that his presence was more important than destroying magic.

Upon their arrival in Neverland, Greg and Tamara discovered that “the Home Office” had never existed. They had been tricked by Peter Pan and the Lost Boys to bring Henry to Neverland, because Peter wanted the boy he believed possessed the heart of the truest believer. Realizing that the Lost Boys wanted Henry, Tamara ordered him to run. Meanwhile, an entity called “The Shadow” ripped Greg’s shadow from his body. One of the Lost Boys shot Tamara with an arrow, badly wounding her. While all of this occurred, the Charmings, Regina, Rumpelstiltskin aka Mr. Gold and Captain Killian Hook arrived in Neverland via the latter’s ship, the Jolly Roger. Rumpelstiltskin left his companions behind and appeared on the island. He eventually found the wounded Tamara, ripped her heart and crushed it, killing her in the process. All of this happened before the end of the episode’s first half.

My reaction to Tamara and Greg’s fates really took me by surprise. I realized that the pair were merely recurring characters. But I never thought that the series’ creators, Adam Horowitz and Edward Kitsis, would get rid of them so soon. I, along with other regular viewers of “ONCE UPON A TIME”, knew that Sonequa Martin-Green, the actress who had portrayed Tamara, was scheduled to resume her role on AMC’s “THE WALKING DEAD”, which had been upgraded from recurring to regular, during this new television season. But I had no idea that Horowitz would get rid of her character so soon. Too soon, in my opinion. If Horowitz and Kitsis realized they would not be able to employ Martin-Green for more than one episode, they could have recast the Tamara character with a new actress. Would it have really killed them?

Why do I have such a problem with Tamara and Greg’s fates? It happened . . . too soon. And too fast. The writers of “And Straight On ‘Til Morning” gave Greg and Tamara’s kidnapping of Henry and journey to Neverland such a big buildup. To have them killed off – or in Greg’s case – shadow ripped from his body in such a quick fashion left a bitter taste in my mouth. Unlike many fans, I never disliked the pair. But I have to admit that Horowitz and Kitsis really mishandled their characters. Their handling of Tamara proved to be even worse than their handling of Greg. Did the two creators had plans to reveal how Peter Pan and the Lost Boys created an anti-magic organization in the first place? I wonder. After all, Greg had been first contacted by “the Home Office” thirty years before, after losing his father to Regina and Graham in Storybrooke. And what about Tamara? What led her to embrace this anti-magic agenda? When was she first contacted by “the Home Office”? Since Rumpelstiltskin had murdered her halfway through the episode, I now realize that viewers will never know the truth.

If I have to be honest, Tamara’s death bothered me a lot more than Greg’s. Greg merely had his shadow ripped from his body. Audiences do not really know whether he is still alive or not. Horowitz and Kitsis made it very clear that Tamara was killed. Now, this might have to do with the fact that Martin-Green was scheduled to appear on “THE WALKING DEAD” set. But as I had stated earlier, they could have simply hired another actress to replace her. And there are other aspects of Tamara’s death that bother me. She was killed off before any attempt could be made to reveal her background. Audiences know how she became acquainted with both August W. Booth aka Pinocchio and Neal Cassidy aka Baelfire. Otherwise, we know nothing about her past. The writers did not even bothered to give her a surname. And judging from the comments I have read on the series’ messageboards and forums, along with television critics from the WALL STREET JOURNAL blog, the HUFFINGTON POST blog and DEN OF GEEK; no one really cared that Tamara’s background and her surname had never been revealed. Instead, they crowed with glee that the pair was quickly killed off. They especially crowed over the manner of Tamara’s death – either deliberately dismissing her remorse with sarcasm or ignoring it altogether. Their attitudes did not merely bother me, it angered me beyond belief.

I am coming to believe that Tamara’s death merely confirmed what many critics have been complaining about “ONCE UPON A TIME” – their shabby handling of characters portrayed by non-white characters. Tamara was a prime example. Between her and Greg, the latter was given a background story, a surname and a questionable “death”. Nor did the fans and critics regard him with the same vitriolic hatred leveled at Tamara. Horowitz and Kitsis could have developed Tamara’s character in Season Three by recasting a new actress for the role. They did not bother.

But Tamara was not the only example of the series’ poor handling of non-white characters. I still cannot help but shake my head in disbelief over that fight scene between Snow White and Mulan in Season Two’s (2.08) “Into the Deep” in which the less experienced princess quickly defeated the more experienced and non-white warrior. Mulan, who had been portrayed as a young woman from a well-to-do Chinese family in the 1998 animated film, was portrayed as illiterate in another Season Two episode, (2.11) “The Outsider”. Her illiteracy prevented her from being able to read Chinese characters. Yet, the very white Belle, was able to read Chinese characters after reading a book. I just . . . I just could not believe this. Poor Lancelot, who had been portrayed by African American actor Sinqua Walls, was killed off in the Season Two episode, (2.03) “Lady of the Lake”, his only appearance on the show. In fact, his character was already dead and being impersonated by Cora Mills aka Queen of Hearts. And Cinderella’s Fairy Godmother, who had been portrayed by an African American actress, was killed by Rumpelstiltskin during the first three-to-five minutes of the Season One episode, (1.04) “The Price of Gold”. Only Sidney Glass aka the Genie-in-the-Lamp and Regina, who were portrayed by Giancarlo Espocito and Lana Parrilla respectively, avoided such poor handling. Well . . . somewhat. Espocito could not reprise his role in Season Two, due to his obligations as a regular cast member of NBC’s “REVOLUTION”. However, he could have been replaced by another actor. But Espocito did reappear on the show during early Season Four. It would take another essay to write about the handling of the Regina Mills character, especially in the last five to six episodes of Season Two. But I found it annoying that she was the only major character described as “the Villain” by ABC’s promotion for Season Three, when there was a bigger villain worthy of the title – Mr. Gold aka Rumpelstiltskin.

I am amazed. I had started this article with the intent to complain about the series’ handling of both Greg and Tamara in “The Heart of the Truest Believer”. I am still upset over their fates and the piss poor reactions by the fans and critics. But I now realize that what pissed me even more was that the show’s handling of Tamara merely confirmed my worst instincts about “ONCE UPON A TIME” and the creators Adam Horowitz and Edward Kitsis – their inability to write or maintain decent characterizations for those roles portrayed by minority actors and actresses. But I should not be surprised. Despite the Hollywood community’s pretense at being liberals, in the end it is just as narrow-minded and conservative as the worst bigot or pop culture geek.

“LOST” RETROSPECT: (2.07) “The Other 48 Days”

“LOST” RETROSPECT: (2.07) “The Other 48 Days”

I cannot deny that “LOST” will always be one of my top twenty (20) favorite television series of all time. Nor can I deny that despite my feelings about it, the writing had been flawed on many occasions. If there is an episode that truly reflected my positive feelings about the series, it is the Season Two episode called (2.07) “The Other 48 Days”.

This episode is probably my TOP favorite one in the entire series. Before “The Other 48 Days” aired, I had been watching “LOST” for at least a little over a month. In fact, (2.02) “Adrift” was the very first episode I had ever watch. Although I did watch most of the episodes that aired between “Adrift” and “The Other 48 Days”, I found it difficult to feel the series’ magic. I was about to give up on the series for good when “The Other 48 Days” aired in late November 2005. Not only did I enjoy the episode, I became a permanent fan of the series.

The plot for “The Other 48 Days” proved to be very simple. It chronicled those first forty-eight days that the Tail Section survivors (the Tailies) of Oceanic Flight 815 experienced on the island. Most of the episode focused upon the minutes following the plane crash, to the Tailies’ encounter with Fuselage survivors Jin Kwon, Michael Dawson and James “Sawyer” Ford (which happened at the end of “Adrift”). The remaining few minutes of the episode is basically a montage of the Tailies and the three Losties experiences between (2.03) “Orientation” and (2.06) “Abandoned”, when one of the Tailies accidentally shot and killed series regular character Shannon Rutherford.

If one thought that the experiences of the Fuselage Section survivors were traumatic, what they experienced was a piece of cake in compare to the Tail Section survivors. Unlike the Fuselage passengers, the Tailies had no medical doctor/surgeon, a wanted convict with a talent for tracking, a “Great White Hunter”, a son of a South Korean fisherman, the fisherman’s daughter-in-law with a talent for botany, a construction worker, or a former member with the Iraqi Republican Guard with a talent for communications. Instead, the Tail Section survivors had a former LAPD cop, a Nigerian warlord-turned-drug runner-turned-priest, a flight attendant, a dentist and clinical psychologist. Hmmmm. From my point of view, only the cop and the former warlord proved to be potential leaders for this group of survivors. Without a medical doctor, the Tailies had to witnessed the deaths of those survivors who had been seriously injured. They also lacked supplies, luggage and some foodstuffs from the plane’s Fuselage section. Both groups were infiltrated by men spying on behalf of the island’s long time inhabitants known as “the Others”. Because the Tailies’ beach camp was situated not far from the Others’ complex, they were harassed and terrorized by the island inhabitants from Day One, to that Forty-Eighth day that marked Shannon’s death. In fact, the Others managed to kidnap a total of twelve survivors from the Tailies’ camp on Days One and Twelve. On that last 48th day, they finally snatched the flight attendant. The only Fuselage survivor that ended up kidnapped was Claire Littleton. Unlike the snatched Tailies, Claire only spent eleven days as one of the Others’ captive during those 48 days. Compare to the Fuselage survivors, the Tail Section survivors came close to experiencing their own version of “Lord of the Flies”.

