Once upon a time, during the first season of Lost, the series seemed to present a much brighter outlook on life. Through the simple narrative device of flashbacks, Lost introduced a group of characters with very tortured pasts. The emphasis, though, was on the word past. The island offered a chance for all of these characters to atone for their prior sins and to make a better life for themselves. Each episode concluded with the general impression that the characters would eventually overcome both internal and external challenges on the island, and then move on to lead a much happier life afterward.
There was, of course, one oddity in this group. Michael Dawson arrived on the island without any real sins in his history. His core conflict, the strained relationship with his son Walt, came through no fault of his own. Just when he was beginning to make some progress, fate intervened, when big-old bearded Tom decided to take Michael’s son right out of his hands. In captivity soon afterward, the Others pushed Michael to his absolute breaking point. To paraphrase Sayid from Exodus: he's a father who lost his child, so don't try to apply reason to his actions. The experiences on the island transformed many sinners into model citizens, but Michael’s stay on the island transformed him from an ordinary man into a despised villain. In the eyes of many Lost fans and in the eyes of Michael himself, his crimes moved him into a category beyond forgiveness and beyond salvation.
Meet Kevin Johnson, the eighth episode of Lost’s Season Four, is probably darker than any other episode in the entire series. Not only do murder, guilt, and suicide cast a dominating shadow over every scene, but even the visuals themselves literally became darker than ever before. The bright and beautiful island scenery that characterized every other episode of the series disappeared completely (until the final scene, which was itself tarnished by death). The episode's opening scenes in the Barracks and at sea both take place at night, along with all of Michael's flashback scenes in New York. Even when Michael does find some rays of light on the decks of the Kahana freighter, grim death still colors every conversation. Not even death, though, can ease his suffering.
In two separate instances in this episode, a Mama Cass Elliot song taunts him even further, by chanting the repeated phrase, “It’s getting better every day.” Each of the four seasons thus far has pushed Lost deeper and deeper into the realm of tragedy. So far, Season Four suggests that things will continue to get much worse for its characters in the days to come. To put things in perspective, the heartbreaking death of Charlie Pace currently ranks as the closest example to an optimistic conclusion to a character’s story. In the world of Lost, conventional happy endings might be impossible. By the end, will Michael’s hopelessly bleak story still be the exception, or will the rest of the characters also endure similar fates?
Meet Kevin Johnson calls attention to another seminal modern tragedy that might serve as the model for the stories of Michael and other characters. In an allusion to The Godfather films, Miles calls our attention to an orange that he's eating, both visually and verbally. Oranges also serve as a famous recurring image in The Godfather film saga, always as a forewarning that death will not be far behind. Lost also paid homage to The Godfather as far back as the Pilot episode of the series, in which Terry O'Quinn mimicked Marlon Brando’s famous orange peel smile. If The Godfather saga does serve as a major creative influence on Lost, then there is a strong reason to be concerned for its characters. The story of the Corleone family suggests not only that it might be impossible for an individual to atone for past crimes within one lifetime, but that future generations also will suffer for those sins.
“Tell me, when Pop had troubles ... did he ever think, even to himself, that he had gone the wrong way; that maybe by trying to be strong and trying to protect his family, that he could ... that he could ... lose it instead?” – Michael Corleone, The Godfather, Part II
In many ways, the story of Michael Dawson parallels the story of Michael Corleone, the central character of The Godfather saga. These two Michaels both set out with largely admirable goals in life, to look after the interests of their family above all else. Michael Dawson named his son Walter after his father, just as Michael Corleone passed on his father’s name Vito to his own son. When circumstances put their families in jeopardy, both Michaels crossed over to the dark side by committing a brutal double murder. The core tragedy for the two Michaels is the same: the man only wanted to protect his family, but his efforts still caused them to lose his family anyway. Even though their intentions were good, their actions were evil. Both stories leave the viewer to decide for themselves whether they believe that Michael was ultimately a good man or a bad man. (If you think that even this characterization is too forgiving, then there are plenty of other valid comparisons to be made between Michael Corleone and Benjamin Linus, the other murderer/family-man in this episode.)
“If anything in this life is certain - if history has taught us anything - it's that you can kill anybody.” – Michael Corleone, The Godfather, Part II
However the viewer chooses to feel about him, Michael judged that he himself no longer deserved to live. From here, Michael’s flashback introduced another supernatural twist into the show’s overall mythology. As Tom explains: “I got some bad news for you, amigo. You can't kill yourself. The Island won't let you! […] No matter how bad you want to, no matter how many different ways you try, it won't happen. Give it a shot if you don't believe me. You got more work to do, Mike.” Michael tries to kill himself four separate times in this episode, and in each case the universe intervenes. He survives a 60 mph car crash virtually unscathed; Tom interrupts his first attempt to shoot himself in a back alley; he eventually pulls the trigger, only to find that the gun will not fire; and finally he works up the nerve to press execute on his suitcase bomb, only to see a flag pop up with the words ‘Not yet’. Michael's situation seems to be the complete reversal of the type of course correction that Ms. Hawking described in Flashes Before Your Eyes. Instead of encountering an improbable series of different ways to die like Charlie, Michael stumbles across a number of coincidences that cause him to keep living. In both cases, none of the individual events are impossible, but the situation as a whole pushes the limits of probability.
