Sorry, but I won't be posting today after all. I've got a great excuse, though. An eight-pound, nine-ounce excuse, to be exact, because today I became a dad for the second time, one week earlier than expected.
Understandably, I'll be laying off the site for the next few days. But don't worry - I'll be back next week with some new ideas I've been dyin' to tell you about.
So take care, everyone. And if you've got any cigars, smoke one on my new daughter's behalf!
Real busy right now, but I'll be back with a new post on Thursday, June 19.
In a recent post, I suggested that Lost is not a depiction of the events that led to the US Invasion of Iraq, but rather a depiction of the decisions that led up to the US Invasion of Iraq. This, I then offered, would result in the Invasion of Iraq being portrayed not as a military invasion of a foreign territory, but as something more abstract.
Well, since then, I've had another massive revelation along those same lines. Here it is: The characters on Lost don't in fact portray real-world political figures, they portray those real-world political figures' THOUGHT PROCESSES.
So Jack, for example, doesn't portray President Bush, but he does portray the way that President Bush THINKS. He is a stand-in for how President Bush sees the world, what he believes, how he goes about solving problems, and so on. In other words, Jack doesn't personify Bush himself, but rather a Bush-like way of thinking. Similarly, Locke doesn't portray Colin Powell, but rather a Colin Powell-like way of thinking. Ben doesn't portray Neoconservatives, but rather a Neoconservative-like way of thinking. And so on.
On the surface, this distinction may seem like hair-splitting, but actually, it's pretty darn important. Because it means the show isn't about interactions between people, it's about interactions between people's ideas. And that means the physical settings of the show aren't meant to symbolize actual physical places in the real-world, but rather CONCEPTUAL places.
Now, let's use that idea to fix a few longstanding loose ends.
For ages now, I've been saying that the Island symbolizes "America." But that idea doesn't really work, does it? Because, if the Island is America, and Jack is President Bush, why would Jack be so desperate want to "get off the Island"? President Bush wasn't desperate to leave America, so why would Jack be desperate to leave the place that symbolizes America?
Now, with the help of our new idea, we can easily spot the error in my "the Island is America" idea. Jack doesn't represent President Bush, he represents President Bush's thinking. So the Island doesn't represent a physical space where we can find President Bush, it represents a conceptual space where we can find President Bush's thinking. Therefore, the Island isn't America, but rather a mental space in which we'd find ideas related to America.
Make sense? I think it just might, especially when we start applying the idea as follows...
The Plane
The Oceanic Plane symbolizes "America's image of itself." Just as the plane was comfortable, high-flying, surrounded by nothing but blue skies, and presumed to be safe, some Americans had an image of America as a place that was comfortable, high-flying, surrounded by "blue skies", and presumed to be safe. In other words, the characters on the plane symbolize characters whose THINKING was in line with this view of America.
The Crash
The Plane Crash symbolizes "America's image being brought down." The destruction of the plane symbolizes the destruction of the image of America as safe. Just as the characters can no longer occupy the physical space of the fuselage, the real-life figures they represent can no longer occupy the mental space in which America is seen as safe.
The Island
The Island symbolizes (something like) "the conceptual space in which America's beliefs are shaped." It symbolizes the mental environment in which the original ideas about America's system of government were created, in which these ideas are maintained, in which major shifts in American policy are fought over. In essence, the Island is the heated, sometimes volatile conceptual space in which America wrestles with itself over the values it should uphold, and the direction it should move in.
Approaching the Island
The Freighter's approach to the Island symbolizes "The thoughts of the outside world trying to affect the thoughts within America."
Invading the Island
The invasion of the Island by ruthless mercenaries symbolizes "Outside ideologies trying to change American policy by violent means."
Moving the Island
Moving the Island symbolizes "moving America to a new ideology, and a new position in the eyes of the world." Ben's desire to move the Island in order to save it symbolizes the Neoconservative belief that America had to shift its position on several fundamental issues in order to properly protect itself.
The Real World
The real world, the [place to which many of the survivors want to return, symbolizes (something like) "the conceptual space in which America's beliefs cannot be shaped." It symbolizes a mindset that pays little concern to issues of American history and governmental policy. It is a place where life goes on as usual, and where ideological issues are of little import. In short, Jack's desire to get everyone off the Island symbolizes President Bush's belief that he needed to get the American people back to a mental space in which they could forget about intense political concerns, and return to thinking about comfortable, everyday issues.
***
Hopefully, the above made sense (it's a tricky concept, one that I haven't quite learned to translate into words yet). There are, of course, lots of other environments on the show that we could discuss (like Australia, the Middle East, and so on), and we'll get to all those, as time goes on.
As usual, feel free to support or criticise my ideas, using the comments section below. I'll be back in a day or two with loads more - if my head doesn't explode first, that is.
I've had to spend a lot of time thinking and researching this weekend - in part because of the readers' insightful comments after the last post. Unfortunately, that's messed up my plan of having a post written for today.
I'll be back tomorrow, however, when I'll introduce some revamped and greatly improved ideas about what the flight, the crash, the Island, and the outside-world might represent. Plus, I'll be discussing how Lost is flipping-the-script in its portrayal of the War on Terror, and what the Wizard of Oz has to do with it all.
Later in the week, once I've got these findamental ideas ironed out, we'll get back to talking about specific events from the finale.
As promised, even though Lost’s done for another year, I’ll be talking about the Season Four finale for the next several weeks. On Monday, I’ll be putting up a long post about Locke, Jack, Sun, DHARMA, and a whole lot more. Today’s post won’t be anywhere near as long at that one, but I think in many ways it’s much more important.
For over two years now, I’ve been using this blog to forward the idea that Lost is an intentional recreation of events in post-9/11 American politics. And for most of that time, events on the show have borne out that idea, recreating many of the things we’d expect to see in an examination of post-9/11 America (for a list of some of those events, visit here).
And yet, in spite of all that evidence in favour of our theory, one thing keeps failing to appear on the show: A portrayal of the actual Invasion of Iraq. We’ve seen lots of on-Island scenes about the decision-making and political wrangling that came before the invasion, and lots of off-Island flashforwards depicting the way American political figures felt after the invasion, but we’ve not seen anything resembling the invasion itself.
This has caused me more than a little concern. If our ideas are right, shouldn’t we have seen some scenes where the Island’s leaders, like the Bush Cabinet, identify a foreign territory as a threat, mobilize an army, and prepare to mount a regime-changing invasion? Shouldn’t Jack - our President Bush stand-in - have become fixated on some Saddam-like character, and some Iraq-like other island, before he left? Shouldn’t Locke – our Colin Powell stand-in – have unwittingly made a public presentation based on false evidence, not just wandered about a greenhouse looking for an elevator? And shouldn’t the climax of Season Four have seen the Islanders preparing for war, not simply having their island “moved”?
So, in light of the above, I’ve given the theory a big rethink. And to my surprise, I’ve ended up at this somewhat shocking conclusion: Lost, it seems, ISN'T actually about the US invasion of Iraq.
It is, however, about something very similar, but slightly more abstract.
Lost isn’t about the US invasion of Iraq – it’s about the US’s DECISION to invade Iraq.
In other words, it’s about what took place prior to the decision, what motivated the various parties involved in making the decision, how that decision did or didn’t fit with America’s founding values, how the decision affected the way the American system operated, how that decision impacted America’s position in the world, how the decision-makers reacted after the outcomes of their decision failed to live up to expectations.
In short, Lost isn't exploring the war itself, it's discussing the decisions that created it.
Viewed in that way, some of the aforementioned loose ends make a bit more sense. If Lost is about war, then yes, Jack should declare war on another island’s tyrannical leader, just as President Bush declared war on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. But Lost isn’t about war, it’s about DECISIONS. So, rather than have Jack’s story be about a man declaring war, it’s about a man focused on proving his worth, competing with his father, fulfilling his promises, “staying the course”, protecting his people, and the like, because those are (reportedly) the kinds of issues that influenced President Bush’s decision-making prior to the war.
Similarly, if Lost is about war, then yes, Locke should make a speech to a UN-like body about the possible need for a pre-emptive strike on a belligerent foe. But Lost isn’t about war, it’s about decisions. So instead of Locke’s story being about a man who is duped into making the case for war, it’s about a man who wants to lead but is too easily led, who urges caution but then fails to be cautious himself, who forgets to maintain the “values” and “systems” he had once vowed to uphold, and the like, because those are (reportedly) some of the issues that influenced Colin Powell’s decision-making prior to the war.
Viewed in that context, the war ends up taking on different meanings for different characters, and is depicted as such. That’s why Season Four doesn’t end with the Islanders watching the troops depart for Iraq-Island, but with each character facing the results of their decisions from their own perspective.
Jack’s decisions were related to the fulfilment of his promise to protect, so that’s how Lost shows his perspective on the start of the war – like President Bush, Jack ends Season Four believing he's succeeded in keeping everyone safe, when really things are about to take a turn for the worse. He’s not depicted waging war, because Bush’s decisions weren’t really about waging war – they were about him fulfilling a promise to protect his people.
Similarly, Locke’s decisions were related to his struggles with providing leadership, so that’s how Lost shows his position at the start of the war – like Colin Powell, Locke ends Season Four thinking that he’s provided good leadership, when in fact things are about to turn sour. He’s shown doing what he thinks is required to protect the miraculous Island, not trying to advocate for war, because Colin Powell’s decisions weren’t really about war at all – they were about him doing what he thought was needed to protect his beloved America.
