Printer friendly version

May 30, 2005

Lost During the Summer?

I disagree with John Podhoretz's disappointment in the season finale of Lost:

The two-hour final episode answered absolutely nothing. Not one thing. Basically, it appears that the series' creators simply threw all sorts of things out there to tantalize people and then had absolutely no idea where to go with it or what to do. This is a very, very bad idea. The audience for "Lost" will abandon the show over the summer and it will creak out a few more months until it is deservedly cancelled. Audiences will go for a sucker punch once, but no longer. Bye bye "Lost." It's been lousy to know ya.

Podhoretz may or may not have a better understanding than I do of the primetime television audience. (I'd wager on the "may.") But there's room to argue that he's applying the wrong standard to the show: it isn't so much of a seasonal series as a long-running epic. The significant difference, in my characterization, is that the former emphasizes the what happened, while the latter has the more artistic emphasis on what does it mean.

The fact is that we did get some answers in the finale, after a fashion, but they were clues to the plot's direction rather than the filled in blanks that Podhoretz wanted. We've gotten a glimpse of the "they" who whisper in the jungle. We know which child they were after. We've seen that the mysterious hatch, rather than opening directly into some sort of spaceship, goes deep into the island. More thematically, the writers gave us a glimpse of a probable central tension to define the next season, if not the show itself: faith versus science.

The show's audience might be inclined, therefore, to give it at least another season. The decisive factor thereafter will be whether viewers get the sense that the writers are just stringing them along or are actually going somewhere. Podhoretz's assessment is already that the writers are luring the audience from episode to episode with empty noises. The nature of the show and the way in which it has begun and progressed, with a limited cast within a delineated setting, suggest intentions other than running for the maximum number of seasons.

Me, I've got another complaint — a "scandal" to use Podhoretz's word — about the season finale, but I might use the topic for my next column... (To be continued.)

Posted by Justin Katz at May 30, 2005 8:16 PM
Culture
Comments

Well, I hardly agree with John Podhoretz about ANYTHING ... but in this case I'm with HIM.

On the big season finale of "Lost," the mysterious hatch is opened to reveal .... a LADDER going down a SHAFT! oooooOOOOooooo!!! I think it's the fact that I'm nearly 46 years old, and I've seen this sort of "Twin Peaks/X-Files" scenario too many times before. The producers are following a tried-and-true formula for keeping their viewers, only this time the puzzles are just far too disparate to make any kind of sense: Hillbilly pirates kidnapping young Walt? Invisible monsters? Hurley's evil lottery numbers? You can have it. It's a shame; I really wanted to like this show. Whether these characters are in Purgatory or in some secret military experiment or an alien Petri dish, I don't much care anymore.

Posted by: Chuck Anziulewicz at May 31, 2005 4:17 PM

I think they are doing a great job with this show. I don't like weak plotlines that fill in all the blanks.

My wife and I watch every episode, and as far as we're concerned, JJ Abrams has produced another hit with this one, every bit as good as his other show, "Alias".

For "chuck" who "really wanted to like this show", I would point out that you like it enough to think and write about it.

Posted by: Jim Price at May 31, 2005 5:41 PM

"You like it enough to think and write about it."

AT FIRST, Jim. AT FIRST.

I went through this whole thing before back around 1990 when "Twin Peaks" was on. A David Lynch production? COOL, I love David Lynch! Hell, I used to taking frigging NOTES when "Twin Peaks" was on. I assumed the writers would eventually tie all the loose ends together, but in the meantime I was having lots of fun trying to puzzle it out myself.

Well, we eventually found out exactly WHO killed Laura Palmer, but there were other aspects of the plot with a more supernatural, surrealistic bent. Finally, when ratings dropped and the show sputtered out, we found out that David Lynch & Co. were essentially just making it all up as they went along. It left a bad taste in my mouth.

I had heard wonderful things about "Lost," and it had me hooked from the get-go ... but then I started having this vague sense of deja vu about it, and now I have this fear that the same thing is going to happen with "Lost" as happened with "Twin Peaks": We are being taken on a wild goose chase with no logical conclusion, and the producers of the show are laughing all the way to the bank.

We'll see what happens. I would like to be proven wrong. And if YOU like the show, Jim, that's really all that matters. If you find it entertaining, more power to you. That's what television, first and foremost, is supposed to be: ENTERTAINING.

Posted by: Chuck Anziulewicz at May 31, 2005 6:11 PM

One other thing, Jim ...

I've probably dated myself by talking about my experience with "Twin Peaks." In June I'll turn 46 years of age. I'm probably a bit beyond "Lost's" target demographic. Hell, I no longer understand the music young people are listening to ... but don't worry, you'll eventually get to that point also.

I notice from your own blog that you at 34, which puts you more squarely in the target audience for "Lost."

Posted by: Chuck Anziulewicz at May 31, 2005 6:22 PM

Who would have thought ... 'Lost' fans on this blog. I agree with Justin - the criticism wasn't fair. First the show is not only about what happens but the characters - who and how the plot affects them. I too was dissapointed in the hatch conclusion. Mostly because it seemed illogical - yes, illogical even for this show. But I was not dissapointed with the kidnapping of Walt.

Fact is (no pun intended, Justin) that I care about what happens to these people. Some more than others (Sawyer, Sun/Jin - more, Kate, Jack - less) The plot is just a means to learn and care more about them. Like any good dramatic show.

The faith/science confrontation with Jack/Locke is also interesting.

I can see some of the point critics are making. The monster mystery is losing my interest. What was with the machine-like sound while Locke was being pulled ? The show does have to give some answers eventually, even if those answers bring questions ... as long as they are different questions.

I too was a big X-Files fabn at first but the show did lose my interest in te last few years depsite my connection to Mulder and Scully. I hope Lost does not get to that point but it is way too early to tell.

Posted by: Mark Miller at May 31, 2005 8:46 PM

I don't watch the show. Not one episode. So I'm sitting here thinking... it's just something dumb on the idiot box... you know, the magical electronic thing that automatically lowers the intelligence quotient of everybody within 10 feet.

Posted by: smmtheory at June 1, 2005 1:16 AM

Yeh, yeh, yeh, but what has this show got to do with SSM?

Just kidding.

I like the mystery. It is a diversion with some thought-provocation tossed in for those paying a bit more attention.

I want to know how a Polar Bear can survive on that island. What does it eat? How does it cope with the heat? Is there just one on the range? How come it hasn't hunted the 42 vulnerable humans with their messy campsite and such? I guess I really like the Polar Bear more than some of the castaways.

And then there's that oddball Canadian guy. Was he supposed to be a modern day Gilligan? Heh.

Believe me, I mock myself. I watched regularly.

Posted by: Chairm at June 1, 2005 12:37 PM