As of now, it remains unclear as to exactly how this type of suicide course correction will operate. Viewers have countless different questions to consider here, including: where and when does it apply, who is affected, why does it happen, and how does it operate in a world with free will? In Through the Looking Glass, both Jack and Locke decided to kill themselves only to have the universe intervene to tell them (in different ways) that they still had work to do. Even though none of these occurrences violated the laws of cause and effect, some degree of reverse causality seems to be at play here. In a strange touch to Michael’s story, the audience already knew that each of his attempts to kill himself would be unsuccessful. The very fact that Michael was telling us the story proved that each of his suicide attempts had failed. In another exploration of the show’s unique perspective on time, Michael was already alive in the future before these scenes took place. This explanation might not be very satisfying, but the show once again embraces the idea that the future is every bit as fixed as the past.
Depending on your interpretation, the audience already might have caught another glimpse of Michael’s future. Michael’s flashback in Meet Kevin Johnson draws many strong parallels to Jack’s flash-forward in Through the Looking Glass. Both men seem to suffer from the same post-island depression syndrome: loved ones abandon them, the dead haunt them, and guilt torments them. It should be noted, of course, that Michael’s current predicament does not ensure that he will never die. He can not kill himself yet, because, as Tom implies, his death will be conditional on the completion of some future task. In fact, this episode offers some strong indications that Michael himself will become the man inside the coffin from the Season Three finale.
Jack’s newspaper clipping from Through the Looking Glass reveals that the suicide victim was John Latham of New York, who hanged himself to death in Los Angeles, and who left behind one teenaged son. A previous Luhks article from the Theories section, entitled ‘What’s in the Box?,’ explored several reasons why Michael is a strong candidate to end up inside the coffin at the Hoffs/Drawlar funeral parlor:
Michael meets the biographical description of John Latham: he originally comes from New York City, and his son Walt is entering his teen years at the time of the flash-forward. […] Michael conceivably might have killed himself due to guilt from these actions (provided that Walt was no longer around). […] If Jack tried to kill himself after learning of Michael's death, then Jack's journey off the island probably bears a strong resemblance to Michael's. [...] If this comparison holds true, then expect to see Jack commit at least one murder during Season Four to secure their escape. Also, this comparison suggests that Jack will leave behind several friends in great danger on the island, just as Michael did. In this version of the Through the Looking Glass narrative, Jack attempts to kill himself upon realizing that he had become another Michael. (As with Locke's suicide attempt, though, fate intervenes in time, because he still has work left to do.)
Meet Kevin Johnson included a few more details that strengthen this case even further. Michael indeed does want to end his own life due to his guilt, but he cannot kill himself yet. In this episode, neither his son nor his mother wanted anything to do with him, perhaps so much that they would avoid his funeral. Michael’s mother also mentions that she cannot call him by his real name; Kevin Johnson is not the alias that Michael chose for himself, but he lived under some different name before Tom recruited him. By the end of the season, perhaps the series will reveal that Michael took the name John Latham. Whether or not you believe that Michael will end up inside that particular coffin, Michael’s future life certainly seems very bleak, with little chance for salvation apart from self-sacrifice.
“You’re taking this very personal. Tom, this is business, and this man is taking it very, very personal.” – Sonny Corleone, The Godfather
Sayid, for one, did not offer Michael any second chances. An enraged Sayid threw Michael against a wall, twisted his arm, and demanded answers. Last week, I incorrectly predicted that Sayid would show understanding for Michael’s situation rather than lash out violently. Instead, the emotional half of Sayid’s personality did triumph over the rational half. I still stand by that prediction, but we will need to wait for quite a while before Sayid reverses his stance. Even some of the most fervent Michael haters might agree that Michael appeared more sympathetic than Sayid in these scenes. Sayid showed an intense desire to punish Michael, even though Michael offered up information to him willingly, without the need for torture. Dissatisfied by this turn of events, Sayid turned Michael over to Captain Gault for further punishment. Many viewers were left asking a very valid question: does Sayid have any basis for trusting Gault (and by extension, Widmore)? Most likely, Sayid did not act on any sound reasoning, but only out of emotion.
Despite his blind hatred of Michael in this episode, Sayid has much more in common with Michael than he knows at the moment. Essentially, Sayid presents two charges against Michael: first, he was a murderous traitor; and, second, he is working for Benjamin Linus. During Sayid’s flashback in Solitary, Sayid himself committed an equivalent act of treason against his people. In the same style as Michael, he murdered an innocent fellow soldier named Omar, he released Nadia from imprisonment, and then he wounded himself to cover up his crime. During Sayid’s flash-forward in The Economist, Sayid will also become an undercover agent for Benjamin Linus. While Michael has so far acted only as a spy and a saboteur for Ben, Sayid will soon be murdering strangers in cold blood. His treatment of Michael now makes his actions in Solitary and The Economist seem even more heartbreaking. If Sayid shows this much hatred toward Michael, then how much loathing does he have for himself for those same two offenses?