That’s why the outcome for the Island is not that it sends troops off for a foreign war, but that it "moves" in a way that is potentially “dangerous and unpredictable”. If you set matters of war aside and just look at the Iraq War in terms of decisions and outcomes, the decision to go to Iraq did indeed “move” America. It moved America away from its previous reluctance to strike pre-emptively, away from certain Constitutional values, and away from its previous position in the eyes of the outside world. So when the Island “moves”, it’s less about the Iraq War and more about the political and philosophical consequences of America's decision to wage it.
In conclusion, contrary to what I once thought, it's highly unlikely that Lost will depict the Iraq War as an actual war. What it will show are characters grappling with outcomes that resemble the dilemmas American political figures faced after the decision to go to war.
But if that's the case, does that mean that Lost is going talk about the war in high-minded philosophical and psychological terms, and leave the painful, flesh-and-blood realities of war unaddressed? Is Lost going to sit in an ivory tower and discuss war only as something sanitized, abstract, and academic?
Not at all. Because even though the Iraq War most likely won't be depicted as an actual war between the castaways and some other island's inhabitants, Lost is nevertheless making sure that the unpleasant realities of war are on display. For the past four seasons, Lost has been showing us lots of scenes from War on Terror - scenes of torture, rendition, imprisonment at the Guantanamo Bay facility, suicide bombers, military invasions by technologically-advanced forces, and the like. It's just not been doing in in the way we’d expect. Instead of showing these scenes from the perspective of America, Lost is showing them from the perspective of the people with whom America is at war...
And I’ll be getting into the full explanation for that, and more, in the next post.
Hope that all made sense - take care!
Remember a few weeks ago, when I talked about an episode of "Lil Bush" that compared the Bush Administration to Lost? Well, it seems that - on a subconscious level, at least - the Lost=Politics idea is starting to catch-on in the media. Why, in just the last twelve hours alone, I've seen two separate commentaries directly comparing the ongoing 2008 Election Campaigns to the plot of Lost.
Here's the more serious one, from Time magazine (click here).
And here's the chuckle-inducing one, from The Daily Show.
They're getting there, slowly but surely!
(By the way, don't forget to take a gander at my first post about the finale - according to at least one reader, I didn't do half bad...)
(By the way again, if you want a super-simplified overview of how seasons one through four have paralleled US politics, click here.)
I've a confession to make. Ever since Season Four started, I've been harbouring a secret yearning, one tantamount to blasphemy in Lost circles. I didn't feel I could mention it before, but now that the season's done, I feel safe to let it out. Okay, here it is:
From the very first moment of the very first episode of Season Four, I have been desperately eager for the season to end.
Whew - that feels better! What a load off! Now, before tomatoes get thrown, here's the explanation.
As regular readers know, I don't watch Lost as a show about plane-crash survivors stranded on a desert Island, I watch it as a coded recreation of the American political landscape after 9/11. (Why? Because I think that's the way the show's creators really want it to watched.)
In one sense, it's great watching the show this way, because I get to feel like I'm in on a big secret, like I've got inside information on the hidden agenda of uber-clever showrunners J.J. Abrams, Carlton Cuse, and Damon Lindelof. In short, I get to feel like I'm Mr. Smarty-Pants.
In another sense, however, watching the show this way is no fun at all. That's because, when I don't have enough information to do a proper political analysis, watching Lost as a straightforward drama makes me go bonkers. I can't set aside the need to analyze, to know what the show might really be saying, so I sit there with my brain whirring like a blender with nothing in it. New characters and plotlines make me particularly crazy, because they leave me with a burning but frustratingly unresolved need to know who and what they all symbolize. In short, new characters and plotlines make me feel less like Mr. Smarty-Pants and more like Mr. Angry-Pants.
But I don't fall into complete depair, because, in the midst of all that intellectual frustration, I always know that relief is coming. You see, four years of Lost has taught me an important lesson: once a season ends, the season's main theme gets wrapped-up, and when the season's theme gets wrapped-up, it's a heck of a lot easier to see what the season's political subtext was all about. A season finale is, in my view, like the last page of a code-breaking manual: once I've seen it, I can rush back to the start and get cracking on deciphering the stuff that came before. That's why, even though most people are thrilled at the start of a new season and saddened when it ends, I'm saddened at the start of a season and thrilled when it ends. Because the end of a season is, for me, the end of the headaches and the start of potential brainstorms.
Now that Season Four is over, I'm already beginning to have a few of those lovely little brainstorms. I think I'm starting to get a clearer sense of what the season might really have been about, and where our allegorical reading of Lost might be heading. So today, I'd like to discuss what some of the big themes of Season Four and the Season Four finale might have been. In upcoming posts (and there'll be a lot of those over the next few weeks), I'll focus on more and more of the finale's smaller (but nonetheless crucial) details.
SEASON FOUR'S BIG THEME
Before we try to figure out the big theme of the fourth season, let's recap the probable theme of each the previous three:
Season One was about the castaways initial response to the post-crash environment, symbolizing "America's initial response to the post-9/11 political environment."
Season Two was largely about the debate over whether or not to keep entering the numerical values of the DHARMA Experiment, symbolizing "The Bush Administration's debate over whether or not to maintain the 'values' of the American Experiment established by the Founding Fathers."
Season Three was about the growing influence of another faction on the Island, a faction comfortable in a hostile landscape and eager to advance its agenda, symbolizing "The rise of an influential faction within the Bush Administration (which included Vice President Cheney and Neoconservatives), that was comfortable with a hostile political landscape and eager to advance its agenda."
So what might have been the big theme of Season Four? Well, this season was largely about the Islanders' interactions with visitors from the Freighter, and the Island's unique position in time and space. So the theme for Season Four might well have been "America's interactions with the international community, and America's unusual position in the world."
Personally, I think that idea works pretty well - it seems to fit with events on the show, and with things we'd expect to see from any political allegory about post-9/11 America. Now, if you can accept that idea as a jumping-off point, let's seeing if we can do a little code-breaking on a few of the new characters and plotlines introduced in Season Four...
C.S. LEWIS AND DANIEL FARADAY
Newly-arrived visitors C.S. Lewis and Daniel Faraday have something in common: they both try to influence the castaways through peaceful, diplomatic means. Even though they each have their own personal agenda, they're willing to work with the Islanders when faced with a mutual threat. I'd venture that these two outsiders represent "nations that had good diplomatic relations with the US after 9/11" - nations that tried to influence US policy not through threats and violence, but through discussion and debate.
Lewis might well represent "The United Kingdom," given her British accent, her apparent history with the Island (reflecting Britain's long history with America), her literary namesake (C.S. Lewis, a writer who abandoned atheism and became a devout believer, just as the British Leadership became a believer in the War on Terror), and her decision to remain on the Island as it is faced with a crisis (just as Britain joined America's "Coalition of the Willing").
Faraday, on the other hand, might represent "France", as he wants to help the Islanders but isn't comfortable remaining on the island (just as France tried to help the US but did not feel comfortable with the US's post-9/11 worldview), he believes that his "constant" is Desmond (who symbolizes "Skepticism", a possible reference to France's "constant skepticism" of the US's actions in the run-up to the war), and he is very familiar with the Island's special properties (just as France is very familiar with the special properties of the US political system, as France's Constitution was modelled after America's). Plus, I'm pretty sure that Lewis used the French pronunciation of Daniel - "Dan-yell" - when she said farewell to him in the finale.
Hmm, Charlotte S. Lewis as "The United Kingdom," Daniel Faraday as "France" - not a bad start to our deciphering, I reckon.
KEAMY AND COMPANY
On the other side of the equation, we have visitors who have no time for talk, and who use violence to achieve their aims. I'm referring, of course, to Keamy and his band of mercenaries, who are willing to use any means necessary to fulfill their mission of "extracting" Ben.
It seems to me that Keamy and his men might symbolize non-American groups seeking to influence American policies through violent, non-diplomatic means. As Keamy and his men are specifically trying to take Ben out of the picture, they probably represent non-American groups seeking to end the kind of aggressive interventionist policies espoused by Ben's real-world counterparts, the Neoconservatives. (I'm tempted to say Keamy and his men symbolize groups like Hamas and Hizbullah, with their employer Widmore symbolizing Iran, but that theory's way too undercooked to put any confidence in just yet.)
That means that, when Keamy and his men battle against the Islanders over Ben, what we are probably seeing is an ideological battle over American foreign policy: the American characters (the Islanders) are defending their interventionist policies against hostile outsiders (Keamy and his men) who want to end them. What's interesting about this battle is that several castaways who previously detested Ben (such as Kate and Sayid) suddenly agree to defend Ben against the invaders. This is probably meant to show the natural reaction that most groups have when attacked by outsiders - they temporarily set aside their internal differences to fight against their common enemy, the invaders. So, when Kate and Sayid link up with Alpert to defend Ben, it's in part because the presence of outside invaders temporarily makes the Islanders feel they are on the same team, just as Americans felt united against the threats being made against America by hostile outside groups. Unfortunately, that very same threat-induced unity ended up rescuing the Neoconservatives from obscurity and greatly increasing their influence over America's foreign policy positions, just as the threat from Keamy leads to the castaways rescuing their former nemesis, Ben, allowing him to single-handedly change the position of the Island.
