Reviews

Lost

Glenn McDonald

This is a story about human beings who were, in some way, lost well before they boarded their flight.


Lost

Airtime: Wednesdays, 9pm ET
Cast: Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Naveen Andrews, Henry Ian Cusick, Michael Emerson, Matthew Fox, Jorge Garcia, Josh Holloway, Daniel Dae Kim, Yunjin Kim, Evangeline Lilly, Elizabeth Mitchell, Dominic Monaghan, Terry O'Quinn, Harold Perrineau
MPAA rating: N/A
Network: ABC
US release date: 2006-10-04
Website
Trailer
Amazon

Hard to say, really, which moment packed the most punch. There was the kidnapping of a child by spooky sea hillbillies, or the unexpected detonation of a new character by dynamite. The landlocked slave ship. The anthropomorphic smoke demon. The crazy French chick stealing the baby. The heroin addict's apparent relapse. Or maybe it was the bio-mechanical island monster uprooting trees and dragging people underground. Tough call.

I'm talking, of course, about the season finale of ABC's paranormal castaway drama Lost. TV's most ambitious new show wrapped up its inaugural season with a stellar two-hour episode that hit on all cylinders. It sustained the season's delicate calibration of character study and action, as the 40-odd survivors of Oceanic Flight 815 have been dealing all season with seeming miracles and certain terrors. The headcount has varied, as the show is famously unafraid to kill off heroes in service of story. (Good creative policy, but you have to figure it makes the actors nervous.)

The finale had the castaways facing off against "The Others," an as-yet unseen island faction that may be responsible for all the weirdness. Lost trades heavily on misdirection and plot twists, so the face-off wasn't what -- or even where -- you expected. The much-hyped cliffhanger ending came in the terrifying penultimate scene, with the final moments offering more of a thematic resolution. In the last shot, the camera lingered on our three ostensible leads -- rational hero Jack (Matthew Fox), creepy mystic Locke (Terry O'Quinn), and mercenary babe Kate (Evangeline Lily) -- as they peer down the tunnel beneath the mysterious hatch. Who will lead? Tune in next fall.

Over the course of its first season, Lost proved much more than the sum of its parts. Plane crash? Desert island? Nascent society? Yes, we've heard this story before, in forms as diverse as Lord of the Flies and Gilligan's Island, but Lost switches up the rhythms. Its deft admixture of (seemingly) supernatural elements shifts the tonal palette into Twilight Zone territory, while the ongoing mythology mystery puts it in the bloodline of The X-Files and Twin Peaks, two shows to which it is often compared. A story this multifaceted needs a sturdy armature for narrative traction, and in that sense the mythic stranded-in-the-wild story has proven effective for a few thousand years now.

As with The X-Files and Twin Peaks, though, it's the central mystery thread that hooks: What the hell is going on?. Half the fun is trying to outguess the writers, and literally hundreds of theories are documented on various online fan sites. (The message boards at www.lost-tv.com are best.) I have a theory myself, an insanely complex and frankly brilliant hypothesis involving AI, temporal shifts, and nanobots. I am confident I shall be proved prescient in Season Two.

Beyond the plot twists, though, Lost features recognizable characters and emotional stakes. For a show so very pop (nearly pulp) in concept, it has shown an admirable willingness to tackle both big issues (faith vs. science; free will vs. fate) and delicate character arcs. Its liberal use of flashback sequences illuminates the latter while expanding plots past the boundaries of the island. The flashbacks indicate the multivalent nature of the show and its title: this is a story about human beings who were, in some way, lost well before they boarded their flight.

For example, Matthew Fox's character, Dr. Jack Shepard, has emerged as a moral axis. In the first few episodes, he seemed a standard-issue square-jawed hero -- a natural leader, conscientious and reliable, if a little humorless. Subsequent flashbacks revealed deeper (and darker) layers, each new revelation about his past then reflected in the present storyline. And the finale presented a still more complicated portrait -- a conflicted man of medicine trying to control events that will not be controlled.

Against the flashier dramas of Locke or the addict Charlie (Dominic Monaghan), Fox's contribution is easy to miss, but Jack's story is the core of Lost. To ease the burden of his perpetual seriousness, the series turns to peripheral characters for leavening. The Zen slacker Hurley (Jorge Garcia) shoulders most of the comic relief, but little gags occur regularly within developing conflicts. Hurley's flashback sequences -- expanded on in the finale -- provide some of Lost's funniest and most touching moments.

These quieter flourishes hint at Lost's true heart: The show presents as a sci-fi freakout (it's certainly marketed as such), but the creators have a much more fascinating and complex topic in mind -- people.

And there resides the unstated question, posed as a weirdly intimate kind of subtext. In this situation, you could start over completely -- reinvent yourself and your life. Some theories suggest the island is a kind of purgatory, a spiritual waystation, a place to begin again. None of the old rules apply, and there may be magic involved. Would you lead? Would you follow? Would you surrender to the island, like Locke, or attempt to manage it, like Jack?

Or maybe you'd just do the practical thing -- run like hell when the monster shows up. Lost can be enjoyed on any or all of these levels. Part sci-fi thriller, part melodrama, part existential mystery, Lost is a cross-genre mash-up with the creative heart of an adrenalin junkie. The thrills are not cheap -- they're earned -- and that's what finally makes the show worthwhile for the loyal viewers who consumed this first season in thirsty gulps.

So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less
6

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less
Theatre

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less
10

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less
7

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
8
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 Popmatters.com. All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.

rating-image