Because I have a spectacular talent for wasting time, and because I love Lost, and because it's been called to my attention that Whirlygirl is dealing with some recalcitrant people who have mounted an all-too-familiar attack on the show, I have to weigh in.
In previous posts about Cloverfield, various Horrorthoners have addressed the disquieting trend among moviegoers/television viewers to equate "This is ambiguous" with "This sucks." It's a fairly simple argument to rebut: fiction, like, um, well, sex, is dependent on sensations of tension and release; anticipatory emotions are part of the fun of the experience. A lot of the Cloverfield complaining seems to be from people who didn't get the memo about sustained ambiguity (the kind you'll find in, say, Dostoevsky or Kubrick or Da Vinci) as a fundamental armature of great art through the ages, and seem to think that remaining unanswered questions automatically render narratives "stupid." This isn't hard to argue against.
But Whirlygirl's correspondent is one of those people making a slightly different argument, which can be summarized like this: "I have the distinct impression that there is no underlying scheme to the tension and release being employed. Therefore, I am being gulled or manipulated, and, therefore, the art in question is -- you guessed it -- 'stupid.' "
Now, in order to make this argument, you need to perform a rather blind leap of faith: you need to convince yourself that, since you can't see the underlying scheme, nobody can see it; which means, most likely, it's not there. In other words, there's no viewer/reader on earth who could make heads or tails of this (even though they aren't close to being done telling the story), which naturally means that the writers can't make heads or tails of it.
This is, not to put too fine a point on it, a bad argument. If I can't follow something, I'm going to assume (in order) that either 1) I missed something (which would apply, really, to any LOST viewer who hasn't seen every single episode); or 2) They're withholding something they'll reveal later (which, while certainly annoying, is a far cry from "stupid") or 3) They're withholding something they plan to NEVER reveal (also frustrating, but not exactly a novel approach to the narrative arts); all of this is far more feasible than 4) They don't know what they're doing; it's "random," which, it seems to me, is the least likely conclusion, especially if you haven't been watching carefully.
I have been watching carefully, and I have been consistently rewarded by LOST's games of "tension-and-release." I've seen a fair amount of "keep-'em-guessing" television (including X-FILES and TWIN PEAKS) and it's fair to say that LOST is the least manipulative, arbitrary or un-planned plot I've ever seen. Over three seasons I've been consistently amazed at how well the pieces fit together and how intelligently the puzzle reveals itself. If somebody wants to say, "this is too intricate and I don't have the patience for it," fair enough. If somebody wants to say "they play it too close to the vest; it's an aesthetic choice that turns me off, due to my woefully short attention span or my inability to consistently watch the show despite iTunes, DVDs etc." that's fair too. But to conclude that "LOST is beyond stupid, because its choices are random and arbitrary" is not a reasonable conclusion. It's ostrich-like: "I can't see it, so it must not be there." The fact that millions of people are evidently seeing something that's invisible to you should be a tip-off! Whirlygirl's correspondent is basically telling her, "You know all that stuff that you can see on LOST, that I can't, because you've been paying attention? It's not there! My fleeting glimpses of the show give me that impression, so I must be right and you must be wrong." And that, if I may say so, really is stupid.
New episode tonight! More "random developments" to delight us all.
39 comments:
Jordan, all I can say is, you rock.
Oh my god, I just noticed you in the cast picture, you're hilarious, man!
Again, you rock!
I sent the photo to my sister, who somehow managed to miss the fact that I was in it. I guess I should take the complement viz. my mad Photoshop skillz...
It's very subtle! I'm so naive about computer stuff that it just seems like magic. How many photos of yourself did you have to take to get it so perfectly? I mean it really looks like your feet are in that sand - are you sure you're not a "Jumper"?
Three takes, but the issue wasn't the match-up; it was that I had to have the requisite shitty facial expression. You can't quite make it out in the small version: here's the full-size comp, which cracks me up much more.
I also had to remove Jin (I'm standing in his spot).
It always amazes me when people turn on a show or movie because it doesn't turn out how "I would've done it" (i.e., if one followed traditional Hollywood rules). A lot of people don't like No Country For Old Men or Cloverfield for this reason. I thought the endings for both were perfect.
Truly, although I don't know you personally Jordan, just from reading this blog...I can say you are the ONLY person on earth that could relate "Lost" to(in one post mind you): sex; films by Kubrick; lit from Dostoevsky; art by Da Vinci; "Twin Peaks"; "X-files"; "Cloverfield".
