Monday, May 24, 2010

"The End ..."

"The End ..."


    Though season six of LOST gave us so much to talk about, I found myself unable to write much.  I honestly did not know what to think about the events leading to the climatic final episode, simply titled "The End."  Now, having seen the conclusion, I find myself slightly unsettled with the final message of the show.  I enjoyed every second of it, and I was speechless when the word "Lost" floated on the screen at 11:30, but I found myself wondering how I was supposed to react.  Was it a happy ending?  Cheerful?  Pessimistic?  Like so many shows before it, the finale of LOST has left fans torn between praise and disgust and gratefulness and disappointment.
    I can't help but feel like audiences are too tough on season finales.  While much of the blame is on the network for hyping their finales so much, our expectations have surely changed.  Consider the historically praised endings of shows like St. Elsewhere or Newhart.  How would we react if the entire series was the imaginative story of Jack's son, David, or if Hurley woke up on the set of Becker claiming to have dreamed about being on an island?  The creators would have to call David Chase for advice as to where to hide.  People still carp on The Sopranos creator for not giving the audience at nice, tie-up-all-the-knots ending.  Yet, LOST has given us a definitive ending, and yet, so many of us will debate it until the next big series ends (I hear Fringe is good ...)
    The wonderful thing about the finale was the culmination of the main themes: redemption and community.  These characters had nothing in 2004, but fate (or Jacob) brought them together and showed them how they needed (and had) a purpose.  Most importantly, they needed someone.  Each one of them needed that other person to help them move on.  But ultimately, each member needed the entire group to get to where they were going.  The interesting thing about this doorway to the beyond was not the characters who were present, but the characters who were not.  While we see Ben Linus decide that he is not ready (or worthy enough) to go yet - he still has some things to finish with his daughter and possibly new lover -, we do not get this from Rose and Bernard, Michael and Walt, or Charlotte, Miles, and Daniel.  Did these characters not deserve heaven?  Obviously, a ticket on Oceanic Flight 815 was not the ticket needed to get into heaven, since Desmond, Penelope, and Juliet appear to be apart of this community. 
    While some of the moments seemed self-mockery (Kate asking about the name "Christian Shephard"), the episode was a beautiful collection of religious symbolism, yet so brilliantly never got preachy.  The heaven that these survivors experience in clearly their own, despite their diverse backgrounds.  After six years, we walk away with the lesson that heaven is made on Earth with the people and experiences that matter most to us.  When we love others, we are rewarded, such was shown by Hurley, who escaped unharmed and happy simply for being our ultimate symbol of love.  Though many religions were used throughout the series (as shown in the stained-glass window behind Jack as he observes his father's coffin), it was the popular Christian (get it?) religion that dominated the episode, with Jack as our ultimate Christ figure who dies for the community, being led by a need to please his father, the man who finally opens the doors to heaven.  This may have been overdone with the Communion scene between he and Hurley.  The dialogue might have well been, "drink this; this is my blood; do this in memory of me."  Though there were clever moments, such as Fake Locke stabbing his side where Jesus has been scarred by the whip of the Romans. 
    In the end, it seems most of our characters get to spend eternity with those they love.  Even our Jesus gets to be with his Mary Magdalene, the self-admitting guilty Kate with a heart of gold.  But I can't help but wonder: where is Walt?  Michael?  Why doesn't Locke get to be with Helen?  Perhaps the writers felt they needed to be so honest as to say, "Sometimes we can't get everything.  Literally, some things get 'lost' and we just aren't meant to get them back."  Okay!  I'll buy that!  Was it the best finale of all-time?  Nope.  But for an allegory-filled series, it surely gave the common viewer the neatly-wrapped package they wanted, while still giving the theory-craving viewers something to think about for years to come!
    Thank you, LOST.  For six years, you were a constant in our lives.  You filled us with so much debate, discussion, and analysis.  You challenged audiences to think, which I so much admire.  Thank you for the future years we have of re-viewings and re-debating!  It has been, and will continue to be, a pleasure!