As a side note, observe how, in the finale's battle scene, Keamy and his men are portrayed as heavily-armed, military-trained, American-style mercenaries, while Alpert's camp are portrayed as improvisational, guerrilla-style insurgents. Why would Lost do that? Why would Lost portray the characters symbolizing "non-Americans" as American mercenaries, and the characters symbolizing "Americans" as Iraqi-style insurgents?
I have a feeling Lost's up to one of its old tricks here, putting the proverbial shoe-on-the-other-foot. Throughout the battle, we root for Alpert's scrappy bunch, because we have been put in their shoes. Like the Islanders, we see Keamy and his men as aggressive invaders, coming from overseas to impose their will on our people, the castaways. It's natural that we would sympathize with the Islanders, as they're the ones having their homeland invaded and interfered with. We support their armed resistance because, after all, who would want to have their home invaded by outsiders? Frankly, it's human nature to dislike being invaded.
And yet, this basic fact of human nature was apparently lost on those selling the idea of the Invasion of Iraq. They portrayed the invasion as something that the invaded population was eagerly awaiting. It was an event that the Iraqi people would willingly accept, even welcome. But heavily-armed invaders of any sort are rarely welcomed by an invaded land's inhabitants, and Lost seems to be using Keamy to demonstrate the unrealistic nature of the Bush Administration's pre-war claims. By putting us in the shoes of an invaded party, Lost gives us a brief glimpse into the way the American "invaders" might have been perceived by the occupants of Iraq, and helps us understand the flaws in the overly-optimistic view that heavy-armed American troops would be welcomed with flowers on their arrival in Baghdad.
(We'll be talking more about Keamy later in the week, by the way, when we get to the topic of Locke.)
FRANK LAPIDUS
I'm still a bit stuck on Frank's symbolism, but one thing keeps jumping out at me: he was the plane's original pilot. As the plane seems to symbolize "America's image of itself prior to 9/11", that would suggest that, unlike the rest of the Freighter Folk, Lapidus symbolizes something American. That's reinforced for me by his Wild West facial hair and American-tourist-style outfits (sorry, American tourists, but it's true). I'm toying with the idea of him symbolizing something like "how other nations see America", or something to do with previous views of America, but I'm still working on that one.
MILES
Don't ask me about Miles - I don't have a clue. On that same note, don't ask me about Penny, either.
TRYING TO KEEP THINGS COOL
Keeping the bomb cool is a great plot device, but it also gives us a neat bit of symbolism, one related to our big theme of America's interactions with the outside world. The effort to cool-down the complex, volatile bomb resembles efforts made to cool-off the escalation prior to the decision to invade Iraq. And the fact that the detonator is on the Island, far from the site of the eventual explosion, nicely depicts how political events within the US can impact nations far, far away. Having Michael, Jin, and Desmond work in vain to prevent the explosion is a clever portrayal of Liberals, Unaligned Foreigners, and Skeptics struggling in vain to stop the coming conflagration. And just as they cannot not keep the battery cold forever, their real-world counterparts couldn't stop America from moving away from "cold war" and into "hot war." The eventual explosion, caused in part by Ben's desire to punish his enemies regardless of the harm caused to the Freighter, resembles the explosive results of the Neoconservatives' plans - plans which focussed mainly on punishing America's enemies and paid little heed to the harm that might be caused to America's relationship with the international community.
THE HOT WAR IN IRAQ BEGINS
This idea of America moving from a "cold war" to a "hot war" reappears when Ben enters the secret cave beneath the Orchid. There, it's so cold that he must wear a parka. But as we know from an earlier episode, immediately after he moves the Island, Ben is suddenly transported to the middle of a baking-hot desert, where he quickly becomes engaged in combat with Taliban-type Middle-Easterners. When he changes the position of the Island, Ben has essentially done what the Neoconservatives did when they successfully changed America's position on issues like the use of pre-emptive war - he has moved himself from a "cold" position to a "hot" one, and is now free to start using force to influence events in the deserts of the Middle East.
In short, when Ben moves the Island and is subsequently transported to the Middle East, that's probably the moment at which Lost's version of the Iraq War begins.
GOING BACK TO THE HOT ZONE, IN FULL NUMBERS
The finale's flashforwards are highly revealing, and not just for that final shot of the deceased Locke (which we'll talk about a lot in an upcoming post). The flashforwards inform us that, in the several years since the Oceanic Six escaped, things have gone very badly for the castaways left behind. Apparently, the very things that were meant to keep them safe - lying about what had happened and drastically changing the Island's position - have ended up causing more harm than good.
So, if the real-time ending of the show seems to be about the onset of the Iraq War and a shift in America's position in the world, what might the flashforwarded ending be about?
I have an idea, and I think it might be a pretty good one. Think back to these moments from the finale's flashforwards:
I don't know about you, but that all sounds pretty familiar. If I modify the above three statements just slightly, you should see what I mean:
Bush/Jack seeking to fix his mistakes? Neoconservatives/Ben forming a new plan that involves returning to a conflict zone in large numbers? Americans/castaways back from hostile territory unexpectedly being ordered to return? Yes, dear readers, it's true - the flashforwards in the Season Four finale are probably meant to portray the prelude to the 2007 TROOP SURGE.
CALLING IT IN ADVANCE
And now, a bold move - I'm going to call Season Five's themes, one full season in advance. Season Five will be about... the Iraq Invasion and the chaos that followed, the 2007 Troop Surge, and the realities of America's changed "position in the world."
***
That's it for this post, which, to be honest, was really more a bunch of opening thoughts than a detailed analysis. There are, of course, still about, oh, ten-million more things to say about the finale, and I'll be getting to all that over the next few days. So keep checking in regularly, folks, because now the season has ended, I'm just getting started!
Take care, everyone. I'll be back in a day or two with loads more stuff on the finale.
Hey, folks. I'm a bit delayed this week, what with just getting back on the Island on Saturday. I'll have the first finale-related post ready for you tomorrow, but in the meantime, here's an interesting tidbit about Michael from TVGuide.com. It seems the character is officially dead... and the actor's none too happy about it, to say the least.
Take care, and I'll be back in full force tomorrow.
As usual, I'll post a proper analysis on Monday, after I've had time to digest this week's episode for all its political references. Having said that, what an episode it was! Action! Romance! Drama! Wonder! Suspense! And an ending that beautifully brought one chapter to a satisfying close while leaving us in eager anticipation of the next. Frankly, it'd be safe to say that the three-part finale of "There's No Place Like Home" was Lost's best multi-episode arc yet. Executive Producers Cuse and Lindelof, it's now time to take your rightful place under a giant banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished!" (Er, on second thoughts, given the political symbolism of that phrase, maybe not.)
Like I said, I'll be back after the weekend with some political commentary on the finale. Of course, one of the things I'll be discussing is that final shot of Locke in the coffin, which seemed to confirm everything we've suspected about him all along: He symbolizes Colin Powell, who entered the Bush Administration full of hero-potential, but resigned as a tragic example of potential unfulfilled. But there will be lots more to discuss, too, as reader "Greg" astutely pointed out:
Greg's got the ball rolling nicely, there, I reckon. Well-said. (But how is it that you readers can always sum up in a few short sentences what I can only say in an endless series of convoluted paragraphs? How do you do it? I'm even rambling while complaining about my rambling!)
Before I get down to reading my copious notes on the finale, one quick observation for you all. I'm in the US this week, so I figured I'd grab a few books while I was up here, as our bookstores in Bermuda are pretty tiny. But after my trip to Barnes & Noble, I'm a little concerned for America, frankly. Because when I asked where I could find a copy of the US Constitution, the saleslady informed me that I would have to look into the bargain bin. And there they were - all of their copies of the US Constitution, in the bargain section, going cheap. Um, should I be worrying a bit, folks? America still uses its Constitution, doesn't it?
And on that note, I'll see you on Monday with some political analysis of the thrilling, romantic, shocking, utterly-satisfying Season Four Finale, "There's No Place Like Home, Parts Two and Three." In the meantime, feel free to chat in the comments section below, and to peruse my super-quick (but hopefully super-useful) overview of Seasons One to Four.
Take care!
It's the last episode of Season Four tonight, and if it's anything like the previous episode, it promises to be a good one.
Just to help us get our bearings, here's a special treat for all of you: a super-simplified recap of what I think we've seen so far, over the last four seasons. Like I said, it's an extremely pared down description of events (for the sake of clarity, I've left out the flashbacks, flashforwards, tricky concepts, and some of the deceased characters), but it should prove useful, I think.