Was there anything about “The Other 48 Days” that I did not like? I did not care much for that montage that marked the last three days that the Tailies spent with Michael, Sawyer and Jin. It seemed like a waste of air time. But I suspect that Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse needed some kind of filler leading to that moment from Abandoned, when Shannon was shot. I could complain that “LOST” never fully explained why the Others snatched some of the Tail Section survivors. But that is not the fault of this particular episode’s writing, considering that the series is a serial drama.

My biggest complaint about “The Other 48 Days” is that the Tail Section survivors’ story was told in one episode. I truly regret this. In some ways, I found their story a lot more fascinating than the experiences of the Fuselage survivors during that first month-and-a-half. Between the deaths of the injured passengers, the kidnappings by the Others, the power struggles and paranoia between the survivors, the consequences of an Other’s spy in their midst, brief contact with a Fuselage survivor via a short-wave radio and God knows what . . . the Tailies’ story could have provided an interesting contrast to the Fuselage survivors during the series’ first season.

When the character of Ana-Lucia Cortez was first introduced to “LOST” viewers in the Season One finale, (1.23) “Exodus, Part 1”, when she flirted with lead character Dr. Jack Shephard at an airport bar in Sydney. By the time the viewers saw her again, she had transformed into a hardened and brusque leader, lacking in any patience with the likes of Michael, Sawyer and Jin; and struggling to stay a step ahead of the Others’ harassment. Many of the series’ fans grew to hate her, complaining of her character’s tough exterior. At the same time, they praised the Mr. Eko character, who proved to be the former Nigerian warlord-turned-priest, for being such a badass in their eyes. I had forgotten that despite the advent of civil rights regarding race and gender, we still live in a very prejudiced society. Apparently, it was okay for a man like Mr. Eko to be tough, but not a woman. Especially not a woman in a leader position. A woman can be tough like Kate Austen or Juliet Burke, as long as they maintained a superficial projection of femininity and find themselves stuck in a love story or mother role.

I adored Ana-Lucia when she first punched Sawyer in (2.04) “Everybody Loves Hugo”. And even after another four seasons, she has remained one of my favorite characters in the series. Before “LOST”, I had viewed Michelle Rodriguez as a mediocre actress. I still cannot regard her as a great actress, but her portrayal of the stress-ridden Ana-Lucia had developed her into a very good one. And it took two scenes – one of Ana-Lucia’s confrontation with the Others’ spy and her emotional breakdown in Mr. Eko’s arms – that made me realize that Rodriguez had come far as an actress in the five-to-six episodes she had appeared on “LOST” by “The Other 48 Days”. Another performer that truly caught my eye was Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, who portrayed the fascinating badass, Mr. Eko. To be honest, I first noticed Akinnuoye-Agbaje in the 2001 movie, “THE MUMMY RETURNS” and 2002’s “THE BOURNE IDENTITY”. He was memorable in both movies and very entertaining. But his portrayal of Mr. Eko proved to be more complex. Yes, he could be a frightening badass. But at the same time, Akinnuoye-Agbaje injected a great deal of pathos and compassion into his performance, allowing his Mr. Eko to become a more complex character than the ones I have seen him in past movies.

I feel that Cynthia Watros got a raw deal during her time on “LOST”. Thanks to her performance as clinical-psychologist Elizabeth “Libby” Smith, she presented a complex woman behind a superficially likable woman. I am not saying that Libby was an unlikable woman. But considering that she had encouraged Ana-Lucia to do something about a survivor named Nathan, whom they suspected of being an Others spy; and in the next episode, dumped all of the blame surrounding Nathan’s death on Ana; I found myself wondering about her true nature. I like to view “The Other 48 Days” and the following episode, (2.08) “Collision” as some of Watros’ finest work on the series. Fortunately for Sam Anderson, he got a chance to stretch his stuff in more episode. He certainly did an excellent job as Bernard Nadler, the dentist who happened to be married to one of the Fuselage’s survivors.

Kimberly Joseph was first introduced as flight attendant Cindy Chandler in the series’ early Season One episodes. Her character was eventually kidnapped by the Others just before Shannon’s death in “Abandoned”. As one can see, I do not have much to say about Cindy. Joseph gave a solid performance in the episode. In fact, most of her performances have solid throughout the series’ run. I have been aware of Brett Cullen since I first saw him in the television Western, “THE YOUNG RIDERS”. I have seen him in many television and movie roles over the years – especially during the first two seasons of “PERSONS OF INTEREST”. But I feel that Goodwin Stanhope might be one of the best roles in his career. I was especially impressed by his screen chemistry with Michelle Rodriguez, making his relationship with Ana-Lucia on of the most interesting during the series’ run.

What else can I say about “The Other 48 Days”? It is a dark and fascinating television episode marked by an epic storyline about survival, trust and paranoia, thanks to a superb script written by Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof. It also features first-rate direction from Eric Laneuville, and some excellent performances – especially from Michelle Rodriguez, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje and Brett Cullen. After my latest viewing of the episode, my wish that the story about the Tail Section survivors had been stretched over more episodes remain strong as ever.

Five Favorite Episodes of “ONCE UPON A TIME” – Season Two (2012-2013)

Below is a list of my top five favorite episodes from Season Two of “ONCE UPON A TIME”. The series was created by Edward Kitsis and Adam Horowitz:

FIVE FAVORITE EPISODES OF “ONCE UPON A TIME” – Season Two (2012-2013)

1. (2.16) “The Miller’s Daughter” – While Regina Mills and her mother Cora hunt for Rumpelstiltskin’s dagger in Storybrooke in this spine-tingling episode, Cora’s back story as a poor miller’s daughter who becomes the wife of a prince is revealed in flashbacks.

2. (2.10) “The Cricket Game” – Following Cora and Captain Hook’s arrival in Storybrooke, the former set about framing Regina for Archie Hooper’s “murder” in an effort to emotionally break the former mayor. Snow White and Charming disagree over how to handle the captured Evil Queen in the Fairy Tale Land flashbacks.

3. (2.05) “The Doctor” – The true identity of Dr. Victor Whale is revealed to be Dr. Frankenstein, when he attempts to resurrect Regina’s long dead fiancé in an effort to make a bargain with her. Flashbacks reveal Rumpelstiltskin’s manipulations of a young Regina that prove to have major consequences.

4. (2.22) “And Straight Until Morning” – Regina and the Charmings join forces to prevent Storybrooke from being destroyed by the former mayor’s magical trigger, stolen by anti-magic vigilantes Greg and Tamara in this surprisingly interesting season finale.

5. (2.14) “Manhattan” – Emma Swan, Henry Mills and Rumpelstiltskin’s search for the latter’s son in Manhattan results in a major surprise for all three. Flashbacks reveal Rumpelstiltskin’s encounters with a blind seer, whose predictions will harbor consequences for the former.

“LOST” RETROSPECT: (2.04) “Everybody Hates Hugo”

“LOST” RETROSPECT: (2.04) “Everybody Hates Hugo”

Unless I am mistaken, Season Two of “LOST” is not very popular with the show’s fans. This season expanded on the Hatch (DHARMA Swan Station) subplot that was touched upon in the second half of Season One. This season introduced a tiresome running joke surrounding the Michael Dawson character. And it also featured the introduction of the survivors from Oceanic 815’s Tail Section, which included the unpopular character, Ana-Lucia Cortez. In some way, the fourth episode – (2.04) “Everybody Hates Hugo” – seemed to be some kind of manifestation of Season Two.

Aside from the joke regarding Michael Dawson, “Everybody Hates Hugo” touched upon most of the topics I brought up in the previous paragraph. In the previous episode, (2.03) “Orientation”, the survivors of Michael’s raft (Michael, James “Sawyer” Ford and Jin Kwon) were captured by a mysterious group of people upon their return to the Island. “Everybody Hates Hugo” focused on their incarceration inside a deep pit. Before Sawyer could finish plotting their escape, the mysterious group revealed to be survivors from Oceanic 815’s Tail Section. Despite some hostile conflict between Sawyer and the Tailies’ leader, Ana-Lucia Cortez, all agree it would be best to head for the Fuselage passengers’ beach camp. Claire Littleton stumble across the bottle of messages from Michael’s raft on the beach. She and several survivors worry over the fate of Michael, his son Walt Lloyd, Jin and Sawyer. Following the tiresome three-episode introduction of the Swan Station’s interiors, Jack and Sayid explore the hatch. They also order a very reluctant Hugo “Hurley” Reyes to ration the food found inside the station. The episode’s flashbacks reveal the consequences of Hurley winning the lottery . . . and his reasons for wanting to be in charge of food distribution on the Island.