“He will get in touch with you through someone you absolutely trust … guaranteeing your safety ... and at that meeting you’ll be assassinated.” – Don Vito Corleone, The Godfather
Sayid’s interrogation and Michael’s extended flashback were sandwiched in between scenes of a seemingly unrelated story involving Ben, Danielle, Alex, and Karl. This side story began with an image repeated from Confirmed Dead: from the background, Ben glares at Karl, the young man who not only betrayed him during Season Three, but also happend to be sharing intimate contact with his adopted daughter. Next, Ben approaches Alex with a detailed map leading to the Temple, which he describes as ‘a sanctuary,’ which may be ‘the last safe place on the island.’ On their way to the Temple, Karl pauses, and comments: “What if your dad is … playing us?” A few seconds later, a team of snipers ambushes the crew. The gunmen murder Karl, eliminating one traitor to Ben’s cause. The shooters also deliver a severe wound to Danielle (who similarly wounded Ben with an arrow during Season Two), another person that presented a major threat to Ben’s possession of his daughter.
“Do you expect me to let you take my children from me? Don't you know me? Don’t you know that that’s an impossibility? That that could never happen? That I would use all of my power to keep something like that from happening?” – Michael Corleone, The Godfather, Part II
Currently, the Lost fan base is split about evenly between the viewers who believe that Widmore’s team fired the gunshots and the viewers who believe that Ben’s people executed the hit. The episode leaves room for both possibilities. (If you want to know where I weigh in on the matter, then just re-read my last paragraph.) Regardless, it would be a remarkable coincidence if Keamy and company somehow managed to land at the exact same time and at the exact same place in which Ben sent Karl and Danielle. Also, it would be an equally amazing coincidence that those assassins did Ben a tremendous favor by gunning down two of his most hated enemies and rivals. There are many different arguments for why or why not Ben was responsible for this ambush, but I hope that everyone can agree on at least one point: Ben would not hesitate to kill Karl and Danielle if he had the chance. Two episodes ago, flashbacks revealed that Ben was willing to send Goodwin, one of his most trusted followers, to his death, due to their rivalry over Juliet. Does anyone believe that Ben would even think twice about trying to kill two of his enemies, who stood between him and his daughter?
“Only don't tell me that you're innocent. Because it insults my intelligence and it makes me very angry.” – Michael Corleone, The Godfather
In Ben’s brief appearance in Michael’s flashback, he makes his strongest plea yet that he is The Good Guy. He goes to great lengths to convince Michael that he is not a monster like Charles Widmore: “When I'm at war, I'll do what I need to do to win, but I will not kill innocent people.” While Michael was convinced by the little farce that Ben played with him, Ben’s track record indicates otherwise. It is difficult to put an exact number on the innocent people that Ben killed or tried to kill to fulfill his own desires. However, Ben is such a fan of listmaking that he probably has these names checked off somewhere: Roger Linus, Horace Goodspeed, another forty members of Dharma Initiative, the real Henry Gale, Goodwin, Charlie, Bonnie, Greta, any pregnant woman who wanted to leave the island, all of his own people who died on kidnapping missions, etc. You can add in his direct attempts to kill Ana-Lucia, Locke, and Charlotte, as well as the countless other times when he ordered other people to use lethal force. If you agree with my interpretation of this episode, then Karl and Danielle will be just the latest names in this ongoing series of victims.
Perhaps even longer than his list of names is his list of excuses. He somehow manages to keep persuading both characters and audience members that everything he does is justified. Ben has now convinced a new group of people that their survival depends upon their efforts to protect him. Make no mistake, though, Ben is a monster, and there is no other character more dangerous than him. He pursues his desires without regard for human life, and slaughters the innocent without conscience.
“But I never wanted this for you. I worked my whole life – I don't apologize – to take care of my family. And I refused to be a fool dancing on a string held by all those big shots. I don’t apologize. That’s my life. But I always thought that when it was your time that you would be the one to hold the strings. Senator Corleone. Governor Corleone. Something. Just wasn’t enough time, Michael. Wasn’t enough time.” – Don Vito Corleone, The Godfather
After eight full episodes, Season Four has introduced many changes into the overall direction of the show. The first three seasons focused heavily on the relationships between the show’s main characters and the members of the prior generation: the mothers and fathers who made them what they are. By transitioning away from pre-island flashbacks, Season Four has also shifted the spotlight onto the younger generation of characters. Will the new children of Lost lead lives any less tragic than their predecessors?
It would be a severe understatement to say that the youngest group of Lost characters has not made an auspicious start. Currently, all of the children on this show have lost at least one parent. Ji Yeon Kwon must live with the loss of her father. Baby Aaron was abandoned by his biological father and now has been separated from his birth mother. (Also, do not forget the psychic Richard Malkin's prediction that 'danger surrounds the child,' if anyone other than Claire raises him.) By all indications, the Others have no intentions to return the kidnapped Zack and Emma to their mother. Young Walt suffered through the death of his mother at the age of ten. He was reunited briefly with his father, until Tom snatched him away to attend Ben's cruel Room 23 day-care center. This crime started the chain of events that caused Michael to lose his son permanently. Presently, Walt wakes up screaming in the middle of the night, with his memories of what happened on the island. Alex spent the first sixteen years of her life with the people who stole her away from her own mother. Recently, she started to break free from that situation, but she only escaped far enough away from Ben so that she could see her boyfriend murdered and her mother shot.