Friday, April 2, 2010

The Fall of the House of Kwon

     I have not had a reason to write a blog for the last few weeks.  I've sat back and just watched.  While being excited about certain moments, I've been disappointed by others.  So many have been surprised of my disgust in "Ab Aeterno."  What did I learn from such an episode?  That Richard came to the island as a slave on The Black Rock?  That's he's been alive for a very long time?   Well, stop the presses!  Furthermore, I am sorry, but I have no interest in Isabella, Richard's long long long long long long lost love.  Additionally, was it a big surprise that Hurley can talk to her?  Hurley talks to dead people.  I got it.  Move on.
    "The Package," however, was wonderful.  It was filled with intrigue and surprises.  The biggest surprise not being what happened - Desmond's back -, but what didn't happen - Sun and Jin did not find each other.  I got news for you, folks, they're not going to.  It is not the words of the prolific Flock or Jacob, but of the villainous Keamy, who tells Jin that they are not meant to be together.  Right in front of us, the lives of Sun and Jin are moving backwards.  Sun has lost the ability to speak English, a reverse of her biggest progression, and Jin is forming a partnership with a questionable figure.  Widmore is still questionable, right?
    Let's look at some important moments in the package:
  • Sun's loss of English: While this could mean so many things, like what I mentioned above, it's most likely the joining of the two worlds.  If "Sideways" Sun knew English, we would know it by now.  She doesn't.  The Sun of the island is slowly losing it.  Eventually, we'll probably see her lose her ability to understand English as well.  Slowly the worlds are becoming more and more similar. 
  • Sun's long glance in the mirror: Sun cuts her finger on the island and then notices it in the mirror in the sideways world.  This is similar to Jack's cut on his neck, Jin's cut on his head, and Sawyer's cut on his hand - from a mirror.  The worlds are converging slowly and subtly.   From the very beginning, when Jack found his cut in the cramped bathroom on the plane, we were clued in on the fact that these are not separate worlds.  Is it time?  Is the island further in the future than we think?
  • Mikhail's eye: Did anyone else cheer when Jin shot Mikhail in the eye?  It was awesome!  It was also another sign that the worlds are converging.  Again, I can't escape the idea that the sideways world is really just the past and that eventually, these people will end up on the island and experience the events we are watching them experience, or the island world is moving backwards (Sun forgetting English).  Mikhail's loss of an eye also calls on the literary figure of Polyphemus from The Odyssey.  Not only was Polyphemus a cyclops and a loner who lived in a cave all by himself (similar to Mikhail living in a shack all by himself), but he was the son of Poseidon, god of the sea.  It was after Odysseus poked his son's remaining eye out that Poseidon swore to destroy Odysseus before he returned back to his home in Ithaca to reunite with his wife.  What god will stop Jin and Sun from getting back together?  Is there more to learn about Mikhail?  Does this have a connection to Desmond the traveller who is dedicated to his true love Penelope (the name of Odysseus' wife). 
  • Kate: Though not a main character in the last few episodes, her role seems important.  Notice that she has become involved in many of the sideways story lines.  She helped Claire, she stole Jack's pen, and she has been captured by Sawyer.  Is she the constant that brings the two worlds together?  Assuming she is not a candidate (which I am still not positive of), she is still very important.  She has touched too many lives not to be.  It is also not clear if she is actually on Flock's side.  Her overall goal is blurry at best.  Sawyer might be right that she wants to get off the island, but she wants to do it on her own terms and not before her work with Claire is done.  But Claire has her own agenda.  Let's not ignore the playing of "Amazing Grace" during the preview for next week's "Happily Ever After."  Someone's number is up!  Is it Kate?
    I still don't have a theory of how this is going to end.  Hopefully, after a few more episodes, I will have more insight.  Right now, I am just enjoying the final episodes and getting "lost" with the rest of you.