I have to be frank. The episode’s main subplot involving Hurley’s job in the Hatch and his flashback did nothing for me. I found it boring. Well . . . I almost found it boring. Hurley’s reasons behind his reluctance to win the lottery and be in charge of the Losties’ food distribution clarified an aspect of his personality that I have always suspected. Despite some flashes of wisdom and common sense, Hurley is at heart a man-child who is reluctant to grow up. Unfortunately, this is an aspect of Hurley’s character I have never admired. In fact, I found it tiresome . . . over and over again. And I never could understand why fans have never noticed in past viewings. One could point out that Hurley became more mature as the series progressed. I find that hard to believe, considering the circumstances behind Hurley’s eventual fate. Hurley’s minor quarrel with Charlie over the secrecy of the Swan Station struck me as infantile. It did not help that Charlie’s constant rants about betrayal really irritated me. But I must admit that both Jorge Garcia and Dominic Monaghan gave first-rate performances. The only thing about this subplot that I found entertaining was Hurley’s interaction with Rose Nadler, portrayed by the very talented L. Scott Caldwell.

The second subplot regarding Jack and Sayid’s exploration of the Swan Station only seemed a step above the main subplot. The only reason I found it slightly more interesting was due to the mystery surrounding the Hatch. It seemed like a more mature subplot than one about Hurley’s man-child issues. That even includes Jack’s accidental encounter with a nearly nude Kate Austen, after she had finished taking a shower. What interested me was Sayid’s discovery of an electromagnetic energy within the Hatch’s walls. This discovery will end up being fully revealed by mid-to-late Season Five. The third subplot involved Claire’s discovery of the bottle of messages from the raft. This subplot struck me as irrelevant . . . period. Aside from giving Shannon Rutherford a moment to see a wet manifestation of Walt – an event that will have greater impact in a future episode – this subplot did nothing to drive the series’ main narrative forward. Instead, it involved some of the female survivors speculating on the fates of the raft’s passengers. And nothing more.

It was the final subplot regarding Michael, Jin and Sawyer’s experiences with the Tailies that really injected energy into the episode. It was not so much the mystery surrounding the raft survivors’ captors that made “Everybody Hates Hugo” so interesting to me. The three men discovered they had been captured by survivors from the Tail Section before halfway into the episode. But the psychological conflict between the more familiar characters and the newcomers crackled with a lot of energy that made me take notice. I especially found the conflict between Sawyer and Ana-Lucia, thanks to Josh Holloway and Michelle Rodriguez’s intense performances very entertaining. I realized that a good number of “LOST” fans disliked the Ana-Lucia Cortez character ever since this episode aired during the fall of 2005. I must admit that I had a different reaction. The powerhouse punch that Ana-Lucia delivered to Sawyer in “Orientation” had already thrilled me. Her continuing abuse of the always annoying Sawyer filled me with even more glee. I realize that most fans would probably be put off by my comments. But I do not care. I like Sawyer, but he was a real pain in the ass in this particular episode. At least to me.

“Everybody Hates Hugo” ended both on a mysterious and uplifting note. The Tailies led the raft survivors to another hatch that had been originally constructed by the DHARMA Initiative. Apparently, they had been using it as refuge from the jungle and the Others inside the nearly abandoned Arrow Station. So much for the mystery. What did I find uplifting about the episode? Certainly not the cheesy monologue featuring Hurley’s generous distribution of the food from the Swan Station. It was that moment when one of the Tail Section survivors approached the raft survivors and asked if they knew Rose. Thanks to a poignant performance by Sam Anderson, I nearly cried when he revealed himself to be Rose’s missing husband, Bernard. Great way to end an otherwise mediocre episode, “LOST”.

Top Five Favorite “LOST” Season One (2004-2005) Episodes

Below is a list of my top five favorite episodes from Season One of “LOST” (2004-2010). The series was created by Jeffrey Lieber, J. J. Abrams and Damon Lindelof; and produced by the latter and Carlton Cuse:

TOP FIVE FAVORITE “LOST” SEASON ONE (2004-2005) Episodes

1. (1.23-1.25) “Exodus” – This season finale served as a transition in the series’ narrative, as an expedition sets out to find dynamite to open the hatch recently discovered by castaway John Locke. And the raft planned by Michael Dawson finally leaves the island with him, his son Walt, Jin Kwon and James “Sawyer” Ford, resulting in unexpected circumstances.

2. (1.17) “. . . In Translation” – This episode featured Jin Kwon’s backstory in flashbacks and the further disintegration of his marriage, when he discovers that his wife Sun had learned English behind his back.

3. (1.04) “Walkabout” – While Locke and a few others set on a hunting expedition to find boar for the other castaways, his flashbacks reveal his reason for being in Australia.

4. (1.11) “All the Best Cowboys Have Daddy Issues” – Jack Shephard leads an expedition to find two castaways that had been kidnapped in the previous episode. The episode’s flashbacks reveal the events that led to Jack being responsible for his father’s dismissal from the hospital they worked at.

5. (1.19) “Deus Ex Machina” – In their search for a means to open a hatch they had found; Locke and Boone Carlyle find a Nigerian small plane. And their discovery leads to tragic circumstances. In the flashbacks, Locke meets his parents for the first time, who prove to be major disappointments.

“PUBLIC ENEMIES” (2009) Review

“PUBLIC ENEMIES” (2009) Review

I must admit that when I first heard about Michael Mann’s plans to film a movie about Depression-era bank robber, John Dillinger, I became excited. It was not the subject that roused my interest. But I found the idea of Mann shooting a movie set during the height of the Great Depression – 1933 to 1934 – rather interesting. It has become a period in U.S. history that has caught my interest in the past eight years. And the fact that Johnny Depp and Christian Bale had been cast in the leads as Dillinger and his nemesis, FBI Agent Melvin Purvis, merely increased my interest.

At first, I had assumed that I would love “PUBLIC ENEMIES”. I assumed that Mann could do no wrong. Then to my surprise, I discovered that the film had received mixed reviews from film critics. From that moment on, I began to harbor doubts about the film’s quality. I never learn. I had forgotten my most important rule about approaching a movie – the only opinion that should count is my own. And when I finally saw “PUBLIC ENEMIES” for the first time, three years ago, I had to learn that particular lesson all over again.

I want to point out that is not perfect. This does not bother me one bit. Perfect movies are extremely rare. And I suspect . . . that I may have seen one or two in my lifetime. I think. However, “PUBLIC ENEMIES” is not one of those rare examples of cinematic perfection. First of all, the movie – especially its first hour – seemed to be marred by an uncomfortable number of close-ups by cinematographer Dante Spinotti. This discomfort was especially apparent in action scenes like the prison escape from the Indiana State Prison featured in the film’s opening scene , “Pretty Boy” Floyd’s death at the hands of FBI Agent Melvin Purvis, and John Dillinger’s first bank robbery featured in the film. These close-ups brought back memories of the ones featured in another one of star Johnny Depp’s earlier films – namely Disney’s “PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL”.

But at the least the close-ups in the 2003 film were not further marred by quick editing as seen in “PUBLIC ENEMIES” by Paul Rubell and Jeffrey Ford. Watching their zip fast editing reminded me of those featured in movies like the last three “BOURNE” films, the 2008 James Bond movie “QUANTUM OF SOLACE”, all three “TRANSFORMERS” movies, and the recent “STAR TREK”. I suspect that this new editing style has become the new thing in the film industry during the past five years. Personally, I hate it. I find it cheap and confusing.

I have one last complaint about the film and it has to do with David Wenham’s appearance in the film. The Australian actor portrayed Harry Pierpont, one of Dillinger’s closest friends and a mentor. Yet, he barely spoke a few words in the movie. In fact, he seemed more like a background character than a supporting one. Giovanni Ribisi had more lines in the film and his character, Alvin “Creepy” Karpis, had no real close ties with Dillinger. Why did Mann and the other two screenwriters, Ronan Bennett and Ann Biderman, bothered to include the Pierpont character in the first place? Instead of at least a minor exploration of the Dillinger-Pierpont relationship, the screenwriters reduced Pierpont – Dillinger’s mentor – to a minor character with a few lines.

Now that I have put all of that negativity behind me, it is time to discuss why I had enjoyed “PUBLIC ENEMIES” so much. Perhaps I am being a bit too subtle. I did not merely enjoy “PUBLIC ENEMIES”, I loved it. It quickly become my favorite movie for the summer of 2009. Fast editing and close-ups aside, I must admit that I admire how director Michael Mann handled the movie’s pacing. I was surprised to learn about the criticisms leveled at the movie’s running time (two hours and nineteen minutes). Personally, I was impressed by Mann’s steady pace. Expecting the movie to be over two hours long, I was surprised to discover that amount of time had passed when the end credits finally began to roll. Perhaps I had been so caught up in the story that I failed to notice the time. Which is a compliment to Mann’s direction . . . at least from me.

