Thursday, June 3, 2010

Lost Without Lost

It's been a little over two weeks since the series finale of "Lost," and I still can't get it out of my head. When Jack's eye closed for the final time and the screen went blank, I wasn't 100% sure of how I felt about it. I knew I was at least vaguely satisfied, but I wasn't over the moon--so to speak.

However, as the days (and now weeks) have passed I feel more and more attached to the finale and the series as a whole. I realize now that any resistance I may have had that fateful Sunday evening had more to do with lingering unanswered questions. Mostly island specific stuff like "what really is the deal with that golden light in the cave?" "Why does the man in black need to take the form of another?" And "Did that time travel stuff really make any sense? But over time, I found that I didn't care much about any of that. All that mattered were the people that I had grown to feel such affection for.

Starting with Jack.

I know a lot of the show's fans were not always in love with Jack. Many preferred the more likable Hurley, or the oft-hilarious Sawyer (of whom you could have created a drinking game around his many utterances of "sonuvabitch"). Jack was often frustrating, self absorbed, and even borderline messianic as played (quite wonderfully) by Matthew Fox. I suppose Jack fit the leading man role a little too much for many viewers. Maybe it was hard to warm up to the handsome doctor who would so often force his opinion on others. His struggles with Locke and their many arguments of faith vs. science may have been maddening for the more spiritual followers of the show.

However, I believe Fox gave us a great portrait of a uniquely flawed character. He seldom made the easy choice while playing Jack. He could have softened the edges of the doctor and played him in a more standard heroic mode. And while that would have made his character more likable, he would have been infinitely less interesting. Think of the season that ended with Jack begging Kate to go back to the island. Was Fox not fearlessly vulnerable--even bordering on pathetic? And in the end wasn't the show really more about Jack's journey than all the other island residents? So, for me, it's awful hard to see how you could hate Jack and love the show.

In fact, I would argue that there was nothing sadder in the final episode--and that's certainly saying something--than Jack's invention of his son during the "flash sideways." Think of it: The guy had saved the island--and maybe the world--only to be continually dogged by his "daddy" issues to such a degree that he had to create a son out of whole cloth to prove to himself that he was not his father (my theory anyway). And how about the look on Jack's face when Locke told him he didn't have a son? Fox managed to convey a mixture of crush and confusion that was truly heartbreaking.

Ok, enough about Jack. What about the rest of the episode?

I have to say, I approached the 9 o'clock hour with a mix of anticipation and trepidation. Would they be able to resolve all my questions? No. But as I mentioned earlier, that wasn't what was most important. Would they be able to recover from the single worst episode in the history of the series (the dreadful tale of young Jacob and whathisname played by two awful child actors with Alison Janney in an epic folly of miscasting as their mother)? The show had suffered through the occasional quality slippage before. There were those six episodes on the "other" island that could have probably been shrunk to two. And who can forget those legendary characters, Paulo and Nikki (although I'm sure you've tried)? Still, the story of young Jacob and MIB was the longest hour of television I've sat through all year. So there were reasons to be concerned. However, the bounce back was more than worth it.

Not only was the finale moving and imaginative as it tied the current (if you can say such a thing about Lost) story to the flash sideways, it was also the most sensible explanation. Who wouldn't believe the choices that the characters made on the island? Jack, Desmond, Hurley and even Ben's sacrifices were all true to their characters. Sawyer and Kate leaving the island alive? Well weren't they always the "survivors" of the group?

As far as the "flash sideways" being purgatory, well, that made sense too. The idea that all of these fatally flawed characters would still be trying to work out their junk in the next life was completely fitting. Sawyer turning himself into a cop? Makes sense to me. Desmond's efforts to bring the group together? Wasn't he always pivotal? Hurley using his riches to help others? Right again. Kate putting Claire ahead of her own safety? No argument here. And how about Jin and Sun speaking perfect english after their "awakening?" Dead solid perfect.

I still remember the show's first season. This unruly clan of plane crash survivors marooned on a semi-deserted island dealing with needs as basic as food and water and as outlandish as monsters and polar bears. During that inaugural year, no one would have faulted you for thinking that the show's title related to their geography. But I've come to believe that the physical location of the cast aways meant little to nothing. On Lost, being well, lost had to do with the state of their hearts and minds. Because, really, weren't these people lost no matter where their bodies resided? Hell, they couldn't even move on to the next world without trying to take out the metaphysical trash.

As this gloriously confounding show came to an end, I believe the themes were actually pretty simple. Lost was about those nagging things in our past that threaten to chip away at all that we are or could ever be. It's about the search for redemption. The desire to be a better friend, lover, or just plain old human being. I think we all can relate to that.

So, that's it. As the fatally wounded Jack faded to black with that gorgeous golden lab, Vincent by his side--leaving not a dry eye in my house--so ended this extraordinary show. I fear we will not see the likes of it ever again. How in the world could we?

Sumo-Pop
June 3, 2010

5 comments:

  1. So true. I always felt that the show was more about the internal struggles of each character. While explaining what it meant to be a candidate, Jacob told each of them they were chosen because they were floundering in their lives... they couldn't find a purpose. Bringing them to the island was his way of showing them that they each had a role but it was up to them to decide who they wanted to be.
    So, at the core, it was this fantastical adventure story where their encounters grew to be more powerful than the mysteries surrounding them. Not that they didn't want answers... not that we didn't want answers. But, like life, not all answers were given and in the end the connections were what chipped away at those people who first crashed on that island. They were the same yet changed by their experiences. And while I don't want to encounter any stray polar bears or scary smoke monsters, I realize that we all have obstacles and the people we meet--- in addition to the choices we make--- are what help us discover more about ourselves. It was nice to have a television series encompass all that.
    Thank you for writing such an insightful tribute.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Christine CullinanJune 3, 2010 at 6:31 PM

    YES I'm a big LOST fan, thanks for posting!"

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lovely, lovely, lovely. I think I will share this.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Stephanie Moore Biek via David E Phillips: For Will, Scott, and Susanne and all the other Losties. Heather and Rachel, you might wanna avoid this total spoiler.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Great article/blog David...thanks for sharing. I drew a lot of parallels between LOST and infamous, and never to be equaled magnum opus "The Sandman" by Neil Gaiman. That in the end it's not so much what you believe, but moreover that you believe."

    ReplyDelete