We Finally Meet Jacob ...

 

    So the Producers of LOST finally allowed us to meet the mysterious Jacob and now we have more questions than ever!  Who is this guy?  Why are we not meeting him until now?  Why did he agree to see John Locke and not Ben?  Was he really meeting with Richard Alpert all those times?  Why did he want these people on the island?  Is he really dead?  What does it mean if he is dead?  My head hurts!

    Like past season finales of LOST, season five seemed to not end a story, but begin a new one.  While the entirety of Season Five dealt with science, mainly physics and time travel, this two-hour episode entered with full force, the world of religion.  While Jack has been slowly becoming a man of faith, Faraday has contrasted him with the question of whether or not we can change the past.  The appearance of Jacob completely changed the theme of the season.  While Jack continued the mission that Daniel Faraday started, the producers revealed how the power of Jacob has influenced the islanders for many years previous to their arrival.  This was all concluded with Ben's angry rant about being denied divinity after being so faithful.  Like many believers of God, Ben breaks down and questions how someone so powerful and so good can do so many bad things and still expect people to be have faith. 

    Ben's questioning of Jacob, the god of the island, was not the only religious theme of the show.  Ben made it quite obvious that Locke was acting like Moses, leading his people to the Promised Land.  It was a great moment when he said that, making it easy for anyone who was confused!  We also had the surprise appearance of Bernard and Rose (and Vincent).  Their short, but adorable, scene questioned people's belief about life.  While many people would agree with Sawyer and think they are crazy for living out in the jungle, it made so much sense when Rose and Bernard looked at it as a beautiful retirement.  After all is said and done, who really cares?  Death is inevitable.  One might say that Bernard and Rose have hit the nail on the head!  Now that they have figured out the secret to happiness, it seems even more likely that these two (being the first to figure it out) will eventually be the "Adam and Eve" skeletons that are discovered earlier in the series.  The atomic blast most likely will be the cause, leaving them to be found almost thirty years later.

    The biggest question is, surprisingly, not about Jacob.  It's about the other gentlemen who was with him at the beginning of the episode.  The man said that he wanted to kill Jacob and that someday he would find a "loophole."  Eventually, he does find a loophole by disguising himself as the deceased Locke and having Ben Linus do Jacob in.  This answers the question about why John Locke just "knew" things about the island.  But who is this guy?  If Jacob is the god of the island, is this guy Satan?  It looks like Season Six is going to be about the ultimate battle between good and evil.  It's not looking too good for the good side since it seems that Jacob was killed as soon as we met him.  But why are we assuming that Jacob is good?  LOST has fooled us before in thinking the obvious is true.  Perhaps Jacob was actually the "Satan" of the island and this "new guy" represent God.  Those questions will surely be answered in Season Six, when we explore the religious side of the island.  We will probably also see this man (Esau, perhaps? ... to cite Jacob's Biblical enemy brother) take the shape of other characters.  Most likely, we have already seen him take the form of Alex, Ben's daughter.  I was wrong.  It wasn't Smokey.  But I was right, something was taking the form of dead people.  Does this mean Christian Shephard is also NOT walking around the island?  Further, is it only dead people?  Even further, is it only dead people?  Can the people be alive?  Can it be other creatures such as the black stallion that Kate was so enthralled with in "What Kate Did" of Season Two?  Could Esau be SMOKEY?  My head is hurting more and more!

 

    While all of that is well and good, there is still the issue with the nuclear explosion.  Juliet's desperate attempt to stop Kate and Sawyer from being together was extreme, but will be the catalyst for the top of the final season.  What does this explosion mean for the islanders?  Will this mean that Flight 815 will not land?  Despite my past theory that if the flight does not land, there is no way for them to actually cause the explosion, there is another scenario.  If the theme of the next season is fate and destiny, then it's their destiny to show up on the island one way or another.  With this thought in mind, here is my theory: Ajira flight 316 will still crash on the island in 2007.  Nothing is preventing this crash from occurring.  Somehow our travellers (even the ones who died previously) will end up on that flight.  When it crashes, the people will find themselves in the exact same predicament as in Season One, but they will not know this has already happened to them even though the audience will.  Talk about dramatic irony!