Many scenes directed by Mann left me spellbound. They included Baby Face Nelson’s murder of a FBI Agent at a hotel ambush set up by Purvis; Dillinger’s press conference inside the warden’s office at the Crown Point Prison in Indiana; his escape from said prison; the FBI’s capture of Dillinger’s girlfriend, Billie Frichette; Frichette’s interrogation and beating at the hands of a FBI agent; and Purvis’ conversation with prostitute and brothel madam, Anna Sage.

But there were four scenes . . . actually, two scenes and two sequences that truly impressed me. The first one featured Purvis’ telephone conversation with his boss, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. In it, Purvis tries to convince the irate Hoover that many of their agents are not experienced enough to hunt down the likes of Dillinger and Nelson and that they need to recruit more experienced men . . . like Texas Rangers. Despite the fact that the two actors portraying Purvis and Hoover do not share the screen, the emotion between their characters crackled like flames, thanks to their performances and Mann’s direction. The other scene featured Dillinger’s arrival in Indiana by plane, after being arrested by Federal agents in Tucson, Arizona. Although brief, it struck a surreal note within me, thanks to Spinott’s photography. The cinematographer shot the entire scene with colors that projected a soft iron, mingled with a reddish-orange tint from the sun. Very beautiful.

Although I found the scenes mentioned above very memorable, I was rendered speechless by the following sequences. The first centered around the violent shootout at the Little Bohemia Lodge in Manitowish Waters, Wisconsin in April 1934. I am certain that many critics and moviegoers had ended up comparing this sequence with the famous Downtown Los Angeles shootout in Mann’s 1995 movie, “HEAT”. Granted, the latter turned out longer and was filmed in the daytime, but this Little Bohemia shootout turned out to be just as effective and exciting, despite being filmed at night. But if there is one sequence that filled me with great satisfaction, it was the one that featured the last night of Dillinger’s life. Mann, along with Spinotti, production designer Nathan Crowley, Rosemary Brandenburg’s set designs, Patrick Lumb, William Ladd Skinner’s art direction, the screenwriters and the cast did a superb job in conveying the director’s own detailed account of that hot, July night in 1934. I, for one, was glad that Mann took his time in leading to that moment when Texas Ranger Charles Winstead shot Dillinger dead. The director gave movie audiences a glimpse of street life in Depression-era Chicago during the summertime. He also allowed the audience to experience Dillinger’s pleasure in viewing Clark Gable’s spunk and Myrna Loy’s beauty in the 1934 MGM movie, “MANHATTAN MELODRAMA”. With the camera, the audience waited nervously along with Purvis, Winstead and the other lawmen who waited outside the Biograph Theater for Dillinger. This is one of the most detailed and marvelously shot sequences I have ever seen on film in the past decade or two.

Another aspect of “PUBLIC ENEMIES” that struck me as unique was its style. Past movies about Depression-era criminals from the Midwest and the South like “BONNIE AND CLYDE” (1967), “MELVIN PURVIS, G-MAN” (1974), and “THE KANSAS CITY MASSACRE” (1975) tend to have this rural or “good ‘ole boy” style, similar to movies and television shows like “SMOKEY AND THE BANDIT” (1977) and “THE DUKES OF HAZZARD” (1979-85). These films were usually filled with a great deal of wild car chases, over-the-top acting and a Country-Western tune emphasizing the action. “PUBLIC ENEMIES” seemed to go against this rural style. Instead, most of Mann’s Midwestern criminals are not some wild, country boys that went on a crime spree as some reaction against the Depression’s economic woes. His criminals – especially Dillinger – are professional criminals, whose experiences go back long before the first impact of the Depression. Nor is Mann’s Melvin Purvis is some long experienced “good ‘ole boy” lawman with a Mississippi Valley or Southwestern accent like Ben Johnson in “DILLINGER” (1973) or Dale Robertson in his two TV movies about the FBI agent. The director’s Purvis is a lot closer to the real one – a South Carolinian gentleman in his early thirties, who happened to be a trained lawyer and an excellent shot. Both Dillinger and Purvis come off as more sophisticated than their portrayals featured in earlier movies. And the characters’ sophistication certainly reflected the movie’s more serious tone. Something I certainly had no problems with.

John Dillinger may turn out to be one of my favorite characters portrayed by Johnny Depp. Much has been made of Dillinger’s charm and joie de vivre . . . and Depp certainly did not hesitate to replicate it in front of the camera. One prime example of this charm was featured in Dillinger’s press conference inside the warden’s office at the Crown Point Prison in Indiana. I have seen the original 1934 newsreel featuring the famous press conference and I must say that Depp did a beautiful job of recapturing Dillinger’s actions – from the bank robber’s attitude, right down to his body language.

But there were other aspects of Dillinger’s personality that Depp did not hesitate to portray – his romantic charm that won Billie Frichette’s heart and cynical sense of humor. Most importantly, Depp’s performance reminded the audience that Dillinger had been capable of being a cold-blooded criminal. After all, he had drifted into crime long before the economic upheaval of the Depression. And Depp’s performance made that clear, whether his Dillinger was expressing fury at one colleague, whose beating of a prison guard led to the death of an old friend in the film’s opening prison break; his lack of remorse toward his many crimes, his connection to the Chicago mob; and his willingness to murder anyone who got in his way. Depp not only perfectly portrayed Dillinger as a charming and extroverted rogue, but also as a tender lover, a hardened criminal unwilling to give up his profession and if need be, a killer.

I have noticed that in the past several years, Christian Bale has found himself in the thankless task of portraying characters less flamboyant than his co-stars, in which they managed to grab the spotlight. Mind you, Bale gave superb performances in these films. Yet, his co-stars managed to grab most of the glory. This also seemed to be the case in “PUBLIC ENEMIES”, in which he portrays Melvin Purvis, the FBI agent assigned to capture Dillinger, one way or the other. Whereas Depp’s Dillinger is all charm and flash, Bale’s Purvis is a resolute and educated South Carolina gentleman, who also happened to be a somewhat competent lawman determined to hunt down the bank robber by any means possible. And that included following Director Hoover’s insistence on “taking the white gloves off” or insisting that the FBI recruit experienced Texas Rangers for the manhunt. Bale not only did an excellent job in conveying Purvis’ quiet determination in hunting down Dillinger, but the agent’s anxious fear that he may never capture the bank robber on a permanent basis. Bale also effectively portrayed Purvis’ ruthlessness in dealing with those who stood between him and Dillinger. Melvin Purvis is not a splashy role for Bale, but the latter certainly did an excellent job of portraying the lawman’s many personality facets.

Before I saw “PUBLIC ENEMIES”, I had feared that the addition of Billie Frichette (Dillinger’s girlfriend) into the story would make her presence irrelevant and threaten to drag the film. Fortunately, Mann and the other two screenwriters – Bennett and Biderman – along with Oscar winner Marion Cotillard did justice to the Frichette character. Cotillard gave an excellent performance as a hatcheck woman who captured Dillinger’s heart. She portrayed Frichette as a slightly melancholy woman who not only resented society’s bigotry against her ancestry (her mother was half French, half –Menominee), but also feared that her relationship with Dillinger may not last very long. One of Cotillard’s best moments featured the hatcheck woman being interrogated and beaten by one of Purvis’ agents, who is determined to learn Dillinger’s whereabouts. And despite being French-born and raised, Cotillard proved that she could use a Midwestern accent circa 1933, just as well as an American actress.

“PUBLIC ENEMIES” seemed to be filled with some memorable supporting roles. And a handful of performances stood out for me. I enjoyed Jason Clarke’s quiet and subtle performance as Dillinger’s close friend and colleague, the dependable John “Red” Hamilton, who seemed convinced that he and the bank robber were doomed to live short lives. Clarke especially shone in an emotional scene in which a badly wounded Hamilton tried to convince Dillinger to stop clinging fervently to all people and things that mattered too much to him. And there was Billy Crudup (a face I have been seeing with great frequency over the past several years), who gave an entertaining and sharp performance as FBI Director and publicity hound, J. Edgar Hoover. Crudup managed to capture a great deal of the legendary director’s personality as much as possible – especially Hoover’s staccato-style speech pattern. And his scenes with Bale brimmed with a layer of emotion that made their on-screen relationship one of the more interesting ones in the movie.

