« Mixin' It Up | Main | Not So Darling Nikki »
March 29, 2007
Lost: Episode 3.14 Review
Goddamnit, “Lost”.
You know, I’ve been talking you up. I mean, a lot. I don’t stop at reviewing you weekly and podcasting about you weekly. Oh no, I bring you up in conversation. A lot. More than most would like. It’s a combination of me loving you so very very much and not being hugged enough as a child. But we’re not here to talk about me, “Lost”, we’re here to talk about you and the giant brick wall of an episode you just made me endure. Ever see that Road Runner cartoon where the Road Runner paints what looks like a tunnel against a rock formation, only to have Wile E. Coyote run full-force into the wall, knocking him flat on his ass? Well, the previous, hurtling narrative momentum of your show is the Wile E. Coyote of this analogy, and “Exposé” is the painted rock formation.
"Lost" is Like a Box of Chocolates
OK, so leading up to this episode, the producers have told us that Nikki and Paolo would be “iconic” after this episode. That we would get down on our knees, smack ourselves in the forehead, and say, “Damnit, Damon, damnit, Carleton, you’re right, we’re wrong, we’ll be pliant beings from now on and just not worry about things like people not asking obvious questions or answering any sort of interrogative statement with a vague statement devoid of any insight.”
Leading up to the episode, I had three basic theories that would blow my mind about these two:
1) They were put on the Island after the purple sky event, since Desmond’s time-travel would have set about a butterfly effect which kept Rose and Bernard off the plane and put much younger, prettier people on the plane in their place.2) They were in fact going to be shown as vessels for spirits that died on the island…either Shannon/Boone or Mikhail/Ms. Klugh. Sorta like Whoopi Goldberg in “Ghost”, only, again, much younger and prettier.
3) They would be products of the magic box, conjured up by an incredibly horny, bisexual Lostaway.
Wrong on all accounts. As I usually am with this show.
What we got, instead, was a fairly pedestrian backstory that did nothing except illuminate this pair as the Forrest Gumps of the Island, showing up on the periphery of major events over the past 80 days. Look, it’s the two at the fuselage! Look, there they are during Watergate! Look, they found the Nigerian plane and the Pearl weeks before anyone! Look, Paolo saw Juliet and Ben hatching a plot!
But, what did any of this add, other than as a summation of what we already knew? Was anything about what Ben and Juliet discussed new information? I thought we knew that Sawyer and Kate were kidnapped to give Ben emotional leverage over Jack. Seemed pretty crystal clear by the end of the Fall episodes. But to have Ben flat out say, “I’m going to use Sawyer and Kate to emotionally break Jack, because my main means of getting things from people is finding their emotional weak spot and exploited it” is both pedestrian and COMPLETELY OUT OF CHARACTER FOR BEN. Ben picks and chooses his words very carefully, leaving the listener to be lost inferring the various permutations of the statement. He does not pull the Bond villain routine were he spells out the exposition this blunt. Goddamnit, “Lost”.
Cigarette Burns
I actually had a flicker of hope when I saw Ethan. I thought, OK, here’s how they’ll retcon this: Ethan meets the couple, the couple finds the Hatch, Paolo tells Ethan about the Hatch, Ethan converts him/blackmails him into working with the Others, giving reports via the Pearl, and furthermore gives him cigarettes while down there as a "peace" offering/bribe, which would explain why Locke and Eko found a still-burning cigarette in the Pearl in Season 2, and also explain the asinine reason while these two never told anyone they found a new hatch, and when Paolo took his legendary first on-screen dump earlier this season in the Pearl, he was in fact contacting Mikhail, which is why Mikhail knew to turn off the monitor to the Flame, and why he knew the Lostaways might come, and in fact every time Paolo dropped a load he was in fact making contact with the Others. I was perfectly happy with this scenario.
But, instead, we have a guy who hides $8 million in diamonds because he was afraid his version of Anna Nicole Smith would leave him once they found it. Now, I’m not sayin’ Nikki’s a gold digger, but she ain’t messin’ with no broke Brazilians. That being said, if I were a girl, and with someone whose self-esteem was as low as Paolo’s, I might think about leaving him, too. Good Lord, man, you’re prettier than she is, and she’s kinda smokin’ hot. If Artz were worried in the way that Paolo was, I’d understand it. But with Paolo? Just doesn’t make sense. So we’re stuck with an actress who just wrapped Season 4 of a show, who killed her sugar daddy with his cook to make $8 million dollars, so they could crash on a beach where they found 15 bikini tops and 16 rolls of toilet paper, they have 23 arguments over the location of the bag, participate on the periphery of 42 major events on the island, and give me 108 migraines in the process.