So, without further ado, here it is:
SEASON ONE OVERVIEW
American planes are attacked on 9/11
- The plane crashes on 9/22
President Bush tries to lead the nation, but is haunted by his father's legacy
- Jack tries to lead the survivors, but keeps seeing visions of his father
Liberals, back in charge of their party after being sidelined for eight years, provide shaky leadership to the Democrats
- Michael, back in charge of son after being sidelined for eight years, provides shaky parenting to Walt
Republicans, receiving behind-the-scenes guidance from power brokers like Vice-President Cheney, find ways to benefit from the new political environment
- Sawyer, receiving behind-the-scenes guidance from Alpert [trust me on this one!], finds ways to profit from the crash
Colin Powell, previously sidelined and deskbound as Secretary of State, returns to his full stature after the attacks
- Locke, previously paralyzed and wheelchair-bound, can walk again after the crash
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice has new life breathed into her by President Bush
- Rose is given the breath-of-life by Jack
The Rule of Law, put on hold during the crisis, is suspended indefinitely
- The US Marshall, badly injured during the crash, is euthanized
Congress (and other government bodies) are no longer bound by the strict rules that existed prior to the attacks
- Kate is no longer handcuffed or under threat of prosecution, now that the US Marshall is dead
The CIA finds a connection between the attacks and Radical Islamists' ongoing call for jihad, which they began issuing in April 1988, after they defeated the Soviet "infidel" in Afghanistan
- Sayid, after the crash, discovers Danielle's call for help, which began transmitting in April 1988, after she killed her "infected" comrades
President Bush professes to be a "uniter, not a divider," but his style of governance polarizes America into two opposing camps
- Jack announces that they must "live together, or die alone," but his leadership style ends up dividing the castaways into two camps: one at the beach, the other at the caves
The Department of Homeland Security, by way of the Patriot Act, collects personal data on American citizens, in an effort to root out terrorists hiding in the community
- Hurley, who is accused of creating his own "Patriot Act", uses the flight manifest to collect data on the survivors, and in the process discovers an imposter hiding in the community
A "Shadow Government," led by Neoconservatives and Vice-President Cheney, tries to win over Christian Conservatives and gain control of America's future
- Another camp on the Island, led by Ben Linus and Richard Alpert, tries to abduct Claire and take possession of her child
The "Shadow Government" almost ends the debate over "how war might affect the troops"
- The other camp almost kills Charlie
Many Moderate Muslims offer sympathy and support for America after the attacks
- Danielle's estranged daughter Alex offers sympathy and support to the castaways after the crash (such as when she helps Claire escape)
President Bush gives permission for the CIA to use torture
- Jack gives permission for Sayid to use torture
Colin Powell tries to bring attention to the original values of the "American Experiment", which had been created by America's "Founding Fathers"
- Locke unearths the buried station, drawing attention to the numerical "values" used in the experiments devised by the DHARMA Initiative
Radical Islamists accuse America of having a history of oppressive behaviour
- Danielle leads the castaways to the hidden ship, which was once used in the slave trade
Michael Moore warns of changing political winds, but is seen by some as advocating for surrender; after lecturing the government about the proper use of power, he self-destructs
- Dr. Arzt warns that the wind is changing, and uses a white flag to demonstrate his point; after lecturing the castaway leaders on the proper handling of dynamite, he accidentally blows himself up
The Republican Party, under the guidance of people like Vice President Cheney, uses its "levers of power" to out-manoeuver the Democratic Party and its Liberal leaders
- Sawyer, under the guidance of Alpert, deliberately fails to pull his lever during the moving of the raft, causing the mast to break; this delays the launch and manoeuvers Walt and Michael into position for the other camp's boat to catch up with them [trust me on this one, too!]
The "Shadow Government" manoeuvers the Democratic Party out of the picture
- The second camp abducts Walt and removes him from the picture
SEASON TWO OVERVIEW
After the attacks, Skepticism of one's own government - the main driver of the American system of governance - largely disappears
- After the crash, Desmond - who has been maintaining the computer system - disappears into the jungle
Colin Powell feels they must maintain the American Experiment's original values; President Bush, on the other hand, isn't convinced those values still apply
- Locke decides to keep inputting the DHARMA Experiment's numerical "values"; Jack, on the other hand, isn't convinced that the values have any actual purpose
Debates about "the appropriate use of force", "whether good-guys should do bad things", and "whether enough questions have been asked", come to the fore
- Ana-Lucia, Eko, and Libby arrive
America establishes a system of secret prisons, overseen by the CIA but concealed from Congress
- The castaways set up a secret prison in the Swan, overseen by Sayid but concealed from Kate
Neoconservatives manage to become part of the Bush Administration, but they feel that the system established by the Founding Fathers is too confining and tortuous
- Ben is brought inside the station, but is placed in confinement and tortured
Liberals, desperate to prove they are worthy of leading the Democratic Party, unwittingly open themselves up to being manipulated by their opponents
- Michael, desperate to prove himself worthy of being Walt's father, unwittingly opens himself up to being manipulated by the other camp
The "Shadow Government" uses deception to forward its agenda
- The other camp uses disguises and faked computer messages to forward its agenda
The Department of Homeland Security worries over threats that may or may not be real, and uses a system of colours - green, blue, yellow, orange, and red - to show the current threat level
- Hurley's anxiety disorder causes him to start hallucinating; after wearing only green or blue shirts for one-and-a-half seasons, he suddenly takes to wearing wear yellow, orange, and red shirts (in that order)
The Free Press, which was intended to independently monitor and report on the activities of members of government, barely does so anymore
- The Pearl Station (named after the reporter Daniel Pearl), was originally used to observe and write reports on the activities of the people in the Swan Station, but it has now been abandoned
Liberals, in their quest to be seen as tough and decisive leaders, bring about the premature end of debates about "the appropriate use of force" and "whether or not enough questions have been asked", thereby benefitting the Neoconservatives
- Michael, in his quest to prove himself a strong and capable father, kills Ana-Lucia and Libby, then frees Ben
Neoconservatives try to bring President Bush, Congress, and the Republican Party over to their political camp
- Ben captures Jack, Kate, and Sawyer to take them to his camp
Liberals end up getting themselves and the Democratic Party "swift-boated" out of the picture
- Michael gets himself and Walt sent off on a small boat, taking them both out of the picture
Colin Powell starts to doubt if he should keep maintaining America's original values
- Locke doubts if he should keep maintaining the DHARMA Initiative's numerical "values"
Skepticism returns, but instead of being directed at the Government (as the Founding Fathers had intended), it gets directed at America's original system of values
- Desmond comes back, but instead of maintaining the system, he now insists that the numerical "values" have no purpose
The original values of the Founding Fathers stop being upheld, and the original "American Experiment" is undermined
- The numerical "values" of the DHARMA Initiative stop being inputted, and the station implodes
SEASON THREE OVERVIEW
The Bush Adminsitration sets up an outdoor prison at the Guantanamo Bay Military Base, which is on the island of Cuba, not far from the American mainland
- An outdoor prison has been set-up on a smaller, Alcatraz-like island not far from the main island
President Bush at first has more faith in Conservatism than in Neoconservatism
- As a prisoner of the other camp, Jack trusts Juliet more than he trusts Ben
Neoconservatives believe that military interventions can be used to make other nations fertile for democracy; Conservatives "Realists" think it is dangerous to use military interventions for such ends
- Ben believes that medical "interventions" can be used can be used to make unhealthy wombs fertile; Juliet thinks it's too dangerous to use medical interventions for that purpose
Conservatives hate that Neoconservatism has taken over their movement
- Juliet hates that Ben is keeping her prisoner on the Island
Instead of providing a check to the Executive Branch's power, Congress starts to willingly limit its own power
- Instead of escaping from the other camp, Kate handcuffs herself on Ben's orders, and later willingly returns to a cell from which she had already escaped
The Republicans gain control of Congress in the 2002 mid-term elections
- Sawyer wins Kate's heart
Congress and the Republican Party are not initially won over by the Neoconservatives; President Bush, however, shows he is sometimes willing to "play ball" with them
- Sawyer and Kate escape from Ben's camp ; when they return, they see Jack playing football with Ben's people
The "Shadow Government" is protected by the so-called "Right-Wing Noise Machine"
- Ben's camp is protected by a sonic fence
Debate over "whether good-guys should do bad things" comes to an end, as a result of the fear of terrorist threats
- Eko meets his end during an encounter with the fearsome "Monster"
Skeptics of the rush to war keep alive the debate over "how war might affect the troops"
- Desmond repeatedly ensures that Charlie stays alive
Terrorists stage a surprise attack on the USS Cole while it is in port [NOTE: This event shown out of historical sequence, as technically it should have preceded the crash]
- Sun shoots a surprised Cole (i.e. Colleen) while on a boat that is in port
The International Community tries to step in
- The multilingual Naomi, who is from a ship offshore, arrives on the Island
Neoconservatives try to show Colin Powell the importance of protecting Israel, whose very existence is under threat
- Ben introduces Locke to Jacob (who, in the Bible, later changes his name to "Israel), but it is unclear whether Jacob actually exists or not
Debate over "what war might do to the troops" comes to an end, in part because of the influence of Right-Wing Commentators
- Charlie meets his end, in part because of Mikhail (who controlled radio and television equipment at his hatch, and wore an eye-patch like the one that Right-Wing Commentator Ann Coulter once did)
Colin Powell, once a proponent of mulitlateralism, suddenly becomes less inclined to work with the International Community
- Locke, once eager to negotiate with others, suddenly stabs Naomi in the back
Neoconservatives start to convince America that they are under the threat of mass destruction
- Ben gets the castaways to wonder if the Freighter Folk have come to kill them all
SEASON FOUR OVERVIEW (NOT INCLUDING THE FINALE)
Some members of the International Community try to get America to turn away from Neoconservative views, but they are regarded with suspicion
- More people from the Freighter (Daniel, Charlotte, and Miles) arrive on the Island, ostensibly to "extract" Ben, but the castaways aren't sure if they can be trusted
Colin Powell becomes an outcast within the Bush Adminstration
- Locke becomes an outcast, and Jack tries to shoot him
Powell thinks he's charting his own course, when really he's being manipulated by the Neoconservatives and Vice-President Cheney
- Locke thinks he's making his own decisions, when really he's being conned by Ben and Alpert
America's ideal of being a place that can "defy history" becomes a subject of debate
- The Island appears to be able to "defy time", yet events that have been foreseen and averted keep finding ways of making themselves happen eventually
President Bush becomes increasingly inflexible and determined to prove his leadership
- Jack becomes increasingly inflexible and determined to fulfill his promise to save the castaways
The Republican Party becomes increasingly protective of Christian Conservatives
- Sawyer becomes increasingly protective of Claire
The threat from Radical Islamist groups (like Al-Qaeda) gets forgotten, as various factions pursue their larger agendas
- Danielle is shot and buried in the ground by one of the Island's competing factions
Neoconservatives believe they know how to save Moderate Muslims, when in fact their plans will cause many Moderate Muslims to die
- Ben believes he can save Alex, but his plan ends up bringing about her death
Liberals try to act tough, but continue to play into the Neoconservatives' hands
- Michael comes back and is adamant that he isn't working for Ben, when in reality he's doing Ben's bidding
Conservative "Realists" try to get President Bush to be more cautious and not "go with his gut", but the President does not take their advice
- Juliet tries to get Jack to recouperate after an operation on his "gut", but Jack does not take her advice
The "Shadow Government" claims to represent Christian principles, thereby winning the support of Christian Conservatives, who are seeking to fulfill the will of their heavenly Father
- Someone posing as Christian Shephard wins over Claire, who wants to be close to her "father"
Evangelical Christian leaders (like John Hagee) claim that they can speak of Israel's behalf, and they then make efforts to influence American foreign policy
- Someone claiming to be Christian says that he can speak on Jacob's behalf, and uses his position to influence the castaways' actions
Neoconservatives (and others who share their agenda) convince Colin Powell that America's enemies have hidden biological weapons plants
- Ben convinces Locke that there is danger lurking amid the Orchid's "plants"
Neoconservatives (and others) set their plan in motion to move America toward war, but neglect to account for the possible emergence of an armed insurgency
- Ben starts his plan to "move" the Island, but hasn't figured out how to deal with the problem of Keamy's mercenaries (the so-called "psychos with guns")
***
And that was the extremely-short version! Hopefully that will be helpful with tonight's big finale. Take care, and enjoy the show!