Another performance that caught my attention belonged to Stephen Graham as the trigger-happy Lester “Baby Face Nelson” Gillis. I have to give Graham kudos for effectively projecting a certain facet of Nelson’s persona from both Dillinger and Purvis’ points-of-view. In Dillinger’s eyes, Graham portrayed Nelson as a trigger happy clown and bad Cagney impersonator, whose criminal skills seemed to belong to an amateur. In his major scene with Purvis, Graham portrayed Nelson as a dangerous criminal, quite capable of efficiently killing Federal agents in cold blood. And it was a pleasant surprise to see the always competent Stephen Lang as Charles Winstead, one of the Texas Rangers recruited by Purvis to assist in the FBI manhunt for Dillinger. Lang first worked for Mann in 1986’s “MANHUNTER” and the television series, “CRIME STORY”. Since then, he has portrayed a vast array of memorable characters over the years. In “PUBLIC ENEMIES”, he gave another excellent performance as the stoic and intimidating Winstead, whose vast experience with criminal manhunts allowed him to act as a de facto mentor for the less experienced Purvis. One last performance that caught my attention belonged to Branka Katić’s portrayal of Anna Sage, the so-called ”Woman in Red” who had betrayed Dillinger to the FBI in Chicago. Actually, Sage never wore red on the night she led the FBI to the Biograph Theater and Dillinger. But that is beside the point. Katić gave an intelligent performance as the world-weary, Romanian-born madam that found herself forced to help the FBI ambush the bank robber.

In several articles I have read about “PUBLIC ENEMIES”, there were many comparisons between the film and “HEAT”. And the comparison usually ended in the 1995 movie’s favor. Do I agree with this assessment? Honestly, I have no answer. Both movies are superb crime dramas with a few flaws. Whereas “HEAT” managed to capture the miasma of late 20th century Los Angeles, “PUBLIC ENEMIES” reeked with the slightly gray aura of the Depression-era Midwest . . . especially Chicago. And whereas the pacing for “HEAT” threatened to drag in its last hour, the quick editing and constant close-ups nearly marred the first hour of “PUBLIC ENEMIES”. But you know what? I love both movies. And “PUBLIC ENEMIES” proved to be another example of why Michael Mann continues to be one of my favorite movie directors.

“LOST” (2004-2010): Favorite Character Centric Episodes – Part III

Below is Part III of a list of my favorite episodes featuring “LOST” characters:

“LOST” (2004-2010): FAVORITE CHARACTER CENTRIC EPISODES – Part III

Claire Littleton

1. (1.10) “Raised By Another” – Claire endures a series of bad dreams of someone attacking her, which leads to Hurley checking the plane’s passenger list. Flashbacks reveals Claire’s discovery of her pregnancy and a psychic urging her not to hand over the baby for adoption.

2. (2.15) “Maternity Leave” – When Aaron becomes sick, Claire, Kate and Danielle Rousseau travel to where Claire was held captive, an abandoned Dharma medical station, in the hope of finding a cure. Flashbacks reveal her memories of being a captive of the Others.

John Locke

1. (3.13) “The Man From Tallahassee” – Locke, Sayid, and Kate encounter the Others’ homes for the first time and find Jack relatively happy among them. Flashbacks reveal how an encounter with his father left Locke paralyzed.

2. (5.07) “The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham” – This episode featured Locke’s efforts to reunite the Oceanic Six and return them to the island.

3. (1.04) “Walkabout” – Locke leads an expedition to hunt boars, which leads to his first encounter with the Smoke Monster. Flashbacks reveal that he was in a wheelchair before Oceanic 815’s crash.

4. (1.19) “Ex Deus Machina” – While searching for a means to open the hatch, Locke discovers that he is losing sensation in his legs. And both he and Boone find a Beechcraft 18 teetering on the edge of a cliff. Flashbacks reveal Locke’s first meetings with his parents.

Charlie Pace

1. (3.21) “Greatest Hits” – Desmond Hume has another vision of Charlie’s death, but this time his death ultimately will result in Claire’s rescue. Meanwhile, the survivors discover that an attack by the others is even more imminent than originally expected.

2. (1.15) “Homecoming” – Claire is back among the survivors, but still has no memory beyond the plane flight. Ethan confronts Charlie, threatening to kill the other castaways one by one until he gets Claire back, leading the former rock star to take action. In his flashbacks, Charlie tries to get drug money by stealing from a rich girl.

Hugo “Hurley” Reyes

1. (4.01) “The Beginning of the End” – Upon learning that Penny Widmore did not send the freighter to find Desmond, the survivors of Oceanic 815 split into two groups led by Jack and Locke. Hurley deals with being one of the “Oceanic Six” survivors in the flashforwards.

2. (1.18) “Numbers” – Hurley finds that some of Rousseau’s documents contain the repeated numbers 4, 8, 15, 16, 23 and 42; the same numbers that he had used to win a lottery jackpot. Hurley sets off on his own to find Rousseau.

Jack Shephard

1. (3.22-3.23) “Through the Looking Glass” – Jack’s plans to kill a group of Others bent on kidnapping some of the castaway women backfire. The episode also featured scenes of Jack spiraling in drugs and alcohol during his off-island life.

2. (6.14) “The Candidate” – Sawyer and Jack hatch a plan to divert the Man in Black’s attention and leave the island without him on Widmore’s submarine, but disastrous consequences await them. In the flash sideways, Jack investigates the cause of Locke’s paralysis and offers treatment.

3. (1.11) “All the Best Cowboys Have Daddy Issues” – Jack, Kate, Locke and Boone engaged in a search for Claire and Charlie, who had been kidnapped by Other spy Ethan Rom.

4. (2.11) “The Hunting Party” – Jack leads an expedition to search for Michael, who has left to find the kidnapped Walt. Flashbacks revealed the last days of Jack’s marriage.

 

“LOST” RETROSPECT: (1.23-1.25) “Exodus”

“LOST” RETROSPECT: (1.23-1.25) “Exodus”

If one was to ask me what was my favorite season finale of “LOST”, I would be prone to answer Season Three’s (3.22-3.23) “Through the Looking Glass”. But my second choice – and a very close one at that – would have definitely been the Season One finale, (1.23-1.25) “Exodus”.

Although I do not consider it to be my favorite “LOST” finale, I can honestly say that I found it to be the most emotional . . . at least for me. Many would say that the series finale, (1.17-1.18) “The End”. Mind you, “The End” had its share of emotional moments. But there were many aspects of it that I found very irritating. I found some flaws in the script for “Exodus”. But I felt those flaws were overshadowed by some great writing by screenwriters/producers Damon Lindehof and Carlton Cuse.

I might as well begin with what I consider to be the episode’s flaws. The Season One finale featured flashbacks that revealed the castaways’ experiences during their last hours in Sydney, Australia, before boarding Oceanic Flight 815. Mind you, I did not have any trouble with most of the flashbacks. Some of them revealed the development in personalities or relationships for some of the characters. This was apparent in Michael Dawson and Walt Lloyd’s two flashbacks, along with Shannon Rutherford’s, Charlie Pace’s and to a certain extent, James ‘Sawyer’ Ford’s. Other flashbacks revealed the personal clouds that hung over Jin-Soo Kwon, Sayid Jarrah and John Locke. Jack’s flashback served as an introduction to Ana-Lucia Cortez, who would have a major role in the second season. But there were some flashbacks which I found useless and a waste of my time:

*Kate Austen – Her flashback featured U.S. Marshal Edward Mars explaining his long search for the young fugitive. Basically, all he did was reveal to the Sydney Airport authorities about his cat-and-mouse games with Kate and her infantile bank robbery in New Mexico. Yawn!

*Sun-Hwa Kwon – Her flashback merely confirmed her original secret knowledge of English via her understanding of the racist American couple who seemed to harbor clichés about Asian marriages.

*Hugo “Hurley” Reyes – His flashbacks consisted of a series of minor incidents that nearly causes him to miss Oceanic Flight 815. Was it Lindehof and Cuse’s intent for the audience to view Hurley’s experiences with the ironic view that he would have been better off by missing the flight? I do not know. Then again, I do not care.

Not only did I find Kate’s flashback a bore, I found some of her actions in this episode rather . . . peculiar. Okay, I had no problem with her decision to accompany Jack and Locke to the Black Rock. She wanted to help. Okay. But following Leslie Artz’s death, she decided that she wanted to be one of the two to carry the dynamite in her backpack:

LOCKE: It’s not smart to keep it all together. So, we split them up. If we need 3 sticks to blow the hinge then we should bring 6 — 3 and 3 — failsafe, in case one of us…

JACK: You and me, then.

KATE: No, I’m — I’m taking one.

JACK: It’s not going to happen, no.

KATE: This is why I came.

JACK: Then, you wasted a trip.

I realize that the castaways’ leader, Jack Shephard was being controlling. But why on earth was it necessary for Kate to carry some of the dynamite? Why on earth would a woman with the survival instinct of a well-trained mercenary want to risk her life to carry a bunch of unstable sticks of dynamite? Cuse and Lindehof never made Kate’s reasons clear. Poor Evangeline Lilly. She really had to put up with a lot of shit from those two.

