LOST is a multi-layered show. The idea of being lost has a literal layer (so, there was this plane crash . . . ) but it also has a metaphorical layer. Each of the main characters on the show have lost their way. Locke and Jack both have lost their identity walking in the shadows of their fathers. Kate grew up with daddy issues as well and her and Sawyer are linked together by their killings of vengeance. Hurley lost who he was after finding the winning lottery numbers. Sayid seems to wrestle with the desire to be good and the necessity of being evil. Jin wrestled with the same thing as Sayid and seems to have come out as a good guy but now his wife seems to be filling the role of evil by necessity. Much of the show has been about these characters finding redemption.
But, redemption seems to be a dead end at this point. I can't get my head around there being any hope for deliverance. Those who had been lost returned home only to find out that home wasn't what they were looking for. So, now they have returned back to the island. So, if home isn't deliverance then what is? To this point, the only character that I know of that has found redemption was Charlie and he died sacrificially. (Interestingly enough, sacrificial death worked for Charlie but it doesn't seem like it has for Locke).
If redemption is found on the island, then what does that mean for the "others"? Unless there is a way for the "others" and the "losties" to live together then I don't see hope for deliverance. And, what part does the Dharma initiative play? We have three groups of people who have all at times seemed evil and at others innocent. I can see one (maybe two) groups being found to be good, but not all three. How could three groups of innocent people be so diametrically opposed to one another? As I watch LOST I gotta think redemption is going to have to come from someone or something other than the characters involved.
It may seem like I am putting way too much thought into a TV show (but then again, it is not just a TV show :)). However, I think art (and I count LOST as pop-art) is a reflection of real life. Here is the thing. As confusing and grey as all the characters and groups of people in LOST are, I think it is an accurate reflection of reality. I mean, as we look at world affairs how do we determine who the good players are and who the bad players are? Like the different groups in LOST the different nations have hints of innocence and evil. The reason for this is the humanity that makes up these different nations. As I look at the world, I am convinced that if we are to hope for redemption it will have to come from someone or something other than the characters involved.
3 comments:
I disagree with your thoughts about Locke's sacrificial death being pointless because his death did land him back on the island (resurrected!) and it did accomplish to bring everyone else back. It was Charlie's death that was really pointless. It allowed a select few to leave only to realize that they shouldn't have left in the first place, and it ended in lots of the other Oceanic people to die (such as Bernard and Rose).
Maybe there is no redemption and that has been the point of the show. Maybe, for the writers, life is pointless and the best you can hope for is death.
I am not convinced we won't see Bernard and Rose again. And, Charlie's death may not have had any pragmatic benefits but it was redemptive in the sense that he was selfless enough to die for others. Redemption and pragmatism don't always go hand in hand.
Locke's death was cowardly. Sure he got murdered, but that is only because Ben finished the job before he could do it himself. In no way did Locke find redemption in an act of selfish cowardice.
I already solved this issue on Spencer's blog.
you can thank me later :-)
Post a Comment