The children of Lost have become equally immersed into the same world of suffering, lies, and violence as their parents. Will it ever be possible to break this cycle? The Corleone family of The Godfather saga proposes one possible answer to this question: essentially, no. The sins of the parents will continue to be revisited on the children. Maybe Alexandra Linus will follow in the footsteps of her mass-murderering father. Or perhaps one day, Walter Dawson will put a gun to his own head and try to pull the trigger. Right now, the show offers very little reason to feel optimistic about any of them.
51 Comments:
Good review Luhks!
I didn't really find this episode very dark to be honest. Mostly I was imagining what Tom and Arturo's wedding would be like, and that Alex is a fox.
t's hard to keep finding allusions in these episodes, I'm sure, but the Godfather theme seems like a fairly irrelevant stretch. Michael Corleone's tragedy was a result of an excess of power, whereas Michael Dawson couldn't possibly be less powerful. He's a complete pawn whereas Corleone made his own destiny with full knowledge aforethought. Corleone killed out of revenge, to consolidate power,not to protect anyone. And Micheal Corleone was defined by his coldness, his lack of remorse. Suicide is the last thing he'd ever consider. All in all, a pointless comparison.
The quotes you used didn't seem relevant at all, probably in light of the poverty of the overall comparison. Your whole connection seems based on an orange and the fact that two children appeared peripherally in the episode. Weak. And not that it matters, but Michael Corleone's son was named Anthony, not Vito.
There's an interesting dilemma here where the morally absolutist Lost fans are being given a story they can't categorize into the judgmental boxes they are so comfortable with. But you didn't find it here with this review. Nice try, I guess.
just to point out sayid didn't say the 'don't try and apply reason' quote in exodus, it was a season later in live together, die alone. sayid wouldn't have known walt had been taken until 2x08 collision.
Superb analysis, absolutely top notch.
I'd have to agree with what Gary said, The Corleone connection? not working for me either.
Great ideas on the fate of the next generation though, I'd never really thought about how all of the children were being affected.
I agree that it was almost certainly Ben who set up Danielle and Karl to be shot. Although when Alex finds out, and she certainly will find out that Ben had her boyfriend killed, I don't see how there will ever be a father/daughter reconcilliation.
Great review.
I´m not sure about what you write about Sayids intention to deliver Michael to Captain Gault. Yes - we´ve seen Sayid reacting completly emotional (when he attacked Sawyer after torturing him for example). But I can´t get rid of the feeling that he did this to make Gault just believe that he´s trusting him.
Sayid is a very good observerer and he surely didn´t miss Gaults suspicious look when he approached Michael on the freighter. IMO, handing over Michael is just part of a bigger plan.
"Michael’s mother mentions that she cannot call him by his real name. The name Kevin Johnson was not the alias that Michael chose for himself, but he lived under a different name before Tom recruited him. By the end of the season, perhaps the series will reveal that Michael took the name John Latham."
This is the most persuasive argument I've read for Michael being the dude in the coffin. Great job.
Still think freighties shot Karl and Rousseau. But that doesn't mean Ben didn't see that coming and send them into danger, a la Goodwin to the tailies. He knew Alex's clout as his daughter would be enough to spare her, probably.
surly...Still think freighties shot Karl and Rousseau. But that doesn't mean Ben didn't see that coming and send them into danger, a la Goodwin to the tailies.
--------------
I agree.
Still, fantastic review. Always enjoyable. Waited almost a week for it... I was hanging with anticipation :)
Best review yet. thank you.
I'm with Kmarg. If Sayid turning Michael over was supposed to be due to "blind hatred", then Sayid would have turned Michael over in "Ji Yeon". But he doesn't. When Sayid first sees Michael in "Ji Yeon", he lies for him. Then he gives Michael a chance to explain. Then he turns Michael over to Gault. That's not blind hatred. That's a calculated, pre-meditated move. And given Gault's complete lack of surprise, I'm thinking we just haven't seen the full extent of the angle Sayid's working.
Ben would not hesitate to kill Karl and Danielle if he had the chance. Two episodes ago, flashbacks revealed that Ben was willing to send Goodwin, one of his most trusted followers, to his death, due to their rivalry over Juliet. Does anyone believe that Ben would even think twice about trying to kill two of his enemies, who stood between him and his daughter?
Heh. I still don't buy that Ben deliberately sent Goodwin off to die; I hold with my theory that he allowed Juliet to believe that because it allowed him to manipulate her [for the purpose of ensuring that Juliet would continue on the fertility question.]
With that in mind, I do think Ben would hesitate to kill Karl & Danielle, even if he had a chance...for the same reason that Ben didn't have Sayid killed in "Through the Looking Glass". I am of the belief that whether or not Ben kills (or plans the death of) someone is not a matter of whether or not they're his enemies but whether or not they can be useful to him. If Ben wanted Karl & Danielle to die, it would be because he believed they couldn't benefit him further in any way. (Note: Danielle is totally still alive.)
With regard to the "Who shot?" question, it's perfectly plausible that it was the freighter people. After all, Alex, Karl, & Danielle were on their way to the Temple. The Others had went to the Temple. If the freighter people were looking to attack the Others, wouldn't they head first to the Dharma Station that serves best as a sanctuary?
Concerning innocent people, well, I'm guessing Ben has a very unique definition of "innocent", all the better to convince himself that he's one of the good guys. :-)
great review Luhks
I think the LOST Michael is summed up better by a quote by Michael Corleone from GF III, "Just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in." Can we use the GF references to other characters too? Maybe Syaid is Sallozzo to Ben's Don Barzini?I'd have to agree with what the others said, The Corleone connection? not working. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.