Always entertaining, and smarter than most of what I read anywhere else.
(Of course my constant use of the lazy "..." instead of real punctuation may render my opinion worthless)
Thanks man. This turns out to be a superb venue for all my demented musings, for which I am perpetually grateful. Here's to Horrorthon!
All spot on, Jordan.
octo/Julie recommended Lost to me over Xmas, so I finally gave it a shot a few weeks ago. I think I was in the midst of a 6 month "All Whedon, all the time" dvd marathon when Lost debuted, and I missed the boat.
Anyway, watching all three seasons straight in a 3 week period, I was blown away by the coherence of the overall structure. Really way better than I was expecting, and I don't find it "random" at all.
I was thinking the exact same thing about No Country, jpx. Also TWBB and the Sopranos ending. Are we seeing a resurgence in open-endeedness in mainstream pop culture?
John Sayles' Limbo is a great genre-bending play on ambiguity, incidentally.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the problem is bad schools.
It really is as simple as that. Without good English classes and art classes, kids aren't learning the basics of art/literature comprehension.
Here here! That picture is an instant classic! (Though NOTHING beats the Indiana Jordan pic.)
I'm staying out of the LOST hornet's nest until I'm finished with Season 3 (which times perfectly with JPX's visit!)
Whirlygirl is fiercely arguing with that guy at her work (via email), slowing unleashing Jordan's defense!
Gy from Whirlygirl's work,
"I honestly think the writers are just throwing random ideas out there, because they make for good watching, and they will try to tie up the loose ends in season 8. I picture them with a giant board of ideas and just tossing darts it it blindfolded."
yay jordan!
and yay landshark, tremendous LOST viewership feat! any ill effects?
Ill effects? Many, mostly involving having to concoct increasinly lame excuses for not having essays graded.
But very good practice for October around these parts--I think one day I did 8 episodes.
And I'll be on FMLA leave all fall.
By the way, does whirlygirl's co-worker actually watch the show? Because his comments sound a lot like my own vague notions from before I started watching. I think I had seen the promos and figured it was just some lame Castaway redux thing. Then when I heard about aliens and the like, I assumed, "man those writers must have run out of ideas quick."
That's what was neat to realize when I finally watched--the mystery and strangeness was entirely built into the show from the beginning.
He stopped watching it after season 2 apparently.
If I hadn't been so clearly scornful in my post, she could just send him that. I wasn't very diplomatic. But I think I got the argument right, and you guys seem to agree. I should have written the "nice" version.
Oh she balsted him with your argument (editing portions of it) and he ultimately admitted defeat.
Well, all right then.
Send him a JPEG of the Mona Lisa for me.
Well said, Jordon! Love the picture too.
This was the final response from my co-worker:
"It could just be that I lost interest, and didn’t want to be dragged along for the ride anymore. I’m sure it’ll all make sense in the end. No need to feel sorry for me Maria, I’m just not a big TV fan in general.”
I love it when people pull the, “I don’t watch much TV,” or even better, “I don’t own a TV,” superiority card. I’m sure everyone has encountered people like this. They just say it with a tone that implies, “I’m a better, more intelligent, and sophisticated human being.” He was losing his argument, and tried to pull rank over me, silly peon who watches TV, by asserting this type of attitude.
Yeah.
I was sitting outside a bar in Brooklyn with octopunk and some of I'mnotmarcbutmyboyfriendis' friends. I looked over at I'mnotmarcbutmyboyfriendis and said, "I just noticed that I'mnotmarcbutmyboyfriendis looks like Gary Sinise."
Two people said, "Yeah! he does," etc. But one guy said, "I didn't notice that. But then, I don't go around thinking about Gary Sinise's appearance."
I wasn't quite quick enough to say, "Really? Because that's all I do." I wanted to, though. Same kind of point.
There's a story in the George Lucas biography Skywalking about a member of the Universal board of directors who didn't like American Graffiti. He just didn;t like it. Then they had a screening with a test audience, who went completely bananas. The boardmember in question was there...and he STILL didn't like it. Somebody (I think it was Coppola) said, "Are you fucking kidding me? It was such a good movie, you couldn't even hear it! They were screaming with happiness!" The boardmember shrugged morosely, and then said something about how he "didn't actually care for movies that much."
