'Lost' Wednesdays: 'Catch a falling star and put it in your pocket'

I know that every "Lost" blogger in the world says this, but I absolutely have the best readers out there. You guys catch so much stuff that I miss, and the e-mails and comments you send me are always full of great food for thought. In fact, I daresay that we'll turn the second "Lost" Wednesday in a row over to your ideas, thoughts and theories. 

Or, rather, we'll do that after I link you to these two posts New York magazine's culture blog Vulture made today, collecting two great YouTube finds. The first (also embedded above) shows Michael Emerson -- shifty ol' Ben Linus himself -- playing what appears to be a warden in an early '90s prison training video. It's always weird to see these actors turn up in other context, and even though Emerson is playing a friendly prison warden, it's hard not to read everything he does as sinister, making the whole thing seem that much funnier than it actually is. I'm also pretty taken with this video tribute to Hurley set to Miley Cyrus' "Party in the USA." If you thought "Party in the USA" could never be used for good, I don't blame you, but the addition of Hurley somehow makes the whole thing palatable, and the footage from the show that's chosen is spot-on. Funny stuff, and video creator Sophie deserves a ton of credit.

If you haven't read it yet, Maria Elena Fernandez's interview with Hiroyuki Sanada is great, and the two get into some of the issues the show explored around Dogen in last night's episode. Here's hoping Sanada finds another role that lets him stick around a little longer and soon.

But let's move on to what you guys had to say. There was a lot to dissect in my inbox and in comments, but let's start with the e-mails I got.

Reader Susan Brettschneider wrote in taking rather an opposite point of view from me on the worth of the season. And while I, obviously, disagree with Susan, it's a point of view that's gaining a lot of steam on "Lost" discussion groups and in the mainstream. In fact, I heard a larger version of Susan's argument while listening to KROQ on my way to work this morning, so, clearly, there are people who have been thinking roughly the same.

Susan writes:

"I am to the point of not watching the rest of the season. I don’t really care anymore.  Fine they can pull strings, flashbacks, flash forwards, side swipes whatever.  These are just tricks.  The story would still be there if told without all these plot devices. If you have to show the hour before so that we understand your point and how this relates to season yada yada episode 2 do you think that maybe your storytelling is a little bit over the top?"

Again, I disagree, but I can see why people are growing impatient with the way that the story can seem to be stalling. Could the series probably wrap up with a one-hour episode where Jacob explains it all? Probably. But would that be dramatically satisfying? Probably not. I don't understand the complaint that we're not getting answers. I would say we're definitely getting some big answers this season, but they're of the sort where they're still raising almost as many questions as they're closing questions off. I'm along for the ride for the rest of the season, but I don't blame people if they're thinking about getting off the roller coaster, though I do think it would be a bit odd to hop off the train this close to the end.

Reader Michelle Tracy weighed in on my points about how there's not a hard and fast line between good and evil on the show:

"Remember when Keamy killed Ben's daughter and then Ben called the Smoke Monster? The Smoke Monster ended up killing Keamy and company. Why would he do that? Why would he help Ben and why wouldn't Jacob help? This distinction between good and evil is not black and white. ...  Sayid represents what good and evil really (are); he can love while still being an assassin."

I've been laboring under the assumption that when Ben thought he was following the orders of Jacob, he was actually following the orders of the Smoke Monster (who was trapped in the cabin), but if he was actually following orders from Jacob (possibly passed through Richard as a conduit), it makes Jacob FAR more morally ambiguous. But we'll get to that in a moment.

And Brian Holbrook makes a point so good I wish I'd thought of it in playing off my idea that the characters need to learn to opt out of the battle between Jacob and the Smoke Monster:

"I think the biggest clue was Rose and Bernard in last season’s finale.  They couldn’t care less about going on another adventure with Jack.  They just wanted to be together and happy.  I think all the 'castaways' need to learn what Rose and Bernard learned."

Yeah, I tend to agree. That scene with Rose and Bernard in last season's finale strikes me as a big, fat, honking clue about the ultimate direction this show is heading in. I think the characters are going to be forced to learn that maybe their biggest purpose is just to lead lives that make them happy. Thanks, Brian.

Now, on to your comments.

Gracie wonders if the whole alternate universe gambit signifies a way that the show could have Sawyer and Juliet still end up together, regardless of the fact that she's, y'know, dead. And, I have to admit, I have a friend who has a theory that the final time we see Sawyer will be in the alternate universe, where he's about to go have coffee with Juliet. I don't know if the show would be that sappy, but if any couple on this show has earned that sort of happy ending (other than Desmond and Penny and Jin and Sun), it's Sawyer and Juliet, I think. Overcoming death itself to save your love? That's good stuff.

Bill points out that the series is heading in a similar direction to "Babylon 5." Since that's one of the few sci-fi series I've never seen enough of to have an opinion on, I'll have to take his word for it, but his opinion seems pretty well thought out. I also like Matt Grommes' thoughts on how Jacob and the Man in Black may be two halves of the same person, split into personas that perfectly represent good or evil, free will or destiny, though I don't quite follow his leap to Jack and Locke ending up in the same dichotomy (at least, before Locke died). Maybe Jacob and the Man in Black are such base representations of certain philosophies because they're one person, trying to be reunited somehow. A fascinating theory.

Natalie offers a link to her review, which contains plenty of thoughts on the episode's biblical references, but she also points out that Sayid once claimed to have loved Shannon. Since I found that pairing fairly forced, I hope the show doesn't remember it as suddenly as Natalie forced me to.

This comment by Patrick Healey is so good that I don't really have anything to add to it:

"While I agree things aren't so black and white as Jacob is good, and MIB is evil...