The producers have said over and over this will have a bittersweet ending, i don't think it's gonna be all nearly as nihilistic as you've made it out to be.
Gary perhaps you're making the wrong comparison.
Corleone killed out of revenge, to consolidate power,not to protect anyone. And Micheal Corleone was defined by his coldness, his lack of remorse.
Doesn't that define Ben almost completely?
The children of Lost have become equally immersed into the same world of suffering, lies, and violence as their parents. Will it ever be possible to break this cycle? ... Right now, the show offers very little reason to feel optimistic about any of them.
Yes! Which is exactly where this story should be. We're deep in Act II, approaching the climatic third act. At the end of this act, our characters need to be at their very, very, very lowest. Conflict, confrontation, every reason to quit, until something propells them to action.
It's only going to get worse for our friends before it gets any better.
I thought this was a great review! And I, too, believe the future is bleak for everyone involved.
I can't really explain why, but I just have this feeling that ALL the characters - Kate, Jack, Locke, etc. - will all somehow die by the final finale. I just don't see any of them surviving.
Every character that finishes his "change of heart" or his "work" has a tendency to die.
What do you all think?
Sorry Vozzek69, Luhks has become the best reviewer. I agree, learn and really appreciate your reviews, luhks.
I wouldn't be so quick to put Charlotte on your list of innocents that Ben has tried to kill. She may actually be there to kill everyone on the Island...
"It's getting better every day"
Perhaphs to watch, but for the miserable Losties things are getting terrible...
I wish you were right about last week's comment and Sayid being understanding towards Michael... Who knows what he and Ben talked about when they were left alone at the Barraks.
Great Review. Thanks Luhks!
I still cant figure out where the second helicopter is. I posted a comment on fishbisquit's review so I'm just hoping someone caught something that I didnt. Naomi crashed a helicopter while coming to the island but all I saw on the frighter is one helicopter and they even had an arguement with Frank and Naomi because he thought they he should be the one flying the helicopter and Naomi told him that he was needed to fly the "scientific team". Someone help me please!
Sorry for double posting but I should also say that I have enjoyed every single one of luhks reviews and this one was no exception. Keep up the good work luhks!
Luhks wrote, "Once upon a time, during the first season of Lost, the series seemed to present a much brighter outlook on life."
Season 1 has become sort of the sacred Dreamtime of Lost.
Your recaps are my favorites by far.
After reading all of the as usually amazing recaps, I'm left with only one observation. It regards the Danielle/Karl controversy, and I'm kind of confused as to whether or not anyone else has come up with the same theory.
So, to make it clear what I'm going to posit, I'm going to number the events that I think proves, to me at least, that the crew from the freighter did the killing, or wounding, or whatever. I don't believe for a second that the Others did it, and my theory will detail that as well.
Time line starts at the Tempest, and proceeds from there.
1.) Daniel and Charlotte disable the Tempest, thus making it safer for the freighties to come ashore.
2.) We already know that despite Michael's disabling of the communication room, that there is another line that is for "emergency" use only. Kate saw that Daniel had a working SAT phone in his pack that he "borrowed." It makes sense that after knowing that Naomi was killed by someone on the island, and possibly receiving some sort of signal from D & C (D & C? Hmmmmm:) that the Tempest was disabled, they knew it was time to send the strike team. Let's also consider the fact that Naomi was alluded to being some sort of a tactical badass, per her conversation with Abaddon.
3.) As this is all going on, Frank returns with the Des, Sayid, and Naomi's corpse - they are not treated kindly, if at all. They are fed conflicting intel, and are witness to the violent behavior of the crew who are affected by the proximity of the island. They and Michael get glimpses of the idea that this crew is definitely on a "rescue" mission.
4.) Keamy finds Frank during his Lima bean run, and tells him to be on time for a meeting, and not to be late. Keamy does this in a way that speaks more than just the actions of a hired goon. He says it in a way that infers that he has something to do with said meeting.
5.) The next day, Frank and his chopper are gone. The Doc says he went on an errand, and that he doesn't know of anywhere else to land but the island. Guess who else isn't seen on camera anymore? Keamy and Omar, that's who. When the captain is giving his crew the ultimate smackdown, where are the two guys you just know would love to at least WATCH a brawl, much less be able to participate in it? Their absence says a lot, at least to me.
5.) Now, at this point I'm just going to go off camera myself, and give ya'll an idea of what I'm getting at with all of that setup that the writers already gave us.
Frank takes at least Keamy and Omar, if not two other trained killers to the island and drops them off.
He doesn't do this anywhere near the barracks or the beach, as it would prove too much right off the bat for anyone involved - Team Jack or Team Locke.
They take up tactical positions near the barracks, knowing that Miles is held prisoner there, whereas D & C are relatively safe with the Losties. Also of bonus is the fact that they probably have some kind of idea that old Ben is somewhere around there as well.
They wait, and watch. no good tactical strike is without some sort of recon.
Ben, either knowingly, or unknowingly sends his daughter, prospective son-in-law, and that crazy French broad to "The Temple" we've heard so much about.
The killing force tails them, either out of curiosity as to their destination, or because they already know what Alex looks like.
They use silenced weapons to take out the two people that would risk their lives to defend Alex.
