ALARM! :: I should have told you that movies in the afternoon are my weakness.

"Nobody should be a mystery intentionally. Unintentionally is mysterious enough."

Saturday, May 27, 2006

On the Island

I’m 11 episodes in to the first season of Lost, and I have to say, my suspicions were largely confirmed. I’m underwhelmed. In some ways, it’s a fairly well-made TV drama: the production values are high; the acting and dialog are strong; the pacing is effective. From a show-by-show perspective, it works reasonably well as a tale of hard-bitten survival in a vaguely mysterious locale—a sort of Castaway by way of David Lynch.

But as a serial, it’s extremely weak. Nearly halfway through the first season, the show has revealed exactly nothing of importance, given no indication whatsoever as to what the island is all about, solved none of its Big Questions in any way that actually tells us anything. For all practical purposes, the situation—at least in regards to the island’s secrets—has not changed one single bit. The central mysteries so far: the tree-rustling creature that killed the captain, the appearance of Jacks’ father, the healing of Locke’s legs; the French woman’s transmission, the French woman’s warning that there are “others,” the hatch, and the kidnapping of the pregnant girl by an outsider. Now, the origin of the transmission was revealed. But the French woman gave us exactly no solid information or indication as to What’s Really Going On except that the survivors are not alone—not exactly a major revelation.

It took 10 episodes to get it “confirmed” that there are indeed others on the island. The pregnant girl got kidnapped by an outsider, but again, this didn’t actually reveal anything of use. It didn’t even hint as to the direction, much less the specific nature, of the various Big Questions. All we know is that spooky shit is happening, and Boy is it spooky. Why it’s happening, how it's happening, and who is behind it don’t seem to be serious concerns. Why don’t we spend a little more time having Hurley set up a golf course or watching Jack get buried under some cave rubble?

What Abrams and company really seem to be doing is telling a series of mostly self-contained survival stories with an air of sci-fi intrigue. The best serials understand that the Big Questions need to be moved forward, not just with new questions, but with real, solid clues, every episode, if not most every scene. One of the things that made the most recent season of 24 so effective was that nearly every scene tied directly into the central threat. There were minimal excursions into the realms of soggy family soap opera, and the few times they did pop up (Lynn’s sister, Chloe’s ex), they eventually factored in to the primary terrorist/government conspiracy storyline. The Sopranos may take time out to deal with familial squabbles, but it never lets its mob storylines go for very long without some forward movement and complication, if not real resolution.

More importantly, The Sopranos and 24 don’t dangle Big Mysteries as their hooks and then placate us with nothing but non-answers and family infighting. By the time either of these shows, or The Wire or Battlestar Galactica, were 11 episodes in, they’d already given us numerous huge revelations that narrowed down and made specific our understanding of the true nature of the Big Mysteries. Lost hasn’t even begun to help us understand what the questions are, much less the answers.

And that’s my major problem with Lost. As an episodic drama about an island of crash survivors, the show works reasonably well. But it sells itself as something else, as something more grand. As of yet, however, it can’t back it up with anything other than yet another surrealist sighting. What does it all mean? The show has refused to give us the tiniest hint of a clue. At this point, Lost is all tease and no please.

4 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's a tease - that is for sure - but when the audience learns something new the payoff is big. It is a different model of entertainment and it isn't for everyone (but based on it's ratings it is for a lot of people). Fake commercials, books, ads, websites and even foundations are all in support of empowering the audience to figure out the clues on their own or as a community. http://www.lostpedia.com is a great example of this.

Season two gives you more of what you want. It is more of a "Wire" like story centered around a mysterious hatch.

May 27, 2006 4:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Going in with preconceived notions are never a good way to see a piece of art as it truly is. And you, my friend, went into Lost with some BIG preconceived notions.

May 27, 2006 5:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also....

You're *angry* because a freshman series isn't letting you in on it's big secrets in the FIRST TEN EPISODES? Insanity!

A season of 24 has the luxury of being entirely self-contained. The writers of Lost have figured out a wonderful way to tease the audience, but also how to keep the audience in on the joke as well. It's wondeful TV that deserves a chance to play itself out. NOT to be written off before the midway point of it's first season.

May 27, 2006 6:00 PM  
Blogger Pstonie said...

Your best bet, if you plan to continue watching, is to watch it purely for the sake of watching. Don't expect any answers to the supposed questions that the show seems to allude to, because there aren't any.

You'll wait seven episodes for them to open a door (five of which will be taken up by the intricacies of Charlie's childhood) and when the door finally opens, you'll find another door.

It's the Chinese finger puzzle of television, but it can be rather enjoyable as a collection of cheap thrills.

June 01, 2006 9:03 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home