    It will most likely be Richard that has to explain what has happened to them.  Locke and Jack will still battle out the science and fate war while Sawyer attempts to sleep with as many passengers as he can, finally falling for Kate ... or Juliet, who will be with the "Others."  No matter what happens, the door is open for so many possibilities since we now have a man who can take the form of dead (and living?) people.  Also, if this all happens, Jacob will also still be alive if and when flight 316 lands. 

    It's been an amazing season.  Here's looking forward to the sixth and finale season (especially episode 108).   Let's all relax for a bit and then spend the next few months coming up with more theories and predictions.  I am sure I am not the only one planning on putting all the previous episodes on my NetFlix queue and reliving the adventure!  One thing is for sure, we can thank the writers, cast, and crew for a season well-done!

Palace High School Gets "Cool" with West Side Story!

 

    

      The Palace High School's production of West Side Story, directed by Mrs. Kathleen Marshall, was performed last night with such terrific zest!  As soon as the young cast appeared on stage, it was obvious you were in for two and half hours of pure, delectable fun.  It was adorable how the two groups danced the difficult choreography of the great Jerome Robbins, while at the same time pretending to hate each other.  It was obvious that the two months of rehearsal after school paid off.  Sophomore Matt Cavenaugh did such a nice job with his sweet-voiced Tony.  It was very smart of Mrs. Marshall, Palace School's Theater Arts director, to give him no movement during "Maria."  It reminded us of all the times we've seen him in his voice recitals singing "This is the Moment" and "Anthem."  Who doesn't love being reminded of that?  Other highlights included Karen Olivo, now a senior, stepping back from playing the lead in last year's production of Bye Bye, Birdie, to playing the show-stealing supporting lead of Anita.  Also featured was George Akram, finally stepping out of the chorus during his junior year, as Bernardo.  But the true highlight was our exchange student Josefina Scaglione, playing the sweet Maria.  She simply stole the show whenever she held out those nice notes written by the great Leonard Bernstein.  If only Stephen Sondheim and Arthur Laurents were able to see this!  They would have been so proud to know that there are still high school theater programs that can handle their challenging work.  There are still a few more nights to catch West Side Story.  Tickets are only $7 at the door, but $6 if you are a student or if you buy them in advance!  See you at the theater!  

     I'm so sorry.  I got confused.  I knew I wanted to write a review of the production of West Side Story at the Palace Theater in New York, but I got confused as to what I was actually watching.  Now that I've come back to my senses and I remember that I was not at a high school production last night, here is my review of the highly anticipated Broadway Revival of West Side Story.  

    When the original production of West Side Story opened in 1957, audiences were terrified.   The first line of the New York Times review stated that play was "horrifying."  I would say the same thing about this production, but I doubt for the same reason.  What horrified me was the lack of conviction in any of the movements originally created by the legendary Jerome Robbins.  Instead of providing the exposition information about the hatred between rival gangs the Jets and the Sharks, this cast simply danced.  Granted, they danced well.  If I was watching a high school dance recital, I would have been blown away.  But I wasn't.  I was watching professional Broadway dancers and actors performing West Side Story.  With no sense of intensity or drive, these young (and I mean young) performers executed timeless choreography without giving a shred of the timeless story behind the moves.   

    

    Rumors flew when 91-year-old Arthur Laurents (writer of the book) announced his plan to revive the musical after his hit production of Gypsy, for which he also wrote the book.  The two big rumors were that he planned on having the Puerto Ricans speak Spanish and that it would be a contemporary, updated version.  Both had the theater world curious what the theater icon had up his sleeve.  Though the idea of updating the show went out the window, someone forgot to tell the actors who carried themselves as if they were hanging outside the mall in North Jersey on a Friday night.  While "giving the finger" has been a gesture since the ancient Romans, I am pretty sure that it was not the most popular gesture circa 1957 (please feel free to correct me if I am wrong).  I counted about fifteen can only hope there are directors more deserving of a Tony this year.   

    As for the other rumor, Laurents did have the dialogue of the Sharks translated into Spanish, which was both distracting and effective.  While I know the show inside and out, I felt that some people were lost, especially in Act II.  It also did not help to put the English translations of "I Feel Pretty" and "A Boy Like That" in the program, causing multiple people to have to open their cell phones to provide reading light.  However, at times, it helped show the struggle of living in America for these characters and demonstrated the ethnic tension.  Was it worth it?  Probably not.  