No whispers are heard; that struck me as odd, and still does.
The others have never used silenced weapons. Ever in the show.
We have no idea where they were in relation to the Temple too - at least we know that they weren't within sight of it. Why would the Others hang out in the middle of a field, putting themselves in danger, and wait for Alex to come to them? Then kill her love, and her Mother? Like she would just happily traipse along after them and have any kind of pleasant relations with ANY of them?
Seriously, it's much more of a stretch to think that the Others did it than the massacre guys from the freighter.
Plus the snippet of an interview with Blake Bashoff nails it for me. He flat-out says what came out of the jungle after the shots were fired, but I'm not going to discuss other spoiler threads in this forum, as per the rules.
Let's just say that what he described sounded NOTHING like the Others. Not at all.
Dunno, it would be an intense twist, but one that would need the writing gymnastics of the entire fourth season combined to get out of it, and they have their work cut out for them enough already it seems.
But otherwise, I'm sticking with this run-on theory, because it sets the stage for what looks to be an emotionally crippling post-break run. We seem to be in for a War, and not the bake-off that Kristin from E! is claiming. The other spoilers that have been posted say that things are going to get really bad, on many, many levels. For everyone.
How much worse could be if Alex is held captive from Ben and Rousseau? (I think she's going to survive a la Locke) Things would go absolutely nut house.
Whew! Thanks for reading all of that, if you did, and please tell me if someone already has an earlier, more coherent draft of what I'm rambling about . . . I'd love to read it. :)
Great review! This really brought together the S1 Locke orange smile, which had always bothered me in its obvious reference to One. There is also the link of Locke to Colonel Kurtz, of the other FFC masterpiece.
You're quite right that both Michaels kill two people at the same time. Also, both Michaels volunteer for murder; Michael C in One has to insist on his right to take revenge for his father against Sonny's objections, and Michael D in S1 doesn't have to kill Libby and Ana-Lucia. He could have just been a little more patient, saying, "Hey, Ana, why don't you get some fresh air? I'll push the button for a while..." :)
Good reasoning, mbevis. I was leaning toward Ben's Others killing Karl and wounding Danielle, but now I think it was Ben sending them out knowing they would be killed, just as he sent Goodwin to his death.
Great review, Luhks. I enjoyed the ties to The Godfather, and you're right, the show has paid homage to that trilogy beginning with Locke's famous "orange" grin in the Pilot episode.
Luhks also brought attention to something I've been noticing for a long time now. This is really a dark, dark show. Surprisingly dark for such a popular hit show. People's lives were twisted in flashbacks to the past and often seem tortured in the flash-forwards to the future. Only a few have atoned and emerged as better people, and what happens to them? They DIE!! I wonder if the end to the entire series will be similarly dark, or just mixed. I'm sure we will witness the deaths of many if not all of the main characters by the end.
faith_can't:Only a few have atoned and emerged as better people, and what happens to them? They DIE!!
==========
That's an overarching theme of the series. People who finally overcome and purge their pasts (Eko, Charlie for instance) are killed off.
It's also a thing that this show has bad news for lovers. Charlie/Claire, Sayid/Shannon, Boone/Shannon,Jin/Sun,Karl/Alex.
Luhks, nice review. Personally, I liked the use of the GF movies and quotes in your review.
I agree the freighters are responsible for the shooting of Karl and Danielle; and Ben was wanting it to happen. I take it one step further than you and say Ben has the gift of being a master manipulator because of the island; the "magic box" theory. Ben manipulates situations and whatever he wants is the outcome. Ben just has to be patient, and get the pieces into place, and the outcome is exactly what he wants. We have seen it again and again; Goodwin, the submarine blowing up, a spinal surgeon dropping out of the sky.
I was saddened by the end of your review, but at this point can see why you said this. I am going to remain optimistic for the children and our 815er's though, as I agree with an above poster, we are at the low point of the story arc. I anticipate season 5 will be the season of hope as we head toward the end of the series.
Great article!
I really liked your writeup, but have to strongly disagree with one specific point:
I don't think Sayid was driven by emotion by giving Michael over to Gault at all.
Let me explain:
Sayid, having lived through so much, is a man trained to act on calculation.
At this point, Desmond and him are on a boat, surrounded with a most likely unfriendly, if not hostile crew (except for the pilot). He knows the crew is entirely anti-Ben AND there to capture Ben, and he also knows Michael is Ben's mole.
He also knows Michael betrayed and murdered his own, and as far as Sayid goes (and any rational person too), he is likely to do it again. There is no reason for Sayid to believe Michael would help them escape.
...And he knows Ben is anti-Sayid, anti-Losties, anti-rescue from the island. He has seen that Ben only serves Ben, is responsible for kidnapping and murder.
The safest way to go from there is to show the captain in action that he is both willing and able to help him in his search for Ben. Of course he intends to ask for something back, which is their rescue.
We shall see.
ooooo - What if, (and you really got me thinking here...) What if JACK had to CHOOSE between Claire and Aaron. And he had to choose who lived and who died, and he chose Claire, which is WHY he has all of those "issues," with Aaron!
Ah ha!
mbevis, GREAT STUFF there.