Friday, February 19, 2010

More Questions ... Or Answers? A Look at "The Substitute"

     First of all, thank you to all my readers who have harassed me for a blog.  I am honored.  Honestly, there is not much for me to say.  I am truly "lost" with this season.  But I mean that in a fun way.  This season has taken me for a very satisfying ride and we are only on the third episode.  Well, I think it's clear to say that "The Substitute" was the first episode of the season that we know will be considered a classic.  Events such as Ben revealing himself as the European History teacher, the young stigmata child saying, "You know the rules.  You can't kill him," and even Helen suggesting inviting Locke's father to their eloping were even more satisfying than Jack sitting on the plane next to Rose in the first moments of the season.  But as I've been thinking what I want to say in this blog, I've come up with some questions and possibly some concerns about what we are going to see in the last thirteen hours of Lost.
The Stigmata Child ...

    Perhaps I am being too hasty by calling him the "Stigmata Child," but after many years of Catholic School, I know a Christ Allusion when I see one.  Though it's worth noting that the blood is running down his arms and not coming out of his hands.  Perhaps the child is actually bleeding from the heart (literally and figuratively).  Many are saying that the child is a young Jacob, which is completely possible.  Though one can't help but think that might be coming out of left field (that's a lot to say about a show that has a character who becomes a puff of smoke).  Why would a young Jacob be on the island?  Consider this: Aaron was wanted by the others because he was "special."  Could it be that a version of Aaron (perhaps the one that will eventually reunite with his mother, the rifle-baring Claire) is wandering the island making warnings to the Man in Black (and Jacob I would assume).  It seems to me that this specter is acting as a referee between the two opponents.  But who exactly is the "him" that the child speaks of?  Is is the already killed Jacob?  Is it Sawyer?  Or is it the already deceased and "ripe" John Locke?  
Is Jacob Dead? ...
    Was it just me or did Ilana look more upset about the death of her "What Lies Beneath the Shadow of the Statue" companion that she did about the death of Jacob?  It is my suspicion that the death of Jacob happens quite often and is the actual source of the white ash this group of followers uses to protect themselves from the Man in Black.  I also noticed that Ben doesn't even flinch when he watches her take the ashes.  To the naked eye, it seems that even Ben is out of the loop lately, but I am started to think more of our ambiguous friend.  Not to mention, he is a history teacher now ... those people are smart!
The Flight ... 1
    Are we sure that the flight we saw Jack and Rose on is the same flight that we saw Locke and Boone on?  What about Claire?  It has been noticed by many that Claire's sonogram contained the date October 22, 2004, one month after the date of Flight 815.  Blooper?  No way!  The producers would never let that happen.  First I considered the possibility that the flight in the "non-island" world took off a month later.  But then Helen (portrayed beautifully by Katey Sagal) mentions to Locke that their wedding is coming up in October.  Assuming the producers would not blow something so important, I am going to go out on a limb (at the risk of falling off) and say that Claire and Locke were on two different flights.  Could the same be said for some of our other castaways?  We know that Kate and Claire were on the same flight.  We know Kate and Jack were on the same flight.  We know Charlie and Sayid were on the same flight with Jack.  But did we see Locke with anyone but Boone?  Also, it has been reported that Shannon will be returning to the series.  Perhaps she is on the same flight as Claire, Jack, Rose, Kate, and the rest of the gang, following her brother one month later.  One more note: If Rose works for Hugo and they were on the same flight, wouldn't they have said hello or something?  Not if they were on a completely different flight one month apart!
     There is so much going on.  We have Kate helping Claire after kidnapping Claire (I think there is a lot of symbolism in Claire giving Kate her credit card - talk about identity theft!!).  We have Sayid coming back to life but being affected by something.  We have Richard's confrontation with the Man in Black.  What is it that he wants from Richard?  Also, we are one step closer to finding out what the hell those damn numbers mean ... or did we take two steps back?  We'll soon find out!