At the beginning of the episode, Danielle Rousseau appeared at the Losties’ camp with news that the Others were going to attack their camp. After accompanying Jack’s expedition to the Black Rock, she returned to the Losties’ camp with the intent to steal baby Aaron in order to exchange him for her long missing daughter, Alex. When Sayid and Charlie finally caught up with her and Aaron, she revealed that she ‘did’ hear whispering about the Others coming for the “boy”. As it turned out, the Others were after Walt. And they snatched him from the raft that Michael, Sawyer and Jin used in their attempt to leave the island. But . . . why did they snatch Walt? More importantly, how did they know that he was special? I doubt that Others spy Ethan Spy had found out. He spent most of his time with the Losties keeping an eye on Claire Littleton, who was pregnant during his stay with them. If Cuse and Lindehof did reveal the details behind Ben Linus’ decision to order Walt’s kidnapping, they failed to do so in any of the series’ 121 episodes.

Thankfully, “Exodus” was filled with so many memorable scenes and moments that I am willing to forgive Cuse and Lindehof some of the episode’s missteps. As I had stated earlier, this episode was filled with some very emotional moments. My favorite included Sawyer’s revelation to Jack about his meeting with the latter’s now deceased father back in Australia. Superb acting by both Josh Holloway and Matthew Fox. Another great moment featured Walt’s decision to hand over his dog Vincent to the greiving Shannon. Neither Malcolm David Kelley or Maggie Grace had ever received any recognition for their acting. Well, perhaps Kelley did once. Yet, both of them gave some of their best performances in this scene – especially Grace. But who gave the best performances in the episode? For me, the honors should have went to Daniel Dae Kim and Yunjin Kim as the castaways’ estranged Korean couple. The couple finally reconciled over their matter regarding Sun’s secret ability to speak English in a very emotional moment that featured tears, hugs and superb acting by the two. In fact, I am still wondering why the two Kims had never received any major acting nominations for their performances on the show. Both Fox and Terry O’Quinn gave excellent performances in an interesting scene in which Jack questioned John Locke about his penchant for revolving his life around the island’s mysteries.

Many fans have claimed that strong characterization has always been the major strength on “LOST”. Perhaps. But there have been many times during the series’ six season run in which some of the characterization seemed to have declined. Think (2.04) “Everybody Hates Hugo”, (3.09) “Stranger in a Strange Land”, (3.14) “Exposé”, (4.04) “Eggtown” or (4.06) “The Other Woman”. But when it came to action-oriented scenes and story arcs, “LOST” was truly in its element. And “Exodus” had its share of memorable action-oriented scenes and one truly chilling one.

My favorite action scenes included the expedition to the Black Rock, Leslie Artz’s death, and Sayid and Charlie’s search for Danielle and the kidnapped Aaron. However, one of the better scenes featured the Black Rock expedition’s encounter with the Smoke Monster (aka the Man in Black) and the latter’s attempt to drag Locke into some hole. When I think about it, some of the most effective action scenes during the series’ first four seasons featured the Smoke Monster. But not even the Smoke Monster’s attack upon Locke, Jack, Kate and Hurley was nothing in compare to what happened to the castaways on Michael’s raft. In what I believe to be one of the most chilling scenes in the series’ history, Walt ended up being kidnapped by the Others. Between the night setting, the violent attack upon the raft passengers and Walt’s cries as he was being carried away by his kidnappers still leaves chills within me, even after sixteen years.

My recent viewing of “Exodus” also left me pondering about some of the characters and events. While my family and I were watching those moments leading up to Walt’s kidnapping, we found ourselves openly wondering what would have happened if Sawyer and Walt had not convinced Michael to fire that flare gun. Because once he did, the Others managed to find them within minutes. While reading some of the reviews and posts about this episode, I noticed that back in 2005, many assumed that Charlie would resume taking drugs after he found the Virgin Mary statuettes filled with heroin. Considering how Locke “helped” Charlie get over his drug addiction in (1.06) “House of the Rising Sun”, I am not surprised that Charlie took one of those statuettes. In fact, I believe that Charlie did the right thing. Only he could really help himself get over his drug addiction. All Locke did was manipulate him into doing something that he had never volunteered to do in the first place. That is not real help.

Although Jack may be a controlling and doubting ass at times, I found myself sympathizing with him during his conversation with Locke about the island. The fact that Locke believed that opening the hatch would lead to his “destiny” and his willingness to be dragged away by the Smoke Monster made me realize that the latter had been right in Season Six – Locke was a chump. He had spent most of his time on the island believing that he had to delve its mysteries in order to achieve some kind of destiny and the position of being special. And when Locke told Jack that the late Boone Carlyle had been a sacrifice that the island demanded, I am surprised that the good doctor managed to refrain from shooting him. If I had been in Jack’s shoes, I would have shot him. I realize that it would have been the wrong thing to do, but I still would have shot him. I just do not see how Locke could justify Boone’s death in that manner.

“Exodus” has its flaws that I found worthy of a head shake, including some questionable flashbacks and the story arc featuring Kate and the dynamite sticks. But most of the episode featured some excellent writing that included great emotional moments and action sequences, along with first-rate acting by most of the cast. Not surprisingly, it is not only one of my favorite season finales of “LOST”, but also one of my favorite episodes period.

“LOST”: The Island Guru

“LOST”: THE ISLAND GURU

There have been countless number of character essays and theories posted by “LOST” fans about Island Destiny Man – John Locke (Terry O’Quinn). Quite frankly, I have only read a small number of those articles. But recently, I have been watching some of the series’ episodes from Seasons One and Two. After viewing some of them, I have grown aware of a certain trait of Locke’s that I find annoying. 

When John Locke’s back story was first introduced in the episode, (1.04) “Walkabout”, viewers discovered that he had been a wheelchair bound employee of a box company in Tustin, California. Viewers eventually discovered that Locke was the illegitimate son of the fifteen year-old Emily Locke and a con artist named Anthony Cooper. Locke spent most of his childhood and a great deal of his adult years longing to be a man of action and someone special. He spent those years honing his skills as a hunter and gathering a great deal of knowledge on so many subjects.

In September 2004, John Locke had traveled to Australia to participate in a “walkabout tour” that would allow him to ”live in the wilderness” for a certain period of time with a group of tourists. Employees of the Melbourne Walkabout Tours took one look at Locke’s disabled state and refused to accept him on one of their tours. Forced to return home to California, Locke boarded the Oceanic Airlines Flight 815 on September 22 – a flight that was supposed to take him from Sydney, Australia to Los Angeles, California. Only he and his fellow passengers never reached United States soil. Instead, they found themselves stranded on a mysterious island in the South Pacific. Locke also discovered that the island had somehow cured his crippled legs. From this moment on, Locke became an acolyte of the island. And judging from his interactions with characters like Charlie Pace and Boone Carlyle, he searched for his own band of acolytes to share his beliefs.

Locke spent most of Season One helping the castaways survive those first 44 days on the island and offer them sage advice. He also had two encounters with a mysterious smoke monster, became the survivors’ “great white hunter”, helped Boone Carlyle deal with unhealthy for his stepsister, Shannon Rutherford, helped Charlie Pace kick a heroin addiction and convinced spinal surgeon Jack Shephard to assume leadership of the castaways. This all changed in the episode, (1.19) “Ex Deux Machina”, when Locke and Boone discovered a Nigerian plane filled with heroin and bodies in the jungle. In that episode, he had convinced Boone to crawl into the plane to examine it. Because he had failed to inform Boone that he had a prophetic dream that the plane would lead to Boone’s death, he lied to Jack about the true situation of Boone’s wounds after the actual accident. From that moment on, the series began to unravel even more of Locke’s less admirable traits. Many fans and even actor Terry O’Quinn have expressed regret that Locke had not remained the wise, self-assured man from Season One. 

But my recent viewings of some of the Season One and Season Two episodes have led me to wonder if Locke’s “self-assuredness” had been nothing more than a façade. Also, that same self-assuredness seemed to have revealed a trait within Locke that I found personally distasteful. Superficially, John Locke’s willingness to help others like Charlie and Boone seemed may have seemed admirable. It certainly did to many viewers. No one has ever complained about his “methods” in helping those two. And for me, his methods in helping Charlie and Boone has made me wonder if John Locke was – like Jack Shephard – a slightly bullying and controlling man. 

Charlie Pace
I had first noticed these traits in Locke during the Season One episode, (1.06) “House of the Rising Sun”. This episode’s subplot featured an expedition in which Jack, Charlie, Kate Austen and Locke examined a large cavern as a provision for housing and water for the castaways. While alone with Charlie, Locke took the opportunity to reveal his knowledge of the musician’s heroin habit:

[We see Charlie walking away from caves trying to take drugs out of his pocket, looking behind him. But Locke is coming from the opposite direction.]
CHARLIE: Listen to me, you old git, I’m going in the jungle. A man has a right to some privacy.
LOCKE: Just hand it to me. You’re going to run out. My guess is sooner rather than later. Painful detox is inevitable. Give it up now at least it will be your choice. 
CHARLIE: Don’t talk to me like you know something about me.
LOCKE: I know a lot more about pain than you think. I don’t envy what you’re facing. But I want to help. [Charlie walks away]. Do you want your guitar?
[Charlie turns and comes back.]
LOCKE: More than your drug?
CHARLIE: More than you know.
LOCKE: What I know is that this island might just give you what you’re looking for, but you have to give the island something.
CHARLIE [giving Locke the drugs]: You really think you can find my guitar?
LOCKE: Look up, Charlie.
CHARLIE: You’re not going to ask me to pray or something.
LOCKE: I want you to look up.
[Charlie looks up and almost cries when he sees his guitar on a cliff above.]