"There's No Place Like Home, Part One," the last episode before Lost's two-hour season four finale, has been an absolute boon for my theory that Lost is an allegory for post-9/11 US politics. In my first post, I discussed how the episode's many depictions of manipulative forms of communication - including things like staging press conferences, muzzling the press, using simplistic slogans to depict complex issues, and engaging in electronic eavesdropping - paralleled real-life tactics used by the Bush Administration before and during the Invasion of Iraq. In a more recent post, I explained how Ben's manipulation of Michael and Locke paralleled the way that Neoconservatives (i.e. Ben) manipulated the Democratic Party's Liberal Leadership (i.e. Michael) and Secretary of State Colin Powell (i.e. Locke) into furthering their case for invading Iraq. I'm now on my third post on the episode, and there's still loads more to be said. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to make this my last post on this episode, as time is growing short before the big finale. Even more unfortunately, that means that I'm not going to be able to talk about a lot of the little things I've been dying to mention (like "Jesus is not a weapon" - what a great line!) So, with Thursday's finale breathing down my neck, let me quickly discuss two topics from the episode that I think will have the a significant long-term impact on the show: Ben and Jack's poor planning, and the rise of Sun.
"HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU, JOHN? I ALWAYS HAVE A PLAN"
Ben's got a plan to save the Islanders from destruction - he's going to move the Island. Even though he admits it will be "dangerous and unpredictable," he sounds pretty convinced that his plan's going to work. Why does Ben think that? Because he has an unfailing belief in his own intellect.
As for Ben's companions, Hurley and Locke... well, they don't seem anywhere near as optimistic. They've heard Ben's plan, and even seem willing to go along with it; however, there's a loose end they keep asking questions about: What to do about the armed men.
Hurley first mentions it on the way to the Orchid, asking Ben, "If you could move the Island whenever you wanted, why didn't you just move it before the psychos with guns got here?" He doesn't get much of an answer, so later he asks Ben again, resulting in the following exchange:
HURLEY: Okay, let's say this greenhouse place does what you say, and yeah, I get it - it's really dangerous and unpredictable. But suppose somehow it works and we move the Island. Doesn't that mean the dudes with guns move, too?
BEN: Yes, I suppose they would.
HURLEY: Well, isn't that, y'know, a problem?
BEN: I'm working on it.
Despite Ben's assurances, Hurley remains unconvinced... and rightfully so, if we're correct in our idea that Ben symbolizes Neoconservatives. Because the Neoconservatives, like Ben, thought they had a pretty good plan for how to save their community from mass destruction, a plan that was "dangerous and unpredictable" but also, in their minds, absolutely necessary. That plan was to stage a pre-emptive Invasion of Iraq. But even though the Neoconservatives were skilled at making their plans a reality, they weren't skilled at making their plans realistic. Specifically, they had great ideas about how to get America to agree to invade, but few ideas about how to deal with the Iraqis if they mounted an armed insurgency. In short, the Neoconservatives (and others in charge of the pre-war planning), like Ben, jumped at the chance to "move" their society in a new direction, but didn't properly plan for what to do about the "dudes with guns." If history repeats itself on Lost, Ben's plan to save the Island will produce the same outcome as the Neoconservatives' plan to save America: things will look good for a time, until the "psychos with guns" mount a vicious and bloody insurgency that theatens to throw everything into chaos. Hurley seems right to worry, because the "dudes with guns" are going to be a big fly in Ben's ointment.
Locke's worried about Ben's plans, too, as we see from this exchange:
LOCKE: Okay, I'm sorry, Ben, but maybe I missed the part where you explained what I'm supposed to do about the armed men inside.
BEN: I'm gonna take care of them.
LOCKE: And how the hell are you gonna do that?
BEN: How many times do I have to tell you, John? I always have a plan.
Locke's concerns over the lack of pre-mission planning mirror the views of his real-life counterpart, Colin Powell. Secretary of State Powell, a General, followed a military philosophy that became known as the "Powell Doctrine," which consisted of a series of questions that must be asked before the US committed itself to military action. These questions included:
Ultimately, Locke ventures into the Orchid without knowing how Ben will address the matter of the armed men, a move that will probably end up being a mistake on Locke's part. At least that's what history tells us, as Powell - Locke's real-world counterpart - ended up supporting the poorly-planned Iraq Invasion, violating his own doctrine with disastrous results.
"MY BODY'S JUST FIGHTING THE INFECTION AROUND THE STITCHES"
Ben's not the only one trying to convince people he's got everything under control. Jack is too, even though he's clearly rushing off half-cocked.
Jack gets out of his sick bed to venture off into the jungle, insistent that he has to fulfill his promise to save his community. Juliet, however, urges him to wait, telling him that he hasn't healed enough to start leaping into action. But in his chracateristic style, Jack stubbornly does things his own way and sets off. This intercation resembles the interaction between Jack and Juliet's real-world counterparts - President Bush and Conservative "Realists" - prior to the Iraq Invasion. Jack, like President Bush, espouses idealism and urgent action, while Juliet, like many Conservative "Realists", espouses practicality, self-preservation, and caution.
Later, while chasing the helicopter, Jack starts to bleed from his wound, as Juliet had predicted. Kate is concerned, but Jack tries to downplay the matter:
JACK: No, I'm not bleeding. I'm - I'm supportating. It's discharge. My body's just fighting the infection around the stitches.
This statement from Jack tells us a lot about his attitude to problems. He tries to reframe them in ways that diminish their significance. Why? Possibly so that he can continue doing what he had originally set out to do, because, as we've seen time and time again, Jack has a stubborn need to "stay the course." This is a trait that Jack shares with his real-life counterpart, President George W. Bush, who also downplays problems that might stand in his way. In fact, if we slightly rewrite the above statement from Jack, we end up with something similar to what Bush might have said after the Invasion of Iraq went awry:
PRESIDENT BUSH: No, it's not the start of serious bloodshed in Iraq. It's - it's part of the country's healing process. It's just the old ways making way for the new. The country's just fighting the invasion in a few localized areas, it's no big deal.
When Jack tries to play off his bleeding as a normal part of the healing process, we're seeing an example of President Bush's refusal to accept unpleasant realities. Jack's bloody wound isn't meant to directly symbolize the bloody result of the Iraq Invasion, but the scene is meant to show the lengths to which President Bush would go to disavow facts that contradict his goals. Jack would rather pretend that his blood-loss is a sign of healing rather than change his plans; similarly, George W. Bush's mindset was such that he would eventually come to portray the bloodshed from the growing insurgency as the start of Iraq's political healing process.
"OCEANIC PAID US OUR SETTLEMENT FOR THE CRASH... SO YOU WILL NOW RESPECT ME"
Okay, I haven't much time left to talk about Sun, and that's a shame, because the scene where Sun took over her father's company was my favourite part of the entire episode. Why? Because it proved that my crazy claim from way back in October 2006 was actually right, and Sun really does symbolize something related to "Terrorists."