1 It's worth noting that after some comments and further thought, there probably was only one flight.  A comment was made that the date on Claire's sonagram was most likely her due date.  That's a possibility.  I'm still wondering ...

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

"Look's Like We Made It ..."


    "It's okay.  We made it."

    "Looks like we made it."

    Occurring in the first minute of the Season Six Premiere in a conversation between Jack and Rose, these lines may be the key to the entire season - and the entire series.  The creators have introduced what seemed like alternate realities.  But is that what they are?  I'd rather not think of it so simply (despite the complexity of alternate realities).  But are they flash forwards?  Flashbacks?  Flash anything?  Notice that our normal sound initiating a flash did not occur last night.  The sound was different.  If we are dealing with alternate realities, perhaps we can call these "Flash-sideways.1"  But again, I don't want to think of them as alternate, because that implies that one of them is not real.  They are both definitely real!

    The writers seem to be giving us a "What if?" look at the series.  Science Fiction often asks the question "What if?" concerning an aspect of humanity.  In an egotistical sense, the show is not asking about life, but asking about the series itself.  What if Oceanic 815 never crashed?  What if they "made it"?  Apparently, the castaways' lives would have merged together anyway.  We are left with so many bonding relationships in the premiere episode.  Jack meets Locke and offers to save him (I must admit, it had never occurred to me that Jack is a spinal surgeon and Locke broke his spinal cord - DUH!).  Kate meets Claire and "steals" her (and Aaron).  Sayid and Jack save Charlie's life - who is "supposed to die."

    The big question of the season will be how these two realities will come together - if they ever do.  According to Juliet (our tragic figure), the plan "worked."  She must know something.  I want to point out that she says something to Sawyer about meeting for coffee.  How much do you want to bet that somewhere along the way, the Sawyer who never got to the island meets Juliet at Starbucks at some point?  Juliet knows something.  She feels it.  Or she knows it.  Perhaps the group that is on the island in 2007 is actually the same group that did NOT crash in Oceanic 815.  Did they ever say that's how they landed?  No.  Maybe this group that landed safely will eventually get to the island in another fashion and will find themselves in the situation we are seeing on the island.

    It was not a shocking revelation to us when the "Man in Black" revealed he was the Smoke Monster.  Though Ben's realization of it was a great moment!  Go back now and watch all the moments where Smokey had influence.  Ask yourself why?  Why did he kill Eko?  Why did he kill the pilot in the pilot (ha)?  Could that pilot have gotten them home safely, so the MIB felt the need to kill him?  Does Lapidis not have the same talent for saving his passengers?

    I always love to look closely at the BOMP!  Last night's BOMP did not come to me as a surprise, but the symbolism behind it is fascinating.  Sayid was baptised and then rose from the dead.  I seem to remember someone doing that at some point.  I'm not sure.  I went to Catholic School for thirteen years, so maybe my information is a little scrambled.  The writers have given us characters like "Christian Shephard" and "Jacob," but none of us thought that the Middle-Eastern man would be the Christ Figure?  Again ... DUH!  I expect we will see more Christ-like action coming from our resurrected torturer.

    So many things to look at and there will be more viewing of the two-hour episode before next week.  For right now, I've asked a lot of questions and I hope to answer them with more theories as we get further into the season.  What a great start!  I can't wait to continue! 


1 For the record, I came up with this term BEFORE reading any other analyses of this episode.  So, suck it, Darlton!

Sunday, December 6, 2009

Holiday Favorites


    As the holiday season approaches, I like to enjoy the art of film.  I have always loved movies, but Christmas lends itself to some classic cinema.  While Hollywood keeps pushing out "Holiday Movies," I think it's safe to say that most of us enjoy the old classics.  Just recently, I went with my family to see Disney's A Christmas Carol on the IMAX screen in Atlantic City.  Marketed as Disney's first A Christmas Carol, (which is not true ... remember Mickey's?) Jim Carrey portrays the infamous miser as well as multiple other roles, including the three specters that are sent to salvage what is left of his heart (which is three hundred sizes too small).  Gary Oldman is a highlight as Bob Crachit and The Ghost of Jacob Marley.  The movie was excellent and deserved all the praise it has received from the critics.  My mother exclaimed, "That was the best version I've ever seen."  Well, with all due respect, I would not give it that distinction, but I would argue it's the best in a few years.  After enjoying the IMAX experience, I was inspired to write about some of my favorite holiday movies and suggest them to my readers.