I liked luhks as usual. Some I agree with fully, the rest is fibrous food for thought. Don't really buy a strong connection between Puzo/Coppola's epic and LOST, but there is some connection. I just don't see it as a major component, and I'm a HUGE fan of the first two films in the Godfather saga (the third one makes me LOL).
But man, mbevis' stuff meshes and expands a LOT of what I took from Meet Kevin Johnson. DarkUFO -- could you maybe offer mbevis a Guest Reviewer spot?
Cheers all. Only four more Thursdays without a LOST fix!
Wheres the fantasy league results for Meet Kevin Johnson? They should be done by now!!! Someones probably asked before but i cba lookin. Jus wondered why its not been posted yet? Wb plz
Freckles - I have to admit, you've got a great angle there that works completely within what I'm positing, and aside from a few things, it works well overall.
Although sometimes I wonder if it's Ben using the box, or some (one) (thing) else. Jacob anyone? We've been given enough hints that Ben "holds" Jacob, but Jacob somehow controls Ben and everyone else on the island, to a degree.
Either way, the events you listed DO show that there is definitely something to Ben's Will to Power.
Fans of R.A.W.'s and Bob Shea's Illuminatus trilogy might recognize the line . . .
"JESUS MOTHER!$%*ING CHRIST IT'S ALIVE" (They were talking about will, and the idea that it is more than just something you use at buffets and when quitting smoking:)
Bongzilla - Man, if you're serious, then THANK YOU. That comment made an especially crappy day much better. Cheers!
Absolutely serious. Look around this site and Lostpedia and you'll find some very similar comments, not as fully formed, as yours.
Gotta agree with mbevis. It must have been the freighter-people who shot danielle and karl. The actor playing karl said in an interview shooters in military clothes were on set. Wouldn't fit with the others.
Furthermore I believe Ben might be setting a trap for Keamy & Co. by letting the others hide in the temple while Team Locke is posing as the others at the barracks. If an assault by Keamy & Co. is launched on the barracks, it will hit the wrong people. After a fight with the 815 survivors and possible casualties, there would still be the others who could take out the rest of widmore's weakened forces.
The fact that ben & sayid are hunting down Widmore in the future indicates that even if ben might not be able to return to the island he at least won the battle that took place there. As Juliet put it ben is gonna win the war.
Are you sure you're not working for this show? I like the Godfather/Lost comparison. They certainly have similar themes about the heavy weight of family legacy. What I also enjoyed about this is your theory for who is "in the coffin."
It does make a lot of sense. Unfortunate, but I can definitely see that.
First off, I want to once again thank everyone who read, rated, and/or commented. Thanks for all of the criticisms, both positive and negative. Thanks also for being patient and still reading my post a few days later than usual. This post generated some very interesting discussions. I have a few specific responses to some of the individual comments.
(In case anyone cares to know, this piece was originally about twice as long as its current length, and it took me a while to trim it down and focus on the key arguments. Initially, it included a few paragraphs about the real-life artist John Latham and his concept of Flat-Time, a discussion of Kurt Vonnegut’s own personal struggles with suicide, a separate comparison between Michael Corleone and Benjamin Linus, and an argument for why Ben and Tom should hold more legal culpability than Michael for the murders of Ana-Lucia and Libby. Needless to say, there was a lot to talk about in this episode.)
Joe14c said: “just to point out sayid didn't say the 'don't try and apply reason' quote in exodus, it was a season later in live together, die alone. sayid wouldn't have known walt had been taken until 2x08 collision.”
Here is Sayid’s exact quote that I paraphrased from Exodus. He was referring to Danielle Rousseau and her lost child.
SAYID: Don't try to apply reason to her actions. She's a mother who lost her child, just like Claire. This isn't about revenge. Don't make it personal.
Also, here is another similar quote from Three Minutes.
SAYID: His actions are not those of a man who is telling the truth. […] Because I believe a father would do anything for his son.
Kmarg said: “I´m not sure about what you write about Sayids intention to deliver Michael to Captain Gault. Yes - we´ve seen Sayid reacting completly emotional (when he attacked Sawyer after torturing him for example). But I can´t get rid of the feeling that he did this to make Gault just believe that he´s trusting him. Sayid is a very good observerer and he surely didn´t miss Gaults suspicious look when he approached Michael on the freighter. IMO, handing over Michael is just part of a bigger plan.”
Also to Bonasi and Surfmadpig:
I think that this alternative interpretation of Sayid’s response is also a valid one. As we have seen many times before, Sayid can be very emotional and he can also be very calculating in different situations. It is definitely a possibility that Sayid could have turned over Michael as some maneuver to improve his situation with Gault.
Personally, I focused on one point of the episode. When Michael finishes his story, Sayid responds: “So you're telling me... that you're working for Benjamin Linus?”, and then he immediately turns Michael over to the captain. It seemed to me that Sayid rejected all of the other details of Michael’s story and boiled it down to the single fact that mattered to him. I think we’ve seen that Sayid is both smart enough and also short-tempered enough to go either way, but I would argue for the emotional side of his motivations here.
Shelli said: “ooooo - What if, (and you really got me thinking here...) What if JACK had to CHOOSE between Claire and Aaron. And he had to choose who lived and who died, and he chose Claire, which is WHY he has all of those ‘issues,’ with Aaron! Ah ha!”