I made that claim after Sun shot the unsuspecting "Cole" (the Others' nickname for Colleen) on the docked boat, a scene that seemed a deliberate reference to the 2000 terrorist bombing of the USS Cole while it was docked in the Yemeni port of Aden. Once I started to regard Sun as a potential terrorist, much of her otherwise dull flashbacks started to get a lot more interesting. Her two-timing of Jin, her disdain for the tyranny of her father, her anger when her lover said he was leaving her for a woman from America, the ease with which she let the housekeeper take the blame for what she herself had done - it all painted a picture of someone who appeared outwardly benign but was inwardly ruthless. It even made me wonder if her lover really did commit suicide, or if Sun threw him off the balcony herself; after all, in the same episode as that flashback, Colleen insists that Sun's not a killer, and then Sun goes ahead and kills her. Maybe the message there was that Sun has been a killer all along, and was the one who killed her lover?
Now we're seeing Sun do exactly what we'd expect her to do if she symbolizes a terrorist organization: she's seizing the opportunity to stage a "hostile takeover." In fact, the scene in which she wrests power away from her father is a brilliant depiction of what actually happened in Iraq after the US invasion. Specifically, its shows how the repercussions from 9/11 ended up reorganizing the power structure inside Iraq, wresting power away from a tyrant and putting it in the hands of ruthless terrorists and militias.
I'm going to have to do some proper research on this one, but here's a super-simplified description of how I think it all plays out on the show.
Sun's father is a ruthless tycoon who accumulates power through violence and intimidation. Sun hates the disrepect that her father shows to Jin, and hates that her husband feels that he has no choice but to comply with her father's wishes, for the sake of his family's future. Sun secretly meets with a lover who shows her another way of living, and who promises her a way of escape, but this relationship is destroyed when it is discovered by her father. So when a plane crash ends up providing Sun with an unexpected and enormous windfall, she uses her newfound power to stage a hostile takeover of her father's company, and to demand that he start showing her some respect.
Okay, now here's the same story, slightly adapted to reflect real-world current events:
Saddam Hussein was a ruthless tyrant who accumulated power through violence and intimidation. Some Iraqis hated the disrespect that their leader showed to everyday Iraqis, and hated that everyday Iraqis felt they must comply with Saddam's orders for the sake of their families' futures. These Iraqis secretly met to learn about a new philosophy of life, a form of Islam that promised an escape from the grip of their tyrannical leader; however, whenever Saddam discovered these secret factions, he would destroy them or use them for his own ends. But after the plane attacks on 9/11 ended up providing these militants with an unexpected windfall (the removal of Saddam by the US), the militants staged a hostile takeover of their nation and demanded that they be shown respect.
Not a perfect analysis, but on the right track, I reckon.
By the way, there's another pattern forming here, too. On Lost, ty-coons (like Paik and Widmore) seem to symbolize ty-rants. They enforce their will through intimidation and violence. Doctors and scientists (like Jack, Juliet, and the DHARMA crowd) seem to symbolize politicians - "political scientists," if you will. They get things done through persuasion and deal-making.
Sun, funnily enough, has ended up becoming both a doctor (she practises a type of "alternative medicine") and a tycoon (she's now personally wealthy). That seems to imply that she, like the insurgent groups in Iraq, wants to be respected as a legitimate political leader, but isn't afraid to use violence and intimidation to achieve that end.
***
I wish I could talk more about "There's No Place LIke Home, Part One", but, alas, I've yet again been defeated by the tyranny of time.
As usual, please feel free to use the section below to air your own thoughts (or your criticisms of mine - I can take it). I'll be back before tomorrow's season finale, with a few preliminary thoughts. Until then, take care!
Here's a bit more on this week's episode, which was almost overwhelmingly-rich with fodder for our theory that the show is an allegory for post-9/11 American politics. Today, we're going to talk about Ben's manipulation of Michael and Locke, and the significance of the greenhouse.
Continue reading "More on "There's No Place Like Home, Part One"" »
I'm real busy right now (I'm flying out next week from my island of Bermuda to a mysterious Island called "America"), but I haven't forgotten my promise to talk more about "There's No Place Like Home, Part One." I'll have something on the site for you on Thursday...
I love episodes written by Executive Producers Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse. Those guys are part of a select few who know all the show's secrets, which means that, when they sit down to write a script, they know exactly what they're trying to accomplish (unlike the show's other writers, who, as far as I know, only know enough to write the particular episode they're presently working on). Because they're completely in-the-know when it comes to Lost's big riddles, Lindelof and Cuse are able to pack their episodes with loads and loads of urgent plot movement, portentous dialogue, and grand themes. Like I said, I love Lindelof/Cuse-helmed episodes, and this week's show, "There's No Place Like Home, Part One," was no exception.
Unfortunately, the very meatiness that makes their episodes so great also makes them hard to analyze in a single sitting. That's why, as I did last week, I'm going to tackle this week's episode in multiple installments. Over the next day or two, I'll be talking about things like Locke's involvement with a plant-related scheme; Ben's apparently faulty plans; Sun's hostile takeover of her father's company (a huge validation of our previous ideas about Sun's symbolism); and more. Today, however, we're going to address what I think was this episode's overarching theme, and boy was it a good one.
That theme was...manipulative communication.
Throughout this episode, we were given example after example of characters communicating in manipulative ways. These examples came in a variety of shapes and forms, including holding staged press conferences, muzzling the press, sloganeering, having secret communications, eavesdropping on private conversations, engaging in smear campaigns, and flat-out lying. But they also all had one thing in common: they resembled ways in which political figures and government agencies manipulated the release of information before and during the Invasion of Iraq.
Here are just a few of the ways that communication was manipulated in this week's show.
Continue reading "Episode 4.12: "There's No Place Like Home, Part One"" »
So, that was the first episode of Season Four's three-episode finale. Some juicy stuff in there, and it was a nice set up for what we all hope will be another rip-roaring season ender.
I'll mull over the episode during the weekend and put up a post on Monday. Until then, feel free to chat about the show in the comments section below, or to send me an e-mail. You might also want to check out some of the last few posts, as I've come up with a few new ideas that I think might have merit.
Until Monday, take care!
Here's something neat for you all - a great example of Lost imitating life.
For the last few days, the press has been abuzz over a recent comment from President Bush about him giving up golf. Specifically, in an interview with Politico.com, the President remarked, "I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal... I don't want some mum whose son may have recently died to see the commander-in-chief playing golf. I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them."
Thing is, he said that he was moved to stop playing golf in August 2003, after the bombing of the UN offices in Baghdad. But if that's the case, how does he explain a video of him playing golf in October 2003, two months after he supposedly gave it all up?
So, what we have here is a case of Bush playing golf while the troops are in harm's way - something he himself says sends "the wrong signal."
Now, cast your mind back to Season One of Lost, to the episode entitled "Solitary". While Sayid is in harm's way, being tortured by Danielle, this is what President Jack is doing:
And all the while, Hurley is holding a red flag (a red shirt on a pole, but a flag nonetheless), as if to say, "Given the serious threats against us right now, maybe what we're doing here is sending out the wrong signal."
Of course, even though this link between Jack and Bush is pretty stunning, I don't for a minute think Lost was predicting the future when they aired that golfing scene way back in 2004 (what I think they were doing was referencing a scene from Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11, the one where President Bush, golf club in hand, talks about terrorists then tells the reporters to watch his swing). That said, the show's clearly done a good job making Jack resemble his real-world counterpart, George W. Bush, because the comparisons between the two hold up surprisingly well over time. This kind of thing happens a lot on Lost, and I never cease to be amazed at the prescience of the show's character studies.
Okay, fifteen minutes to go before tonight's episode. See you in a bit!
Today, a few quick words about the ever-enigmatic, apparently-ageless Richard Alpert.
In the Season Three DVD extra "The World of the Others", Executive Producer Damon Lindelof said of Alpert, "He's sort of the Dick Cheney of the Island." Even though Lost's producers are notoriously crafty fellows, I think that on this point we should take Lindelof at his word.
While we don't know much about Alpert, what we do know seems to jibe well with what we know of the Vice President. For example:
Actually, the fact that we don't know much about Alpert can be taken as a clue in and of itself, as most of don't really know much about Cheney, either.
So, if we accept the idea that Alpert might be Vice President Cheney, and that he's working from behind the scenes as the Island's real string-puller, how do we explain the fact that he seems to not get any older? Cheney has a lot of control, but he's not been able to control his own aging - why portray him as someone who's ageless?
Because, just as Alpert is a symbol, so is Cheney. He's not just a man, he's the embodiment of something that has existed since the beginning of humankind: the skillful pursuit of power. He is the person Machiavelli described in his sixteenth century treatise "The Prince." He is the personification of the stragegies in Sun-Tzu's sixth century BC treatise "The Art of War". He is a symbol of the consumate political animal, someone who knows how to play the game and plays to win. Cheney, as a man, may be mortal, but what he represents has always been with mankind, and probably always will be.