Scrooged (1988, starring Bill Murray)

    Richard Donner (director of the original 1978 Superman film) takes the reigns of this modern adaptation.  One of my favorites, it follows Frank Cross, a shrewd television executive who cares more about being on top than taking part in the Christmas Festivities.  In an attempt at meta-theatricality, he also happens to be in the middle of producing a live television broadcast of Scrooge, starring Buddy Hacket (who actually appears in the film).  Joined by his love interest, played by Karen Allen, Murray brings the story to the 20th century and is hilarious along the way.  Besides the great comic moments, such as Murray being hit repeatedly by Carol Kane (as the Ghost of Christmas Present), Donner accomplishes the hard task of giving the slap-stick comedy the sentimental ending it needs.  Does it pull at the heart strings in the end?  Absolutely!  But it's exactly what the Spirits of Christmas call for!  Rent this film right away!  Side note: Notice an appearance by John Glover (Smallville, Roundabout's Waiting for Godot) as Murray's adversary and Kathy Kinney (Mimi on The Drew Carey Show) as a bit part of the Nurse. 


National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation (1989, starring Chevy Chase)

    Recently, I brought this film up to my father-in-law, who replied, "I've never actually seen the whole thing ... it's just silly slapstick!"  Well, Bah-Humbug to you, too, Dad!  This film, starring Chevy Chase once again as Clark Griswald, combines the terror of the visiting family with the tending of the ... visiting family.  Possibly the best of the "Vacation" movies, this one makes us laugh constantly and reminds us that families are not perfect.  It also makes us appreciate everything that our parents did for us during the holidays while we sat back and took it all for granted.  I suggest turning on TBS right now because it's probably on!  Laugh, laugh again, and then laugh harder!  I'll get my father-in-law to agree eventually.


A Christmas Carol (1984, starring George C. Scott)

    Forgive me, but George C. Scott is hands down the best Ebenezer Scrooge of all time.  Sorry, Mr. Sim, you were wonderful, but your movie is long and drawn out (and sometimes you're too creepy to look at).  This 1984 version (actually made for television) depicts the classic, Dickensian skinflint we all grow to adore.  It also gets to the point quickly.  With a running of time of 100 minutes, this is the perfect version to sit and watch after Christmas Eve dinner.  You can get into the true spirit of Christmas and still be in bed before Santa arrives.


It's A Wonderful Life (1946, starring Jimmy Stewart)

     Frank Capra had no interest in creating a "Christmas" movie.  It just so happens that his everyman tale takes place during the holidays.  Actually, the majority takes place during the life of it's protagonist, George Bailey, and only in the final half hour do we see Bedford Falls decorated for the holidays.  When the movie was first being advertised, it was marketed as a romance film between it's leading man and Donna Reed.  Audiences were pleasantly surprised to find a story that everyone could relate to and enjoy on a personal level.  Probably one of the most quotable movies of all time, it's become a staple during the holiday season.  In fact, until NBC purchased the rights, the movie could be found on television practically every hour from Thanksgivings to New Years Day.  Amazingly, there are still people I talk to who say, "I've never seen the whole thing!"  There is no reason for that!  I order you to go out and watch it from beginning to end, and I challenge you not to tear up when George is proclaimed to be "the richest man in town!"