Again, same point. If you can't stand curry, don't review the Indian restaurant.
Exactly!
Jordon, I think you made another good point earlier in the comments.
“It really is as simple as that. Without good English classes and art classes, kids aren't learning the basics of art/literature comprehension.”
I completely agree. My high school was atrocious! Most of the English teachers were old drunks. If my mother hadn’t frequently taken me out to the theater, museums and art openings, I may not have cared two cents for art and literature. I remember being just about one of the only people that loved Shakespeare in my high school English classes, and it was because the teachers sucked, rather than Shakespeare, which was often scowled.
I forgot about that Gary Sinise guy. What a lame-o attempt at a dis. That'd be like Whirlygirl's "I don't watch TV" guy saying instead "I don't think about islands very often."
Having sucked down Lost in a rapid frenzy, I can say that Julie and I did feel some averse effects. I think we crammed 12 eps or so into two days one long weekend and got a bit burnt out.
But all that means is that I'm digging the weekly doses of season 4 even more. We just watched last week's episode last night and we're both HUGE fans of the actor Jeremy Davies.
I think the deft management of ambiguity has actually gotten even better this season. It's like "we know you guys know stuff we don't, and you know we know stuff you don't, and we're all being very guarded about what we say and when." There are still plenty of secrets but a fair amount of cards are on the table now and that makes all the difference.
octopunk!
"Welcome to the party, pal."
That was a great breakdown of the anti-LOST movement and well argued all around, not that it needs to be said. The only thing that made me squirm a little was "The fact that millions of people are evidently seeing something that's invisible to you should be a tip-off!" Millions of people can be wrong after all..
Yeah, it occurred to me that that's the weakest link in my argument. (For example, I happen to think that X-Files is idiotic; no, I haven't seeen enough of it to justify my conclusions). I was hoping nobody would notice, but this is a tough crowd.
Hey, JSP, where are you at with TOS? Seen any more?
My lousy Netflick (sp?) didn't show up which ruined my entire evening. I'm only about 1/3-way through Carbomite Maneuver but it's safe to say it's another winner!
I watched one episode of X-Files about baseball and it was terrible. (JPX claims it's the very worst episode but I don't buy it.)
CORBOMITE!
1) First production episode filmed. They JUST got greenlighted, and they're loving it. McCoy's debut: that scene with Kirk is their first ever together. "What am I, a Doctor or a moon shuttle conductor?" (And dig it; you get the sense that's, like, a way-old saying.)
2) "Quite unnecessary to raise your voice, Mr. Bailey."
3) I fucking love it whenever Spock has the bridge. He's SO good at it, and at the same time so unlike Kirk in his command style.
I can't really comment as I am one who is not on the Lost train - not because I don't think I will like it...just, well life and stuff.
Anyhoots, I just wanted to point out that we are VERY prolific with our commenting lately! Go team!
SPOCK: Has it occurred to you that there's a certain inefficiency in constantly questioning me on things you've already made up your mind on?
JIM: It gives me emotional security.
Hate to be Jordan's only non fan, but actually, there's no master overall vision for Lost, and industry insiders confirm this. The writers really are just making it up as they go along.
Assuming you're not kidding, whoever said that is misinformed or confused. Not only does it contradict all public statements by the writers, it's simply not possible given what we've already seen. What about the developments involving (for example) Locke's father, in season 3? Look at how that all got resolved. (Assuming I can't go into too much detail because of readers who haven't seen it all). It's not possible that the connection revealed there was not intended from the beginning; think it through. There are always "insiders" who can't wait to tell you what "really" happened when they made the thing (like those people who insist that the briefcase in Pulp Fiction "really is" the holy grail because they "heard directly from Roger Avary" or whatever. It almost always incorrect. Michael Emerson admitted on "Jimmy Kimmel" that "he thinks" his character evolved from being merely a random prisoner to being "in charge" of the others because the performance was successful, but that's an adjustment to the story based on the circumstances of production; some actors are popular; some, like the Ana Lucia woman, aren't; changes are made based on that. Also, Emerson was clearly not saying anything that would give anything away. In general I'd ignore any "insider" information about the LOST creative process.