And that, I think, is why Lost has chosen to portray Alpert as ageless. And that's why he's waiting in the wings looking to recruit Locke, whom Alpert thought had "a good sense of the game" (a phrase Alpert used with regards to backgammon, although it seemed he was referring to something larger). That's why he's brought Juliet to the Island, and why he recuited the young Ben. Alpert, like Cheney, is always working the system, trying to move people into positions where they might be useful to him and his agenda. That's simply what people like him have done since human society began.
Two posts ago, I suggested that the reason the Island operates outside the normal rules of time is because it represents the US trying to operate outside the normal rules of history. Just as the Island breaks the outside world's known laws of cause-and-effect, the US tries to break the historical patterns that other societies have followed. Why? Because DHARMA, like the US Founding Fathers, believed that humanity could improve, could stop repeating the same mistakes and move in a new and unprecedented direction, if only the right system was put into place. But in spite of its efforts. the US, throughout its history, has continued to find its visionary ideals itself butting-up against the reality that some people are simply born to pursue power, people who are so skillful at this pursuit they can thwart the system that was designed to confine them. Cheney, for example, has skillfully and methodically dismantled the system of checks-and-balances designed to limit executive power, and now holds a monarchial position much like the one the Founding Fathers had sought to eliminate. No matter how clever the system is, if it is neglected and allowed to implode, then everything it was designed to hold back will come rushing back in. That, I believe, might be what is happening with Alpert. DHARMA, with its utopian ideals, wanted to create a society where people like Alpert could not thrive. And yet the "hostiles" persisted, and eventually took over. Alpert - like Cheney, Machiavelli's Prince, and every other pursuer of political power since the dawn of man - is ageless, unceasing, and forever threatening to take the reins of society into his own hands. If the system designed to hold him back is neglected, he will stealthily find a way to accumulate more and more influence, eventually becoming the society's primary puppeteer.
Over-dramatic, I know - but I think the idea holds up pretty well!
***
There was lots more things that happened last week - like Juliet telling Jack to stay in his tent (as in "don't leave your political tent and start picking up other ideologies"), and, as reader Holly pointed out, the Blackwater/KBR-like behaviour of the mercenaries. Unfortunately, I'll have to pick up those threads as they appear in later episodes, because, unlike Alpert, I don't have all the time in the world.
See you tomorrow, after tonight's new episode.
Take care!
Yesterday, I made a clumsy and horribly-written attempt at explaining what the Island's disconnection from time might represent. If you get a chance to read the post (which I wrote in a hurry and reads like it was translated into English from Hindi), let me know what you think. I reckon I'm onto something, but your feedback would help me understand if I'm actually on the right track or not.
Today, I'm going to delve into a few of the many, many things that happened in last week's episode. There's no way I can address all the episode's complexity right now, so I'm going to paint in broad strokes and hope that the details fall into place on their own.
LITTLE LOST LOCKE
Locke's flashback this week was unusual. Instead of addressing a specific period in his past, it covered a whole series of events in Locke's life, including scenes of his birth, adolescence, and adulthood. We've only seen one flashback like that before, and it belonged to Locke's apparent nemesis, Benjamin Linus. It's funny that their flashbacks would have so much in common, since Locke and Ben make such an effort to distinguish themselves from each other in this episode, like when Locke said, "I'm not you," and Ben replied, "You're certainly not." I'm not sure why Locke and Ben were portrayed in a similar way, or why they both insisted that they had nothing in common, but it all seemed to mean something.
There was another Locke-related pattern in this episode, too, and it seemed to support our view that Locke is a stand-in for Colin Powell. Just as many political factions had their own ideas about what they wanted Powell to be (both Democrats and Republicans wanted him to join their side, the neoconservatives at one point thought he would be their man, the public wanted him to be their advocate, and so on), a wide variety of characters kept telling Locke what they believed him to be.
For example, when Locke was born, the nurse says he's "just too little." Later, she calls him "a fighter" and a "miracle baby." When the young Locke gets a visit from Alpert, he's told he has "a good sense of the game," but then he fails Alpert's test and is told he's "not quite ready." (In fact, Alpert's test is the ultimate example of Locke being told what he's supposed to be, since Alpert suggests that he knows Locke better than he knows himself.) Later, in school, Locke insists that he's not a scientist, but his teacher disagrees, saying, "You might not want to be that guy in the labs surrounded by test tubes and beakers, but that's who you are, John. You can't be the prom king. You can't be the quarterback. You can't be a superhero." Later still, Abbedon gets in on the game, telling a doubtful and wheelchair-bound Locke, "You know what you need... You need to go on a walkabout."
Everyone thinks they know what's best for Locke, it seems.
Everyone except Locke, that is.
True to form, Locke spends the episode not being sure what he's supposed to do. The closest Locke comes to standing up for himself is when he tells his teacher, "Don't tell me what I can't do", a refrain we've heard from Locke many times before. But even when he makes that declaration, he's not really defining what he IS, he's just saying what he thinks he ISN'T. In fact, in saying "Don't tell me what I can't do," it's as if Locke is really saying, "Please, tell me what I CAN do." He's essentially doing what he always does: he's seeking instruction. Like Colin Powell, he's a "good soldier" looking for orders to follow.
Unfortunately, Locke's need for guidance leaves him vulnerable to being manipulated, and I suspect that's exactly what happens at the episode's end. Locke thinks he's being his own man, but its more likely that he's simply being maneuvered by people savvier than him. He goes to the cabin because someone in a dream gave him orders to, not because he made an independent decision to do so. He enters the cabin thinking he's done so of his own volition, but Ben's earlier comment - the one about conning Hurley into thinking he's making his own decisions - suggests that Locke might have fallen victim to a similar con. Did Locke enter the cabin because he wanted to, or because someone with a larger agenda wanted him to? Locke's words to Christian - "I'm here... because I was chosen to be" - seem to suggest the latter. Locke's there not because he chooses to be there, but because he's been CHOSEN to be there. Ultimately, being "chosen" seems more important to Locke than knowing who's doing the choosing or what they've chosen him for, and that's a dangerous position to be in you don't know all the players or their agendas.
That's why I think Locke's conversation with Christian - if it indeed was Christian at all - is the start of a big con. Locke comes out of the cabin thinking he's part of a plan to "save the Island", but he might well have simply been duped into doing someone else's bidding. He thinks he's been recruited for a noble cause, but he might actually have been tricked into being the acceptable public face for some behind-the-scenes figure's plans.
In other words, what if Locke coming to believe that the Island must be "moved" represents Colin Powell being duped into believing that America had to take drastic measures to avoid destruction? Will Locke make a persuasive public appeal that wins over the castaways and freighter folk, mirroring Powell's public presentation to the United Nations, only to find out too late that he has been conned? I'm thinking its a possibility...
IN THE CABIN WITH CHRISTIAN AND CLAIRE
Claire's with her father in Jacob's cabin... what's that all about? I think I've an idea.
First, we need to set aside for a minute the idea that Christian Shephard symbolizes George Bush Sr. He DOES symbolize him, but only sometimes. At other times, he's used in a different way, to symbolize other things. So, for now, just disregard the notion that Christian symbolizes the former President. Okay, let's get down to business.
Claire seems to symbolize issues related to Christianity, at least as its practiced in America (click here for the explanation). In this week's scene in the cabin, I think she's playing the role of one specific set of Christians: Evangelical Christian Conservatives. Here's how it all might work.
Claire doesn't seem her normal self at the moment. In fact, she seems to have entered a kind of "state of bliss." What's caused Claire to change in such a way? Well, according to Claire, her sense of peace is the result of the company she's now keeping, as she tells Locke, "Don't worry. I'm fine - I'm with him."
Now, given Claire's symbolic connection to Christianity, the phrase "I'm fine - I'm with him," can be taken as a kind of religious statement. Just turn "him" into the capitalized "Him", and Claire's comment "I'm fine - I'm with Him" becomes something a devout Christian might say.
The connection continues to hold as you go deeper. Who is this "him" Claire's speaking about? It's her father. Again, all you have to do is add a capital letter - changing her earthly "father" to a heavenly "Father" - and Claire's actions are transformed into those of a religious worshipper. And, to top it all off, the "father" in question has the very same name as the people Claire seems to represent: "Christian."
Given all that, I think it's safe to assume that Claire's bliss at following the lead of her father, Christian, represents Christian Conservatives feeling confident that their political leaders were obeying the will of God.
With me so far? Now here comes the big twist...
I don't think that's the real Christian Shephard.
Why? Because many Christian Conservatives who thought George W. Bush's Administration represented their Christian values later came to believe that they had been duped. They came to believe that, rather than representing true Christian values, the Bush Administration had actually been using Christian Americans' faith as a means to gain political support.
And I think that's what's going to happen to Claire as well. Right now, she thinks she's following the will of the "Father," when really she's being manipulated by factions that simply need to win her support. And in the same way that many Christian Conservatives (such as former Bush-loyalist David Kuo) eventually stopped regarding the Bush Administration as "real Christians," it's likely that Claire will later discover that the man she's following right now isn't the "real Christian" either.
Now, the best bit. Why is this happening in Jacon's cabin? How does Jacob factor into all of this? here's what I think.
As I've said in the past, I think that Jacob is a stand-in for the state of Israel. Why? Because:
In this scene, Jacob isn't seen, however. Even though the cabin belongs to Jacob, someone else calims to have permission to speak for him:
LOCKE: Are you Jacob?
MAN: No. But I can speak on his behalf.
LOCKE: Well, who are you?
MAN: I'm Christian.