If someone can tell me what I’m missing here, I’d love to hear it. But we didn’t know the characters up until tonight, and nothing showed in flashbacks made me care anymore. They both conspired to kill someone, stole $8 million from them, and generally treated each other with increasing suspicion and contempt over the next 80 days. She was selfish, materialistic, and cold-blooded, and he was such a sensitive, self-loathing wuss that he probably cried during episodes of “A Baby Story” while drinking white zinfandel spritzers. Other than being buried alive, what’s iconic about these two? Goddamnit, "Lost".
Beached Wails
The payoff to the entire episode, naturally, was the reveal that “Paolo lies” was in fact “paralyzed”, with Nikki’s eye opening up just long enough to get filled with sand as her and Sir Poops a Lot got buried. Personally, when she came out of the jungle, I heard her say, “Joe lies…when he cries,”, but then realized I’d watched “Say Anything” recently and was channeling something much better than I was currently viewing.
The foreshadowing of the final moment lay in Paolo’s interaction with Locke on the beach, in which Locke said, in Locke-esque fashion, “Things don’t stay buried on this island.” He was speaking both literally and figuratively, but it’s safe to say that we’ve not seen the last of these two people. Now, hopefully my Theory #2 listed above comes true this time. If nothing else, it would provide an explanation as to why Mikhail told Ms. Klugh, “There’s another way!” back in “Enter 77”.
That, of course, begs the question: what the hell happens if they emerge, Beatrix Kiddo-like, from the grave?
Clearly, as evidenced above, I’m no prognosticator of any value when it comes to this show. I’m still holding out for the vessel theory, and here’s why: in the airport, Nikki asks Paolo to ensure that the two of them never end up like Shannon and Boone: the bickering, spiteful couple. After meeting these two, however, one could argue that a strange, almost “Prelude to a Kiss” thing happens, where Boone and Shannon become less spiteful towards each other (relatively) and even find some modicums of happiness, you know, when not being crushed by planes or being shot by Michelle Rodriguez. I can’t think of ANY REASON why the show brought those two particular characters back, narratively-speaking, other than to not only draw parallels between the two couples, but to in fact link them from the very start of the 80 days, so actions post-revival have some sort of legitimate story source. I am down on “Lost” at the moment, but I don’t buy they brought these two back for purely stunt casting reasons. There’s a connection. Just has to be.
Or, Billy Dee Williams will fly in at the end of Season 5 in the Millenium Falcon with Penelope riding in the Chewie seat, and that’s how they’ll get rescued. Honestly, it’s as plausible as anything else right now.
***
OK, now you’re turn. I’m willing to learn why this episode was brilliant, and the big mythology answers I missed, and all that good stuff. I don’t like that I didn’t like this episode, and maybe my expectations were high, but you know what? The show’s producers set them high with their pre-episode talk. I was ready, I was pumped, I was there with mental open-arms. And then Paolo dropped a deuce on my psyche.
Thoughts, rants, predictions? Drop them below.
Posted by Ryan McGee at March 29, 2007 12:18 AM
Comments
uh....reasons why they sucked...or not why they sucked...i forget???
Posted by: dougieray at March 29, 2007 12:51 AM
it wasn't really very brilliant...as an episode. but when you look at each seasons as really big pictures, it could be a lot. these guys (the writers) know what thet are doing, and we should give them the benifit of the doublt. remember, every season (as well as lots of episodes) begin with an eye opening, and every season focuses (mostly) on the person who belongs to that eye. this season belongs to juliet, and who knows what part crappy pants paulo and feme fatale nikki play into her perspective...yet.
also, if it truly is juliets season, then they needed to work her into the episode and the writers prolly weren't too worried about bens dailoge as much as they were about just making sure juliet showed up...even just a little.
paulo and nikki right now are about Arst level, but only time will tell for sure.
dougieray
ps. ZOMBIES ...RARG!!!!
(prolly klugh and patchy.)
Posted by: dougieray at March 29, 2007 01:01 AM
I agree with dougieray in that this episode may not rank amongst the best, but when you take it in with the rest of the episodes it's a pretty good one.
One thing that I feel that the writers have done this season is say, "We're really pissed off with all of the people dismissing this show because we supposedly make it all up as we go along." It may not make for the most exciting single episodes, but taking past events and tying them all together improves the overall feel of the show.
I think that Boone and Shannon met up with Nikki and Paulo in the airport for two reasons.
1) Maggie Grace and Ian Summerholder were already there to film island scenes and all Lostaways have to have encountered at least one other fellow Lostaway before ending up on the island.