 Dr. Seuss' How the Grinch Stole Christmas (1966)

    While I give Jim Carrey at lot of credit for his portrayal of the green goblin in 2000, no one can argue that it's the stronger version.  With a running time of a meager twenty-six minutes, the original story is by far the superior.  Brilliantly narrated by Boris Karloff, this animated classic touches the heart of all who view it.  After we watch him steal everything from the families in Whoville, we still sympathize with the lovable ogre as he tries his damnedest to stop his sleigh from crashing into the morning celebration!  What other movie convinces its audience to change their view so quickly?  As fast as the Grinch falls in love with Christmas, we fall in love with the Grinch!  Watch and feel your heart grow three sizes!


    No matter what your traditions are, take some time to cuddle up with a cup of tea, hot apple cider, or hot chocolate and enjoy yourself!  Christmas may not be about gifts, but that doesn't mean you can't give yourself the gift of getting lost in a beautiful holiday film!  Merry Christmas to all!   

Thursday, October 29, 2009

More Religion on LOST ...


    I feel terrible!  I have not been writing nearly enough about LOST.  That does not mean I am not watching.  Bonnie and I are almost done with the second season (remember the Hatch?).  We are still discussing and debating the idea that John Locke has actually been the "Man in Black" from the beginning.  Sometimes that theory works beautifully and other times not.  While usually I would dismiss a theory for its inconsistency, one should not do that with LOST.  Bonnie has suggested that in the third episode, when John Locke meets Smokey, is the "Man in Black" enters him, thus using Locke as a vessel throughout the show that he can enter and exit as he pleases.  This would explain why sometimes Locke is very "Man in Black"-ish and other times he is not.

    But this posting is not about that.  I've often discussed the correlations between religion and LOST.  By now, it's easy to assume that the writers are using religion as a basis for many plot points, yet we still don't know what they mean.  108?  Jacob and Esau?  What else?  Recently we viewed the episode entitled "S.O.S."  In this often-forgotten episode, the flashback is about Rose and Bernard (the first guest stars to get flashbacks).  In this episode, we discover that Rose was diagnosed with cancer not too long after she meets, and is courted by, Bernard.  After their marriage, Bernard takes her to Australia to see a "Faith Healer" named Isaac.  Isaac fully admits that he is unable to heal Rose, though Rose decides to tell Bernard that he was successful, hoping Bernard's constant worrying will cease.  Of course, on their way out of Australia, they crash on the island, where all diseases are "cured," such as Locke's need for a wheelchair. 

    The name “Isaac” appears approximately eighty times in the King James Bible.  Isaac is the son of 100-year-old Abraham, who is destined to not to have children until God blesses him and his wife, Sarah, with a son.  God then asks Abraham to sacrifice young Isaac to show his devotion.  Eventually, God changes his request to a minor circumcision, the first on record.  So why name a Faith Healer “Isaac”?  The connection is not as strong as some of the others in the show, but, in the Bible, Isaac bares two sons: Jacob and Esau. 

    Let’s assume for a little while that the “Man in Black” is Esau.  According to the story, Isaac goes blind due to old age but before he dies, is supposed to bless the eldest son with the blessing he received from his father, who received it from God.  Esau, jealous of big brother Jacob, pretends to be Jacob by gluing hair on his arm (apparently Jacob was quite hairy).  This naturally begins a battle between the two brothers, much like the battle between Cain and Abel (see my Cain & Abel / Locke & Ben theory on this blog). 

    If the writers are following the Bible as a guide, we may find out that Isaac the Faith Healer is the father of Jacob and the “Man in Black.”  It would seem that, like in the Bible, Jacob is the favorite son and Esau hates him for it (“Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” Malachi 1:2-4).  It could be that while Jacob is the one responsible for sending the Oceanic Six to the island, it is his father, Isaac, sending the others.  It stands to reason that if Isaac had healed Rose, she may have wanted to stay in Australia longer, therefore avoiding the fated Oceanic Flight 815. 