    While it's hard to accept the love-at-first-sight scenario, audiences have learned to accept it for years.  But one of the reasons it usually works in West Side Story is the obviousness of Maria's attraction to Tony.  He's just a great guy.  Who would not want to be with him?  Well, in this production, it would probably be because Maria wants a man and not a boy.  Matt Cavenough, from Grey Gardens, performs the leading male as a youthful sissy who would be more appropriate as Freddy in My Fair Lady.  Tony should be a man who strongly announces that "Something's Coming" and that he is in love with a girl named "Maria."  Mr. Cavenaugh seemed like he was calling Mr. Hankle requesting to speak to Penelope Ann (theater people know the reference).  It did not help that Mr. Laurents gave him absolutely no movement for either song.  The first was done on a ladder and the second was done downstage, just off center.  In fact, a good majority of the action happened downstage, practically on top of the floor lights.  I'm pretty sure that Mr. Laurents knows that there is some power upstage.  It's not just for the chorus people.   

    Karen Olivo of In the Heights fame played the role of Anita.  While I did not see In the Heights, I am going to assume that Ms. Olivo simply took her role in that and brought it to this show of a completely different generation.  Olivo seemed completely out of place and did not provide any of the spitfire attitude that Anita requires to make her lovable.  It did not help that I could not understand a word that she said most of the time.  There were moments were I assumed that she was speaking Spanish, but I later found out I was incorrect.  One must wonder what has happened to Broadway when we've gone from Chita Rivera and Rita Moreno to a one-hit wonder such as Karen Olivo.  What is sadder is that she is the front-runner for the Best Featured Actress Tony Award.  

    Ms. Olivo was not the only one who was hard to understand.  The cast sped through the dialogue as if the half-priced appetizers ended at 10:00, rather than started.  There was not a sensitive moment sustained throughout the whole production, ending with Maria's monologue of murder and hatred where Ms. Scaglione held the gun to the temple of Action (a 2009 skinhead who I assume had a Nazi sign tattooed on his back).  Eventually, Maria finished her speedy monologue while holding the gun to the back of Action's head execution style.  Further, her reason for dropping the gun was not so much her realization of the rage inside her, but the fact that Lt. Shrank appeared and would have seen her eventually shoot the young, hatred-filled gang member.  Once she was back crying over the body of doomed Tony, the curtain could not have come down faster, eliminating any sense that these gang members learned the lesson that was taught to them.  

    Many moments have been left out of this review, but I feel I have said enough.  Of course, I can't help but mention the attempt at youthful symbolism when the creepy red-headed kid who lurked in the background sang "Somewhere," then disappeared.  While the idea that their childhood has been destroyed (I would think a lot earlier than this play) is a pathetic tug at our heartstrings, Nicholas Barasch did have the nicest voice in the production.  But why listen to a little boy sing "Somewhere" when I already listened to a little boy sing "Maria"?    

    I leave you with one question:  How easy is it to get a standing ovation on Broadway nowadays?  Especially on a Friday night  Well, this production left the audiences in their seats for the entirety of curtain call, which was also rushed.  I hope the cast enjoyed their potato skins more than we enjoyed West Side Story.    

 

 

Follow the Who?

    The most recent episode of LOST, "Follow the Leader," has us all wondering who holds this title.  Though thirty years apart, we again see the split leadership of Jack and John, who have a semi-reversal of roles with Jack talking about crazy illogical things like fate and destiny.  In case you didn't get that, Kate tried to clarify it with the brilliantly written line, "You know who you're beginning to sound like?"  Thanks for clearing that up, Kate!  Of course, we also have the god-like leadership of Jacob, who once again becomes the Holy Grail for John Locke.  Could it be that we are finally going to learn who Jacob really is?

    There is always the chance that Jacob is a new character.  He may be someone we've never seen before who has been looming in the shadows waiting to make his grand appearance, like the Wizard hiding from behind the curtain.  Don't forget the allusion to The Wizard of Oz earlier in the series - Ben first introduced himself as Henry Gale (Dorothy's Uncle Henry).  We all trust LOST to keep us interested and riveted, but we'd all be slightly disappointed if the revelation of Jacob was not someone we are familiar with.  Let's go through some options as to who Jacob could really be.