2) To show how things change on the island. Like you said, Boone and Shannon's relationship improved a little bit. Meanwhile, Nikki put the diamonds above everything else even though they were marooned on an island and she's already shown that she'd do pretty much anything to accomplish something that she wants. Paulo, on the other hand, tried to do what he could to keep his relationship with Nikki going because it surely seemed like she may have just been using him like she used the director.
I'd be 100% fine with Nikki and Paulo not being able to climb out of their graves. They served the purpose that the writers wanted and there's no reason to bring them back. I'm pretty sure that they'd suffocate even if they were somehow able to move all of that sand piled on top of them. I also wouldn't like to see them come back because I liked the ending. It was different that previous endings and it continued a trend of strong endings in recent episodes.
I think one thing that may have caused the difference in enjoyment of this episode between the two of us is our intake of Lost related stuff before the episode. I don't watch the previews for upcoming episodes (and it sucks when one takes me by surprise on ESPN or during another ABC show) and I listen to the podcasts a week late due to them previewing the upcoming episode. That way I'm able to judge each episode solely on the episode itself. I can't complain "They didn't answer the three biggest questions on the island" or any of the other gripes that I often see on The Fuselage about Lost not living up to any pre-show hype. No hype, no disappointment. I already know that I'm going to watch the episode so I don't need to know anything about it.
I do the same thing with trailers for movies that I know that I want to see. I call it the "Dude, Where's My Car" rule. That movie would have actually been funny if they hadn't done about 5 or 6 different commercials and trailers that contained every single joke from the movie. I ended up watching it again about 5 years after seeing it in the theater and enjoyed it a lot more than when I originally saw it and could recire every joke as it was said.
Posted by: Mike Travers at March 29, 2007 04:05 AM
Great review of last night's episode.
@Mike Travers: I agree with your comments about avoiding the trailers and promos. No expectations: no disappointment. Those ABC promo-makers are toying with us! LOL.
As for last night's episode, I agree with you so much. It was *frustrating*. It was cool to see the flashbacks *with* Nikki & Paulo included.
But I'm confused WHY they are on the show. I can only assume (and trust) that the writers will reference the events from this episode later.
HOWEVER ... we have Rose/Bernard as bad examples of a story-tangent that LOST took that they never returned to! Urgh! LOL, and they didn't include any shots of Rose last night in the flashbacks.
I also think that the Nikki actress is not very good. I have noticed that sometimes when a LOST story point fails, it's because a less-than-spectacular actor doesn't do a good job of convincing the audience that the spectacular story is real. I had a problem with Claire's birds because of this. The actress who plays Claire is young, and I just didn't buy the whole "I remember migratory birds!" thing. It's fantastic, yes. But a good actor could have convinced us --- witness Terry O'Quinns work for a *good* example!
Anyway ..... I'm going to assume that Nikki & Paulo will pay off later in the season.
I have to ask: IS THAT IT? LOL. Three or four measly scenes in Season Three, then a "death" episode??!
Nikki and Paulo are like a modern day Rosencrantz and Guildenstern from HAMLET.
Posted by: Matt at March 29, 2007 11:03 AM
i think that it's possible that nikki and paulo did replace rose and bernard. if desmond changed things in the past, then everything would always be different.
also, why did sawyer always ask who nikki was? i think there's more there.
Posted by: lbdaisee at March 29, 2007 05:46 PM
hmm dougieray's apologizing for the episode. i'm not willing to make excuses for them - they set the bar high, and we expect big things.
they are dead dead dead. everything about what damonton has said indicates that they viewed this episode as the 'pay-off' of a long joke they started teling in november. and the joke is - we wrote them for you to hate them, and now they're dead.
i don't think it's a bad idea - and one of my early theories was that they were going to do a 'rosencrantz and guildenstern are dead' type episode with them, which is exactly what we got.
i think we're all conditioned to expect game changers every time we're promised a 'big episode.' we were hoping for nikki and paolo to be pawns revealing something bigger about the larger story. we were hoping they served more purpose than to deliver a walkie talkie to the losties.
i liked this episode. i did. i liked it in the same way i liked the hurley/van diversion. i enjoyed rewinding the clock, being reminded of where we've been, and also seeing locke, jack, our favs in very different emotional places form where we are now. while ultimately not fully satisfied, i was on the edge of my seat as the writers played with each nikki/paolo theory and cast it aside.
what does irritate me about this episode is how winky wink and meta it was. has lost ever been so aware of itself as a tv show? those moments were cute but indulgent, and reminded me of m. night's 'lady in the water' attempt to prove himself smarter than the audience.
i guess it's that feeling that nikki/paolo only existed for the writers to 'prove' something about their own ability that got to me. after the first 2 seasons, they don't need to prove anything, they just need to keep up the good work. tell the damn story!