"Anyone who goes in and commits slaughter like that is committing a very evil act. Pure and simple. So far we have not seen Jacob go anywhere near that extent. He has allowed others to die - but I doubt he wanted to. He may be thinking bigger picture here.

"I found your point about the deals that Jacob/MIBs make very intriguing - major food for thought there. Reshaped my view of the struggle in fact.

"So in the end, isn't Jacob then about sacrifice for what you care about, and MIB about do what you have to to get what you want? In which case this isn't about good/evil. It is more a philosophical approach on the human condition. Maybe Good/Evil aren't even relevant concepts anymore in a modern society. Maybe it comes down to Sacrifice and Selfishness."

That new duality is an interesting idea, and I hope the series examines it more.

But I like Laura's response to Patrick too:

"The Others were supposedly doing the work of Jacob, and they killed lots of people. The most obvious example was the Purge, where they killed all of the Dharma folks. They seem to have no problem killing someone. (When the Losties showed up at the temple, Dogen gave the order to kill them very casually, until he found out who they were.)"

As I argued last night, Jacob's not above seeing others die on his watch. He just doesn't typically want the blood directly on his hands. I side more with Laura's view of things, but I find Patrick's theory fascinating enough to keep it in mind.

And with that, I'll leave you until this weekend! Remember to keep those e-mails and Tweets coming.

--Todd VanDerWerff (follow me on Twitter at @tvoti)

Related articles:

'Lost': Hiroyuki Sanada reveals what he was thinking when Dogen kicked Sayid's butt

'Lost': Sayid loses himself in the dark

The 'Lost' weekend: 'Lost' takes the Paley Festival by storm

Comments

[Brian's Curse Band]

Perhaps all the people that have died on Jacobs watch were infected by darkness??? Including the DI? I too believe this is more about Sacrafice vs. selfishness. I believe the flash sideways maybe letting us know who ended up on the side of evil and good. (ex. Jack and his son working out their differences; where him and his father never had the chance- go white team) ~ (Sayid reverting to the kill 'em all urge; just as he did in the present island time- uh oh team black)... also I'm not so sure Claire isn't a double agent for team white. Think about it... who was she in Jacobs cabin with?

[Stephen]

A thought concerning context and Good v. Evil:

The way Lost has always revealed information to us is by giving us more context to work with. Now that Jacob and Smokey are getting more and more screen time, we are getting more context to surround their actions with. The more we learn, the more "human" these mythical beings become. I wouldn't be shocked to learn that Jacob and Smokey are more trapped on the Island than the Losties ever were. Here's where I'll refer you to this peice of Lostpedia goodness concerning a PC game that also takes place on a mysterious island: http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Myst and this Wikipedia article concerning the game's plot (spoilers): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myst#Plot

With all the talk of Back v. White and Good v. Evil, and the blurring of the lines between, perhaps we're loosing sight of another possibility. If we remove the Good v Evil frame, what we're left with in the battle between Jacob and Smokey seems to me to be two competing views on how to reach what might even be the same goal, and it would seem that this is a non-zero sum competition. To be sure, in most cases they have very different methods, and they seem to have different conditions that need to be met, but I think for both of them it's their ultimate goal to leave, or escape, the Island.

Perhaps Jacob wants to find someone to replace him as the Island's "protector" and he does this by spying on the losties and (presumably) many others for their whole lives and using what he learns to trap them on his Island hoping one of them will somehow figure out how to take his place (don't forget having people killed.) Perhaps Smokey has also been trapped by Jacob, and needs to find his own replacement. Perhaps he can only escape by tricking someone into taking his place (also, having people killed/killing people.)

In pursuit of whatever their goals are, they both seem to have caused, directly and indirectly, quite alot of pain, suffering and death. Who's to say Team Black and Team White aren't both bad/immoral picks? Personally I think Darlton are going with Team Grey FTW.

[joel]

One thing I really liked about the ending of this episode was how Sayid's part in the destruction of the Others mirrors Ben's part in the Purge of the Dharma Initiative. They both do this at the behest of another and they both seem to have ulterior motives for doing it (neither seems to be doing it out of some psychosis or need simply to kill, although Ben was getting vengeance on his Father). It's interesting to me because of the irony that Sayid tried to kill Ben as a young boy, only to have off-Island Ben use Sayid as his personal assassin, and because Sayid shot Ben he became an Other in the first place.

I'm not completely convinced Sayid is actually evil yet. The destruction of the Others is an act of evil, sure, but the Others aren't the good guys as far as I'm concerned. Sayid has a lot of reasons to feel no compassion at all for the Others, and by working with Locke he has an angle to play. Or he could simply be acting out of complete self-interest.

I guess my point is that the "infection" and whatever it actually does is the key here. Without knowing what being "infected" actually means, it's really impossible to say if we're even watching Sayid now or just some carbon copy of Sayid that is "infected" with dead Sayid's deepest desires and memory.

[Andre Richards]

"Remember when Keamy killed Ben's daughter and then Ben called the Smoke Monster? The Smoke Monster ended up killing Keamy and company. Why would he do that?"

Why are we all assuming the smoke monster we saw doing that is the same one that now masquerades as John Locke? Prior to the revelation of the "Man in Black," Lost sites commonly referred to the presence of 3 smoke monsters (you can clearly see three different smoke monsters in many of the shots of it prior to season 6--they seemed to travel together.) Now we've all forgotten that? Why? If there are three, that implies that this Man in Black isn't alone. I'm betting a big twist coming up will be the other "smoke monsters" and their roles in this battle between Jacob and Man in Black.

[nu]

This episode was so full of action and violence that for them to play Catch A Falling Star at the end was sooooooooo LOST. In complete contrast to the whole episode, they left us feeling as peaceful as a baby falling asleep! Whatsup with that!! STOP playing with my mind, LOST.