Judging from the above scene, Locke’s idea of helping Charlie was to insist that the latter hand over the remaining heroin he had left. He insisted. That was Locke’s initial idea of helping Charlie. Knowing the location of Charlie’s guitar, which the latter valued more than anything, Locke then maneuvered Charlie into giving up the drugs in return for the guitar.

In the following episode, (1.07) “The Moth”, Charlie had demanded that Locke return his drugs – which the former agreed to do – ONLY when the former asked for the third time:

[Shot of Charlie running from a boar. Some luggage falls, the boar is trapped in a large net trap.]
LOCKE: Nice work, Charlie. You make excellent bait.
CHARLIE [angrily]: I’m glad I could oblige. Now give me my bloody drugs.

Act 2
CHARLIE: Did you hear what I said? I want my drugs back. I need ’em.
LOCKE: Yet you gave them to me. Hmm.
CHARLIE: And I bloody well regret it. I’m sick, man. Can’t you see that?
LOCKE: I think you’re a lot stronger than you know, Charlie. And I’m going to prove it to you. I’ll let you ask me for your drugs three times. The third time, I’m going to give them to you. Now, just so we’re clear, this is one.
CHARLIE: Why? Why? Why are you doing this? To torture me? Just get rid of them and have done with it?
LOCKE: If I did that you wouldn’t have a choice, Charlie. And having choices, making decisions based on more than instinct, is the only thing that separates you from him [indicating the boar].

Now I realize that Locke simply wanted to help Charlie. And I realize that he honestly believe that he was giving Charlie a choice. But if that was John Locke’s idea of a choice, he could keep it, as far as I am concerned. I found Locke’s idea of giving someone a choice rather boorish and controlling. He did not simply give Charlie a choice. What Locke did was manipulate Charlie into making a choice . . . but only on his terms. If Locke really wanted Charlie to utilize his free will to make a choice – one way or the other – about the heroin, he should have given Charlie the heroin when the latter first asked. Some fans have argued that Charlie would have never given up the heroin if Locke had handed it over right away. My answer to that is . . . tough shit. Seriously. Charlie should have made the decision to either continue taking the heroin or stop using . . . on his own. Without Locke’s interference or manipulation. 

In the Season One finale, (1.24) “Exodus II”, Charlie accompanied Sayid in a search for Danielle Rousseau, a long time castaway who had kidnapped Aaron Littleton in order to exchange him for her own kidnapped daughter. During that search, the pair came across a Nigerian plane with dead bodies and Virgin Mary statuettes filled with heroin. In a weak moment, Charlie took one of the statuettes behind Sayid’s back. It turned out to be the first of many trips in which Charlie ended up filching a statuette or two, until he managed to build up quite a collection. The ironic thing is that Charlie managed to refrain from using the heroin in his possession. Claire Littleton – Aaron’s mother, Mr. Eko and eventually Locke discovered in Season Two’s (2.10) “The 23rd Psalm” and (2.12) “Fire and Water” that Charlie had possession of the statuettes. This, along with Charlie’s frantic concern and actions over Aaron, led Locke to assume that Charlie had resumed using drugs again:

CHARLIE: Hey, John, can I talk to you for a second?
LOCKE: Yeah, what is it, Charlie?
CHARLIE: I take it you heard about what happened last night.
LOCKE: If you mean you taking the baby out of Claire’s tent in the middle of the night — yeah, I heard.
CHARLIE: This whole thing was a big misunderstanding, John. I was sleepwalking. I don’t how or why —
LOCKE: Is there something you want from me, Charlie?
CHARLIE: I was hoping you could speak to Claire for me. You know, put in a good word.
LOCKE: Are you using?
CHARLIE: What?
LOCKE: Heroin. Are you using again?
CHARLIE: Kate sees a horse — nothing. Pretty much everybody’s seen Walt wondering around the jungle. But when it’s Charlie it must be the bloody drugs, right?

Charlie did lie about having the drugs in his possession. But he had been telling the truth about using. When Locke found Charlie’s stash of statuettes, he reacted in the following manner:

[Back on the Island, Charlie holds a couple of baggies of heroin in his hand.]
LOCKE [suddenly, off camera at first]: I’m disappointed in you, Charlie.
CHARLIE: You following me?
LOCKE: How long have you been coming out here?
CHARLIE: John, you’ve got the wrong idea, man.
LOCKE: You said you destroyed them all, and yet here they are. How is that the wrong idea?
CHARLIE: I came out here to finish the job. I’m going to get rid of these right now.
LOCKE: Yeah, that’s very convenient now that I found you. [Locke goes to the statues with his pack.]
CHARLIE: What are you doing?
LOCKE [putting the statues in his pack]: There was a time when I let you choose whether or not you were going to do this to yourself. Now I’m making that choice for you.
CHARLIE: Oh, you don’t believe me? Give them to me. Give them to me right now; I’ll destroy them. Look. [He breaks up the baggies in his hand] I’ll throw them in the sodding wind. Look, John, I know I lied, alright. [Locke starts walking away] Wait, wait, wait. Remember all those talks we had, you and me? You said everything happens for a reason — this island tests us. That’s what this is, John, at test. This is my test. That’s why these are here.
LOCKE: These are here because you put them here, Charlie. [Locke starts to leave again.]
CHARLIE: Wait, John, wait. [Charlie grabs Locke’s arm, and Locke angrily breaks free.] What are you going to do? Are you going to tell Claire? You can’t. If she sees them, I’m done. She’ll never trust me again, and she has to, John. It’s about the baby, alright? Aaron’s in danger. You have to believe me.
LOCKE: You’ve given up the right to be believed, Charlie. 

Now, I can understand how Locke would be pissed off that Charlie had lied to him about having the statuettes. But the manner in which he took possession of them reminded me of a bullying parent. At that moment, Locke decided that he would do something about Charlie’s drug problem by taking away the heroin without the latter’s permission. Like a parent would act toward an errant child. All Locke could have done was express disappointment at Charlie for the latter’s lies. But he behaved as if he had the right to take the drugs away . . . and “make the choice” for Charlie to stop using. The sad thing is that Charlie allowed him to get away with such controlling behavior.

Booone Carlyle
By mid Season One, John Locke found another disciple to mentor. It all began when Charlie and a very pregnant Claire had been kidnapped by a spy for the Others – Ethan Rom – in the episode (1.10) “Raised By Another”. In the following episode, (1.11) “All the Best Cowboys Have Daddy Issues”, a party that included Locke, Jack, Kate Austen and a wedding planner named Boone Carlyle set off into the jungle in search of the two kidnapped castaways. Eventually, the quartet split into two teams when Kate revealed that she also had tracking skills. Jack and Kate formed one team, and Locke and Boone formed the other. And at this moment, the master/apprentice relationship between the latter pair was born.

This relationship between Locke and Boone lasted approximately eight to nine episodes – between “All the Best Cowboys Have Daddy Issues” and (1.19) “Ex Deux Machina”. During this period, Locke and Boone discovered a steel door to the hatch (Swan Station) that would dominate Season Two. The two men spent several episodes trying to find ways to open the hatch, while lying to the castaways that they were on expeditions hunt for boar. These expeditions were briefly postponed in the episode, (1.13) “Hearts and Minds”, when Boone decided to tell Shannon about the discovered hatch:

BOONE: Look, at least I’ve got to tell Shannon.
LOCKE: Why?
BOONE: What do mean, why? She’s my sister.
LOCKE: Why do you care about her so much?
BOONE: You don’t know her man. She’s smart, she’s special in a lot of ways.
LOCKE: Fair enough.
BOONE: She’s been asking me about this. I can’t keep lying to her.
LOCKE: You mean you can’t keep lying to her, or you can’t stand the way she makes you feel because you’re lying to her?
BOONE: Both. Whatever. Look, she can keep a secret.
LOCKE: You’re sure?
BOONE: Yes, I’m sure.
LOCKE: No, I mean, are you sure you want to do this?
BOONE: I’ve got to get her off my back. She keeps asking me about this, she keeps asking me about you, about the whole thing.
LOCKE: You’re sure you’ve thought through the ramifications?
BOONE: Yes.
LOCKE: So be it.
[Boone turns around, Locke clocks him with a knife handle.] 