Almost nobody in "the industry" actually understands what writers do or what they go through. It's amazing how much incorrect information I've heard over the years from "insiders" about how they wrote whatever the thing is. I generally only trust the writers themselves, in interviews, commentary or biography (preferably unauthorized), and only if multiple stories agree with each other (like the famous "Round up the usual subjects" capper from Casablanca or the drafts of Tootsie before Elaine May did her uncredited rewrite and added the Bill Murray character, which multiple sources confirm).
I do, however, instantly believe that Rob Reiner got that one guy who's name I forget to completely re-write the bad 1st draft of Good Will Hunting (which Affleck/Damon wrote as a conventional thriller) and turn it into that Oscar-winning script, since there's just no way in hell that those two guys wrote that movie; it's simply not possible given its structural sophistication.
I also believe that Francis Coppola actually wrote Lost in Translation (the way some Dads "actually" build the soapbox racer and then beam proudly from the sidelines, actually thinking the kid did it). She wrote notes or something, and probably insisted on a few lines. But Francis "Mr. Nepotism" Coppola has been helping his family make it in Hollywood since the days of casting his unknown sister (Talia Shire) in The Godfather or giving his Nephew Nick Coppola his first role in Rumble Fish after changing his last name to "Cage" to make it less obvious. (I believe that Sofia Coppola did write "Life Without Zoe" for New York Stories, however, like the credits say. That's much more plausible...and even that drivel has Francis' name on the script along with hers.) Anyway, don't trust the insiders!
To be fair, there's obviously no clear distinction between "all planned out" and "made up as they went along" in series television; it's clearly a matter of degree.
For example, if you watch the first five or six episodes of Season 2 of "Twin Peaks," it's fairly clear that the "Winham Earle" story line did not exist when the first season was in production and was invented as a long arc for Season 2, in order to supplant the Laura Palmer story once it gets resolved, circa episode 14/episode 15. I think they'd probably decided on episode 25 or so as the place where the Heather Graham story and the Windham Earle story would begin to connect, with an eye towards the huge convergence they had planned for the thirtieth episode (assuming they didn't get cancelled; when they did get cancelled, the entire story line visibly shifted around). Twin Peaks had some planning but in retrospect (and given everything I know from actors' commentary, Mark Frost discussing it etc.) they really didn't have it planned out with any precision. I don't believe they had any clear notion of what would follow the Laura Palmer investigation, once it was complete. Were Julie to make a remark about Twin Peaks being made up as they go along, I'd wholeheartedly agree.
But LOST is just different. They've demonstrated irrefutably (I think) that they're not just operating in terms of large narrative benchmarks; they've got a reasonably detailed framework in place. They know the answers to the questions, which isn't the same as knowing precisely what's going to happen in episode 72. Obviously there could be massive confusion and conflict on a granular level (and I'm sure many people involved in the process feel that it's more directionless than it looks) but you just can't fake the kind of coherence they've demonstrated. It's like trying to fake being good at chess. It's too hard to do; you have to actually be good at chess.
In J. W. Rinzler's excellent book, "The Making of Star Wars: The Definitive Story Behind the Original Film" Rinzler includes detailed interviews with Lucas from the early 70s plus tons and tons of his early notes on his ideas for the Star Wars story. What's so amazing, aside from Lucas's robust vision for his "story", is that it makes you realize that Lucas had the idea for all 6 Star wars films in rough (very rough) draft as early as 1973. Obviously the final product included many additions not envisioned by Lucas at the time (Jar Jar anyone?)and Lucas has gone on record to state that episode II was mostly "padding", to get to Sith, however his overall story was envisioned 35 years ago or so. I too have read many interviews with the LOST writers and I believe it is analagous to the Star Wars story. Abrams has always maintained that there is a beginning, middle, and end to his LOST story. However, like a lot of the side stories in the Star Wars films (e.g., Anakin and the droid factory sequence) things get added to (supposively) enrich the vision. You only need to go as far as Nikki and Paulo to see that things get sprinkled into the story (and sometimes as quickly taken away when the fans hate it), but from everything I've read I'm confident that the ending is firmly in place. One of the problems with Abrams previous show, Alias, was a feeling that it was being made up as it was going along. In fact the final season was a confusing, ridiculous mess much like the X-Files. I believe he has learned from this. If they begged him to do more seasons of LOST, he'd find a way to pad it out, but the overarching story would always be there. Chase wanted to end The Sopranos a few seasons ago, but he padded it out (not always well, I'm told) until he reached the ending he always stated was in place.
Post a Comment