Posted by: joe at March 29, 2007 06:22 PM
One of the ironic scenes in this episodes is when Nikki and Paolo are in the airport she says she doesn't want to end up like them. Well, ultimately they did. Now they're all dead and they did IN FACT end up like them. They're dead. dead. dead.
Posted by: Karo at March 29, 2007 10:51 PM
I hate the extreme sci-fi theories... Paulo and Nikki being vessels??? I really really REALLY hope not. That would be awful. Paulo and Nikki were just Paulo and Nikki. Tied in a lot of things from all seasons, the writers showed they're not making things up, and also showed that there are other survivors on the island with stories... but they just aren't THAT interesting!
Posted by: Jack at March 30, 2007 10:42 AM
This has been on my mind for awhile....in EW's cover store about lost before the start of the spring season, this was said by Damon
''I feel like we're playing a chess game,'' analogizes Lindelof, ''and in the first six moves, we've lost our queen and two bishops, and the audience is saying 'They are the worst chess players in the world!' What they don't realize is that we're nine moves away from checkmating you. If we lose, we lose. But that's the play, and we're standing by it.''
...Now, if you take him literally, the "9" moves away from checkmating you would mean that in episode 15 there is going to be a huge reveal. I actually think next week episode is going to be big. Its almost like everyones guard is down right now and not expecting much from the next episode. However, you heard it hear first....something big is going down.
Posted by: Nate at March 30, 2007 03:19 PM
What puzzles me about the episode is that, insofar as I can see, Nikki and Paolo served no great purpose in terms of the show's overall mythological architecture and this installment merely served as a stand alone episode of no great consequence. We were told that after this show, Nikki and Paolo would be considered "iconic characters". Huh? Nikki's obserrvation of Ben revealing his evil master plan regarding Jack and the surgery failed to add much to our knowledge. Who had not already inferred that fact?
With so many characters and plot threads, why create two new characters just to kill them off after one filler episode? I would be very curious to hear an explanation from the creators of the show as to why they used up resources and time to introduce these nonentities. Why not make Claire earn her paycheck and actually appear in more than two episodes? Did the producers get sick of Rose and Bernard after.....zero appearnces this season?
Perhaps the episode itself was designed to appeal to casual Lost fans who are not immersed in the mythology. Maybe the reduced ratings have prompted the writers to mix in a lighter, stand alone episode to appeal to the non-hardcore viewers. Viewed in that light, the show was mildly entertaining. A good buried alive episode always has some merit. But speaking as a hardcore fan, I am confused/frustrated by this episode.
Posted by: Daniel at March 30, 2007 03:24 PM
the more i think about this ep, the more i like it. it compelled me to re-watch the pilot and compare the recreation of the crash, which was expertly done. it was the expectations that did it in. we wanted mythology and what we got was stand-alone. if this is how 'lost' does a stand-alone, i'm quite happy with that.
i also think about the dvd experience versus the tv experience. if i were watching this show sequentially, without week-long breaks and promise-making commercials/podcasts, it would play much stronger. i can't wait to rediscover the whole thing again, after it's done, and enjoy it like a book.
i guess everyone's praying that it will end when and how it's supposed to end.
Posted by: joe at March 30, 2007 04:09 PM
OK, but who told us there would be mythology? That these characters would be "iconic" after this episode? THE PRODUCERS. Not the ABC promo monkeys that mucked up "Stranger in a Strange Land". And even then, from Season 1 we were told by the producers that Jack's tattoo was important, so that letdown was partially their fault.
I have no doubts they have a plan for the show, but how this episode proves it is beyond me. All it proved was that Nikki and Paolo were on the plane, and had they said one of eleven things over the past 80 days, a whole lot of people would be less dead now, including themselves.
As for the "meta" dailogue ensconsed in the episode, I'll deal with this in Sunday's podcast, but I want them to tell me a story. I don't want them to talk direcly TO me while telling the story. Sawyer's "Who the hell are you?" during the pingpong game was a perfect way to give a subtle wink wink that still keeps in character with Sawyer. All this "Scream"-esque irony just left me cold.
Posted by: ryan at March 30, 2007 06:19 PM
i completely agree about the meta aspects of the episode. it was too spot on, too winky. i think i'd probably like the show a whole lot more if i followed mike's lead; stop listening to the podcast, and actively keep myself spoiler free.
Posted by: joe at March 30, 2007 09:20 PM