After this surprising moment, Locke tied Boone to a tree and used drugs to force the latter to experience a vision quest :

[Shot of Boone tied up. Locke is mixing the stuff in the bowl.]
BOONE: Locke, what is this? Do you hear me? Untie me right now.
LOCKE: Or what?
BOONE: I swear I won’t tell anyone about the hatch thing, okay? I promise.
LOCKE: I’m doing this, Boone, because it’s time for you to let go of some things. Because it’s what’s best for you. And, I promise, you’re going to thank me for this later.
BOONE: Hey, I don’t think this is best for me. [Locke smears the stuff he’s been mixing onto the wound on Boone’s head.] What is that?
LOCKE: An untreated wound, out here, is going to get infected.
BOONE: You’re not going to just leave me here.
LOCKE: Whether you stay is up to you. The camp is 4 miles due west.
BOONE: Which way is west?
[Locke throws a knife into the ground, just out of Boone’s reach.]
LOCKE: You’ll be able to cut yourself free once you have the proper motivation.
BOONE: Locke!
[Boone is struggling in the ropes, trying to reach the knife.]
BOONE: Help, help! 

Locke claimed that he was forcing Boone to submit to a vision quest “for his own good”. Perhaps helping Boone find closure in his relationship with Shannon had been on his mind. But I find it interesting that Locke had decided to manipulate Boone into this situation after the latter decided to reveal the secret about the hatch. And regardless of whether Locke truly had Boone’s interests at heart or not, he really had no business forcing Boone into that situation in the first place. No wonder the younger man attacked Locke upon returning to the camp. 

It all worked out in the end. Locke’s enforced “vision quest” convinced Boone to leave Shannon alone and allow her to continue her romance with Sayid. More importantly – at least for Locke – the two men continued to maintain the secret of the hatch within the next six to seven episodes. However, Boone never really forgotten Locke’s heavy-handed method of coercing him into a vision question. He made this perfectly clear in “Ex Deux Machina”:

[The scene switches to Boone and Locke at the hatch.]
LOCKE: I had a dream last night. I asked for a sign and then I saw a plane crash—a Beechcraft [pointing] right out there. It was a dream, but it was the most real thing I’ve ever experienced. I know where to go now.
BOONE: Go for what?
LOCKE: To find what we need to open this bastard up.
BOONE: Have you been using that wacky paste stuff that made me see my sister get eaten?
LOCKE [laughing]: No, no.
BOONE: Because, John, I’ve got to tell you—signs and dreams… 

In the end, Boone paid a heavy price for becoming John Locke’s protégée . . . assistant . . . or however you want to call him. In the same episode, Locke dreamed of the following – a Beechcraft plane crashing, as well as his mother pointing in its direction; a blood-stained Boone; being confined to his wheelchair and a woman from Boone’s past who had died from a fall. As shown in the above passage, Locke did reveal some of his dream to the younger man. Unfortunately, he failed to tell Boone about seeing the latter covered in blood. With Locke’s legs temporarily paralyzed, he urged Boone to climb into the Beechcraft. The younger man managed to briefly contact someone via the plane’s radio (it turned out to be Bernard Nadler from the Tail Section of Flight 815) before the plane fell over and severely injured Boone. Locke managed to regain the use of his legs and carry Boone back to camp. But since he had failed to inform Jack about the nature of Boone’s injuries, the latter eventually died in the next episode, (1.20) “Do No Harm”.

Other Castaways
Charlie Pace and Boone Carlyle were not the only survivors of Oceanic Flight 815 to whom Locke had volunteered his advice. In (1.14) “Special”, he tried to give parenting tips to Michael Dawson on how to handle the latter’s ten year-old son, Walt Lloyd. Being older than Charlie and Boone, and resentful of Locke’s growing relationship with Walt, Michael angrily rejected Locke’s advice. Ironically, I sympathized with Michael. God knows he barely knew anything about being a parent, considering Walt’s mother kept Michael away from the ten year-old. But Michael had never asked for Locke’s advice or sympathetic ear. And the older man did not help matters by attempting to teach Walt on how to throw a machete without Michael’s permission.

Locke’s relationship with spinal surgeon Jack Shephard is practically legendary among “LOST” fans. And yet, their relationship had begun on a harmless note when Locke informed Jack that most of the castaways regarded him as their leader. This was Locke’s way of convincing Jack to accept the mantle of leadership. In the end, Locke grew to regret the advice he had given for by Season Two, he ended up clashing with Jack over the leadership of the castaways. Which I did not found surprising, considering that both men shared a penchant for controlling others . . . in their own fashion. 

There have been other instances in which Locke inflicted his own will against the desires and choices of others . . . or manipulated others. In “The Moth”, he prevented Sayid from setting up a signal to help the castaways get rescued. He committed a similar act in Season Three’s (3.13) “The Man From Tallahassee”, when he blew up the submarine that the Others had provided for Jack’s departure from the island. In (3.19) “The Brig”, Locke manipulated James “Sawyer” Ford into murdering his own father, Anthony Cooper. It seemed that Cooper had conned Sawyer’s family of their money back in the 1970s – an act that drove Mr. Ford to commit the double act of murder/suicide. And in the Season Three finale, (3.24) “Through the Looking Glass II”, Locke murdered island newcomer Naomi Dorrit in cold blood to prevent her from signaling her companions from an offshore freighter.

For me, there is one scene that truly symbolized the conflicting and sometimes hypocritical nature of John Locke. In Season Two’s (2.11) “The Hunting Party”, Locke and Jack had discovered that Michael had left the camp in a desperate search to find Walt, who had been kidnapped by the Others in ”Exodus II”. And the two eventually clashed over how to react over Michael’s desperate flight:

LOCKE: Doesn’t seem to be — trail’s as straight as the interstate — the path of a man who knows where he’s going. [Locke stares at Jack a moment] Where are you going, Jack?
JACK: What?
LOCKE: Well, let’s say we catch up with him, Michael. What are you going to do?
JACK: I’m going to bring him back.
LOCKE: What if he doesn’t want to come back?
JACK: I’ll talk him into coming back.
LOCKE: This is the second time he’s gone after Walt. He knocked me out; he locked us both up. Something tells me he might be past listening to reason.
JACK: What? You think we should just let him go — write him off?
LOCKE: Who are we to tell anyone what they can or can’t do?

What exactly did Locke say to Jack? Oh yes . . . “Who are we to tell anyone what they can or can’t do?” I found the comment a very ironic one for John Locke to make, considering his past history with Charlie, Boone and Michael. Judging from the above dialogue, Locke seemed to be a fervent believer in free will and choices. Yet, he seemed incapable of practicing what he was preaching. Despite his belief in free will and free choices, I suspect that John Locke suffered from a malady that afflict many human beings – namely a desire to inflict one’s will or control over others. Power over another is a heady drug and many would bend over backwards or make any excuse to indulge in that desire. A very popular excuse, at least with Locke, seemed to be that he had acted for the greater good on behalf of his fellow castaways – regardless of whether they had asked for his help or not. From what I have seen of Locke’s character over the series’ six seasons, he reminded me of a certain type of character who has appeared in many forms of literature over years. This type happens to an individual who has exercised very little control over his/her life and who has spent most of his/her life being manipulated by others. This has certainly been true of Locke’s character in his relationships with his parents, employers, Other leader Benjamin Linus and other acquaintances. Especially Ben Linus and his father. This could explain why given the opportunity, Locke never hesitated to make decisions for others without their consent or manipulate them with a Draconian touch that seems rather sinister. 

The ironic thing is I have rarely come across any criticisms regarding Locke’s penchant for inflicting his will upon others. Many fans have complained about his willingness to be manipulated by others, especially his father Anthony Cooper and leader of the Others, Ben Linus. Some fans have complained about his obsession over the island and his long-running feud with Jack. But I do not recall coming across any complaints about his actions with Boone in ”Hearts and Mind”. And many have complimented him for the way he dealt with Charlie’s drug addiction in Season One. I wish I could share in this adulation, considering that Charlie did give up his heroin addiction. But I cannot. I believe that Locke – and possibly many fans – was more focused upon the endgame, instead of the journey. What I am trying to say is that Locke seemed so intent upon achieving a goal – whether it was to get Charlie to give up drugs or convince Boone in getting over Shannon – that he failed to realize that such goals required a great deal of work on their parts. I would have been more impressed if both Charlie and Boone had come to the realization that they needed to get over their desires and obsessions on . . . their . . . own, or made the decision to achieve these goals without being manipulated by Locke. But since Locke had decided to interfere in the lives of both men, he pretty much robbed them of their struggles.

After reading this article, one would believe that I dislike John Locke. I do not. Frankly, I consider him to be one of the most fascinating characters from “LOST”. Like many other fans, I bought into that image of him as this mysterious and all wise man who not only understood the island better than the characters, but also understood them and their situation better than them. What I had failed to realize back in Season One that underneath the persona of the all wise island guru, John Locke was an insecure man whose enthusiasm over being healed by the island led him to interfere and manipulate the lives of some of his fellow castaways. This enthusiasm not only led him to wallow in a delusion that he knew all there was to know about life, it also hid the fact that as an individual, Locke had a long path in achieving self-realization . . . a path that he finally concluded after death.