Wow! I really like that prediction. That development would explain a great number of story elements. It would explain why he cannot bear to face Aaron, it would explain why Claire never left the island, and it would also do a great deal to explain why Jack has so much guilt in later years. If that prediction holds true, then that situation would also draw a lot of parallels to Jack’s decision in Through the Looking Glass to let Sayid, Jin, and Bernard be killed. Great theory!
To mbevis: You did an excellent analysis of the timeline, and presented a pretty strong counter-argument. As I said, “The episode leaves room for both possibilities.” The motive, means, and opportunity were all present, for both sides. Whether or not we agree on who actually pulled the trigger yet, I think it’s safe to say that Ben wanted it to happen. Some people believe that Ben has the ability to see the future, some people believe that Ben is actually giving orders to people on the Freighter, and some people believe that he can manipulate the powers of the island to get what he wants. One way or another, though, I believe that Benjamin Linus was the ultimate cause behind the murder. Like many of his other murders (namely Goodwin), though, his role could have been more indirect than direct in this instance.
Freckles said: “I agree the freighters are responsible for the shooting of Karl and Danielle; and Ben was wanting it to happen. I take it one step further than you and say Ben has the gift of being a master manipulator because of the island; the "magic box" theory. Ben manipulates situations and whatever he wants is the outcome. Ben just has to be patient, and get the pieces into place, and the outcome is exactly what he wants. We have seen it again and again; Goodwin, the submarine blowing up, a spinal surgeon dropping out of the sky.”
Excellent theory here. I think that the episodes certainly will leave open this interpretation. I just want to make one comment, though: many people believe that Ben does control future events, either by seeing the future or by manipulating the magic box. If it does turn out that the nature of his power is supernatural rather than a result of his own intelligence, then does that make the character more or less interesting? To me, it makes him much less interesting, and it would make all of his plans seem much less impressive. Also, if Ben did have such great influence, then it would seem to contradict the fatalistic vision of future events from Desmond’s precognition stories. Many people seem to think it would make him much cooler though, but I disagree. Essentially, I think you might be right, but I don’t think such a development would be a good one, either for the character or for the show in general. I think Ben would be much more interesting if he never cheats, but only operates through conventional human abilities.
Owen Thomas said: "Yes! Which is exactly where this story should be. We're deep in Act II, approaching the climatic third act. At the end of this act, our characters need to be at their very, very, very lowest. Conflict, confrontation, every reason to quit, until something propells them to action.” It's only going to get worse for our friends before it gets any better.”
You make a fair point here. In many other three part sagas, like the Star Wars trilogy, for instance, things do get much worse in the middle of the story before things get better. Not every second and third act, though, follows that same trajectory. In some stories, things get worse, and then continue to get worse. The Godfather saga is just one possible example, but many other tragedies operate similarly. Mainly, I wanted to argue that Lost might be taking a different route. What basis is there for believing that the future will be any better than the past? If there really is no major difference between past and future on the show, then shouldn’t the future look every bit as bleak as the past? So far, the flashback, flash-forward dichotomy on the show, as well as the experiences of all three generations of characters, offer very little indication that things will become any better in the future.
Gary said: “Michael Corleone's tragedy was a result of an excess of power, whereas Michael Dawson couldn't possibly be less powerful. He's a complete pawn whereas Corleone made his own destiny with full knowledge aforethought. Corleone killed out of revenge, to consolidate power, not to protect anyone.”
Caution: spoilers for The Godfather films in these next few paragraphs. This is more a discussion of interpretation of The Godfather than of Lost.
Gary, you seem to have taken a very harsh moral stance on the actions of Michael Corleone. As you could probably tell by reading, I think it would be very unfair to characterize Michael Corleone’s motivations solely in those terms. If he was solely motivated by revenge and lust for power as you suggest, then his character would not be very interesting, and the film wouldn’t have been as well-received. If you think Michael acted with full knowledge aforethought, then what exactly why was he so conflicted early on?
Ask yourself: why did Michael kill Solozzo and McCluskey? Try to put yourself in his position. Here is the situation: a son is born into a family involved in organized crime. He makes a tremendous effort to differentiate himself from them, because he has no desire to be involved in that type of business. Then, a group of people conspire to kill his father, whom he loves despite his occupation. The police offer no protection at all, and they are involved in the conspiracy. The only way that he can protect his family is through violence. If you were in that type of situation, what would you do? (Even his other murders in the other two films only arise from situations when they lives of Michael himself and his family are threatened.) If you don’t agree with him, I hope you can at least try to see why he decided to act in that way. Michael Corleone genuinely believes his own words that he “spent his whole life protecting his family”, and part of the complexity of the film is the way in which it allows you to see his side. If you see Michael’s actions only in terms of lust for power, then The Godfather is really not a very good story.
”And not that it matters, but Michael Corleone's son was named Anthony, not Vito.”
If you read my original words, I said: “Michael Dawson named his son Walter after his father, just as Michael Corleone passed on his father’s name Vito to his own son.” The film tells us that his son’s name is Anthony Vito Corleone. I would assume that the film draws attention to his middle name because it is important. In particular, I think this detail reveals a lot about Michael’s value system, and shows why his son was so important to him – to carry on his father’s name. I’m not suggesting that there is an intentional reference here, but I am drawing the comparison between Michael Corleone’s value system and Michael Dawson’s value system. When a man chooses to pass on his father’s name to his son, it sho