     Before we know it, we’ll be heading into Season Six!  Another topic that needs to be discussed is the titles to the first few episodes of Season Six.  We’ll get to that soon … For now, tune into ABCs new hit, FlashForward.  It’s terrific for any LOST fan!  I’m sure I’ll be commenting on it in The Correct Opinion soon.


Tuesday, August 18, 2009

A Look Back at John Locke


    At the conclusion of LOST's fifth season, we learned about a certain "Man in Black" (let's call him Esau) who appears to be the adversary of the mystical Jacob.  This character made a clear threat to Jacob that he will try to kill him at some point.  Jacob did not seem concerned until he was being killed by Ben, who was being guided by Esau disguised as John Locke.  We also learned that the John Locke of season five was actually dead, and we were watching Esau pretending to be John Locke in order to fool Ben into following him.  Wow!  That was confusing!  Nevertheless, we need to take a second and answer a question: Why was John Locke chosen by Esau?  Why not Jack?  Sawyer?  To investigate means to watch the series from the beginning; it will also gear me up for the final season, beginning in January 2010. 


    Only three episodes into the series, it's interesting to look closely at Locke.  While Jack is trying to save Kate's U.S. Marshall and Sayid is playing with blocked radio frequencies, Locke is busy observing.  Call this a hypothesis, rather than a theory.  What if Locke died on the plane?  What if Locke has never been "Locke"?  What if he is Esau?  While there might be many holes in the hypothesis, there is evidence as well.  We know that Locke's flashback's will reveal that he was crippled by his father's window push and somehow began walking on the island.  But is this actually possible?  Or is it Esau walking on the island?  Further, we must remember that the flashbacks are not memories.  They are flashbacks that provide information.  We learn information about John Locke off the island.  This is not proof that the John Locke "on the island" experienced any of those events.  Further, in the Locke flashbacks, have we ever seen evidence that this wheel-chair-bound man would know how to kill a wild boar?  No.  But Esau, who has been on the island for centuries, would.


John Locke


    In the first three episodes, John Locke observes the other islanders trying to survive.  After helping Jack move victims in the first few moments of the series, John Locke does nothing to help others until he finally finds Vincent - Walt's dog - by creating a dog whistle.  Before this, he does have a very interesting exchange with the young boy about the game of backgammon.  Not only does he talk about how the ancient game is over 5000 years old (how old would Esau be?), but he also points out the battle between the white and black pawns.  On the surface, this appears to be something of a race reference since Walt is African American, but it could also refer to Jacob (who was wearing white at the top of season five's finale) and the "man in black." 



    One must also point out the unusual ending of episode three, entitled "Tabula Rasa."  We hear the song "Washed Away" coming out of Hurley's earphones as we see the first acts of kindness and community of the island.  Boone (oh, remember Boone?) gives Shannon (OH, remember Shannon?) a pair of repaired sunglasses, Sayid gives Sawyer a piece of fruit, and Michael brings Walt his dog (found by Locke).  Locke does not do anything but watch.  There is definitely a creepy feeling emulating from the still-mysterious Locke as he watches the father and son finally communicate.  Though the "bomp" is more calming that what we will get used to in the series run.  Could it be that Esau, our "man in black" is watching his plan form?  If so, is that the secret "miracle" he tells Walt about and not the fact that he could not walk before crashing on the island?  If the miracle is their arrival on the island, that would explain Locke's insistence that they remain on the island.  It should also be mentioned that the title "Tabula Rasa" refers to a theory by the philosopher John Locke.  Simply, it states that we are born blank.  We have the freedom to be the author's of our own souls.  It is actually Jack who makes the reference to the theory when he tells Kate that he believe they should all "start over" since they are not on the island.  Perhaps Esau agrees.


    After more episodes, many of these thoughts might be proven wrong.  That is my new project.  I will look closely at Locke and write as frequently as possible about whether or not John Locke might actually be Esau, the "Man In Black" the entire series!