That exchange is a big clue, I think. Watch what happens when we rewrite that exchange slightly, using our ideas about Jacob and Israel:
Are you Israel?
No. But we can speak on Israel's behalf.
Well, who are you?
We're Evangelical Christians.
In other words, what we're seeing played out in the cabin might be the very same thing we're seeing played out in real-life at this very moment: many American Evangelical Christian leaders - Pat Robertson and John Hagee, for example - have decided that they know what is best for Israel, and that they can speak on Israel's behalf. The man in the chair, who says that he's "Christian" and can speak for Jacob, probably represents any Evangelical Christians who insist that they can speak for Israel.
What we don't know is Jacob's view of all this. Does Jacob actually want Christian (or a person claiming to be the real Christian) speaking on his behalf? I'm not so sure, given what happened to Pat Robertson, the Evangelical Christian who had big ideas about what was right and wrong for Israel. Israel ended up severing its ties with Robertson, saying that his views did not reflect their own. Is that what's going on here in Jacob's cabin? Is someone who insists he is a "real Christian" speaking for Jacob without Jacob's approval?
The plot thickens!
***
That's it for today. Tomorrow... Richard Alpert.
As usual, feel free to use the comments section below to critique my ideas or to toss around some ideas of your own. See you tomorrow, and take care.
Okay, here's how we're going to do it this week. "Cabin Fever" was one of the most detail-dense episodes yet, so rather than try and squeeze all the analysis into one overlong and cumbersome post, we'll tackle it over the course of a few days. I'll post today, tomorrow, and Wednesday, and that should get us up to speed. Let's get started.
Reader "Holly" said in a recent comment that she missed "the in-depth analysis of old." Well, Holly, hopefully today's analysis will make you a bit happier, because the topic we'll be addressing is a biggie. But before we start, there's something I need all you long-time readers to do. Ready? First, take all the previous things I've said about the flashbacks and put them in a mental box labelled "Theory #1". Done it? Good - now, push that box off to the side of your mind. Make sure you don't throw it out, though, because there's still a bunch of good stuff in there. Just set it aside for a while. Okay, now that's done there should be a nice and clear mental workspace in front of you, where we can start tinkering with some new ideas.
What we're going to tackle today is a problem I've been wrestling with for all of Season Four, a problem that really needs to be solved - at least in some general way - before we can move on.
Here's the problem:
If everything on Lost has a metaphorical connection to American politics, then what is the underlying meaning of the Island's peculiar relationship with time?
Here's what I think the solution might be. Indulge me for a minute, then see what you think.
Continue reading "The first of several posts about "Cabin Fever"" »
Okay, just two quick things to say today.
Firstly, sorry for not posting anything about last week's episode. Even though I promised I'd put something up on Monday, events conspired against me and I just couldn't get it done. My apologies for that.
Secondly, last night's episode, "Cabin Fever", was chock-full-of complex and intricate stuff (which we'll get into on Monday, honest!), but for now, let me just say this: When Executive Producer Lindelof says of Richard Alpert, "He's sort of the Dick Cheney of the island," I think we should pretty much take him at his word.
I'll explain more fully on Monday (honest!). Until then, please feel free to use the comments section below to chat among yourselves about last night's episode, "Cabin Fever."
See you on Monday (really, I will!), and take care.
Some episodes of Lost are like escalators. You jump on, zip up to the top, and when you jump off you find yourself suddenly somewhere you weren't before. Last week was one of those fun and effortless escalator-episodes.
Other episodes, however, are like staircases. Instead of getting a quick ride to your destination, you have to endure a long, effortful, repetitious slog. It's just step after step after step after step until you finally get to the end.
Last night's Jack-centred episode was definitely a staircase. We may have gotten somewhere, but boy was it hard work getting there!
I'll have a think about the events of last night's show and tell you what I've come up with on Monday. Until then, feel free to chat in the comments section below.
Take care!
This week's action-packed episode covered loads and loads of ground, which means I'm going to have to try to do the same in my analysis of it. So, without further ado, let's get down to the business of analyzing Episode 4.09, "The Shape of Things to Come".
Jack's Gut
Only minutes into the episode, when Jack tells Kate, "My gut says we're getting off this island," Lost hands us a great new Jack/George W. Bush connection. Jack, it seems, shares President Bush's reported predilection for relying on "gut instinct."
To add fuel to the fire, Kate then replies, "I thought your gut was sick," neatly summarizing what Bush's critics think about his gut-led decision-making process. For an example of such a critique, check out this quote from the late Molly Ivans:
Let me say for the umpteenth time, George W. is not a stupid man. The IQ of his gut, however, is open to debate. In Texas, his gut led him to believe the death penalty has a deterrent effect, even though he acknowledged there was no evidence to support his gut's feeling. When his gut, or something, causes him to announce that he does not believe in global warming -- as though it were a theological proposition -- we once again find his gut ruling that evidence is irrelevant. In my opinion, Bush's gut should not be entrusted with making peace in the Middle East.
So Kate thinks her leader has a sick gut, and Ms. Ivans thinks hers does too.
(As a side note, observe how the first line of that quote, "George W. is not a stupid man," resembles Juliet's comment about Jack in the first episode of Season Three, "I don't think you're stupid, I think you're stubborn", adding more weight to the idea that Jack and Bush have a lot in common.)
Iraq, Iraq, Iraq
That stuff about Jack was nothing compared with the cornucopia of evidence we got linking Lost with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In this one episode alone, we had Taliban-types (the horseback men who found Ben in the desert), scenes set in the Iraqi town of Tikrit (such as Nadia's funeral), a direct mention of the US's Iraq War tactic of "shock and awe" (which Ben said Keamy's men were using to frighten him into surrendering), and the comment "Iraq is lovely this time of year" (said when Ben was talking to Widmore). There was even a sneaky clue about Iraq in the episode's title, "The Shape of Things to Come", which is the title of an H.G. Wells novel about a Utopian civilization in the Iraqi city of Basra. (For evidence that the Basra connection is valid, check out the producers' comments in this EW article.)
Alex
This week's events seemed to help my theories about Alex, too. I've claimed in the past that Alex might symbolize "Moderate Muslims", for several reasons:
1. Alex has, on several occasions, offered sympathy and support to the stranded castaways, just as Moderate Muslims showed sympathy toward America after the 9/11 attacks
2. Danielle and Ben's battle for custody of Alex resembles the battle between "Radical Islam" (i.e. Danielle) and Neoconservatism (i.e. Ben) for the hearts and minds of Moderate Muslims
3. Alex has continued to call herself "Ben's daughter" even after being reunited with her "natural" mother Danielle, just as many Moderate Muslims, after 9/11, saw themselves as more connected to the modernity of the West than to the more radical and reclusive elements of their own faith
To my mind at least, the events of this most recent episode fit right into the Alex/Moderate Muslims connection. For instance, when Alex is taken hostage, she is put in the line of fire in the same way that Moderate Muslims were after 9/11. When she turns to the castaways for help as she is held at gunpoint, she resembles those Moderate Muslims who believed that the West would be able to help them escape from tyranny. And when Ben makes an error of judgement that gets his beloved Alex killed, it calls to mind the errors of judgement made by American Neoconservatives (i.e. Ben), which resulted in the slaughter of many of the same Moderate Muslims that the Neoconservatives had been trying to save.
Personally, I think the Alex/Moderate Muslims idea works pretty well. Let me know if you disagree.
Ben
Looking back, it's amazing to think that Ben only showed up halfway through season two, given that almost every episode now seems to hinge on his every word and deed; in many ways, Lost has transformed into a show mostly about Ben's agenda and how the rest of the characters respond to it. I used to say that Lost was all about the Bush Administration, but lately, with all the focus the show's been putting on Benjamin Linus (whom I reckon symbolizes "Neoconservatives"), I'm starting to think that Lost may actually be more of a study of Neoconservatism's influence on the Bush Administration.
This week did little to challenge the notion that Ben symbolizes Neoconservatives, and did much to support it. For example, Ben is the only character we've seen "taking on the Taliban", as he appears to do in his fight with the Saharan horsemen, a scene that recalls the initial success of the Neoconservative-driven campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan. At the risk of over-reaching, I'd also offer that, at the end of that scene, when Ben tells the man he has just physically bested, "Oh, so you DO speak English," Lost is probably portraying the Neoconservative view that everyone understands the language of military force (and maybe even the view that all peoples, deep down, are simply Americans-in-the-making).
As I said above, the scene that led to Alex's death seems to add further support to the idea that Ben represents Neoconservatives. Ben thinks he understands the "rules" of the events unfolding around him, just as the Neoconservatives th
Wow...Sean, you're going to have a field day with that finale. I'm very curious to see what parts caught your eye, as I saw several things that popped right out to me. In particular:
- Locke being unable to find the entrance to the Orchid until Ben's return. The whole "not finding what you're looking for" screamed WMD to me.
- Locke's entire conversation with Jack, but especially, "You're going to have to lie to protect the ones who are still here."
- Locke chastising Ben for killing innocent people, and Ben not caring.
- Locke in the casket, preserved in death as Jeremy Bentham is to this day, and how Colin Powell's political career has gone since being ousted.
And, in a non-allegory related comment -- Michael Emerson had better get at least an Emmy nomination for playing Ben. There aren't many actors on TV who do it better.