 

Jack Shephard

    Our fearless leader has once again proven that you just can't mess with him.  Though Kate has decided to give up on him and head back over to her back-up guy, Sawyer, Jack has convinced Sayid that perhaps he still has a few tricks up his heart-wearing sleeve.  Due to the time-travel element introduced this season, there are opportunities for everyone to actually be Jacob.  While it seems logical that Jack could become Jacob in 2007 after living from 1977 to the present, our audiences seem to forget that Jacob was in existence in 1977 already for what seems like a long time.  Richard Alpert, our timeless right-hand man has reference Jacob numerous times to the horse-riding Charles Widmore, bringing about a sense of respect not seen with anyone else.  Still, I can't help but think back to the odd visit between Jack and his granddad, who gave Jack his father's shoes that were eventually worn by the deceased John Locke.  Theories jumped around that Granddad was actually Jack.  If so, was he also Jacob, there is make sure that young Jack went back to the island?  Not so impossible, thanks to the record-skipping wheel opening the time-travelling door. 

 

Jack's Granddad

 

    Okay, stick with me for a minute.  He shows up to give Jack his father's shoes.  He doesn't discuss the island, but talks about destiny.  Soon after their meeting, Jack decides to head back.  What a coincedence that we meet Jack's grandfather at this important point in Jack's destiny.  Furthermore, if the grandfather is Jacob (God), his son is Christian Shephard (Christ / Shepherd), making Jack the son of Christ.  Though the Bible never addresses the grandson of God, LOST might just be taking the next step.      

 

John Locke

    How does John Locke just "know" things now?  Is it because he is in fact, Jacob.  Or is it that Jacob is taking the form of dead people by either entering their bodies or forming into their shape (ala Smokey)?  Either way, John Locke seems a little too confident.  Ben seems to think so, too.  Though it's doubtful that is really "following John," as he says, Ben does seem interested in nothing but where John Locke plans on taking his people.  But if John is Jacob, why does he want to "kill Jacob"?  Does he mean kill the idea of Jacob by showing everyone his true identity, like if Clark Kent showed Metropolis the Fortress of Solitude?  Ben and Richard seem very interested in John Locke right now, though they are not too happy about his blunt "I-don't-give-a-crap-what-you-think" style of leadership.  I personally loved the exchange:

Richard: I'm starting to think John Locke is going to be trouble.

Ben: Why do you think I tried to kill him?

This exchange seemed to show a true alliance between Ben and Richard and one that does not seem to include the new leader, John Locke. 

 

 

Richard Alpert

    Our ageless friend is too mysterious, don't you think?  It's about time we learn why he never ages (and what brand of eyeliner he purchases).  Since he is the only person who claims to have spoken to Jacob, it is reasonable to suspect that he is actually Jacob and his fears of John Locke lie in the fact that John Locke does not trust Jacob and is starting to create a rebellion against him.  If Richard does fall victim to the mutinous islanders, how does that affect the Richard of 1977?  Well, if Richard is in fact not ageless and just a time-travelling junkie, it might affect him colossally.  

 

Sawyer

    I never would have thought about Sawyer being Jacob until I watched the submarine containing him, Juliet, and Kate leave the island.  Side note: why did LOST all of a sudden become a cartoon when they showed the sub floating away?  Has the economy gotten so bad that ABC can't afford good computer graphics?  The guy in charge should be fired!  Anyway, if Sawyer leaves in 1977 and continues in the 70s and 80s, his story could continue with him going back to the island, travelling back further into the past and becoming the social-phobic leader, Jacob.  Furthermore, the same could be said for his two love interests.  Second Side note: Elizabeth Mitchell deserves an Emmy simply for the moment when Kate enters that sub.  Brilliant!

 

    The sad thing is that even though the water coolers are crowded with theories of who Jacob actually is, we might not find out in season five.  While I suspect the revelation of Jacob will be the "bomp" of the season, the producers might keep us dangling until the concluding season.  Either way, don't miss the Season Finale of LOST next Wednesday, and don't forget, it starts at 8:00!  Maybe we'll finally learn that Locke and Ben are brothers ...