The Dark Knight Review

Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight, the second installment of the resurrected Batman franchise, has taken its position as history's greatest comic book film of all time with full force! Between Ledger's Oscar-worthy performance, Nolan's skillful directing and screenwriting, and the hype, this movie is bound to break every record in the books.

If Christian Bale had not already proved himself to be the best Batman on screen with Batman Begins, he definitely proved it here. Though while his Batman is so interesting and horrifying, it is his Bruce Wayne that really comes alive. The struggle we see Wayne go through as he tries to save a city that does not want him to save it is so captivating, you actually find yourself pulled between wanting Batman is stop and wanting him to prove himself again and again.

Bale was supported by terrific actors, giving amazing performances. Gary Oldman takes his role of Jim Gordon further in The Dark Knight. He does a beautiful job of showing how it’s not easy for Gordon to trust the Batman at all times. He juggles his secret bond with Batman and his job perfectly, making the character's transition into Commissioner seem obvious, yet surprising.

Michael Caine returns again as Alfred, Wayne’s butler. Though he always makes the best out of his moments, the character seems to only serve the purpose of giving philosophical advice to his master, unlike in Batman Begins when we saw how he was also affected as a second father to Bruce. It is actually not until the end of the film where he again becomes a father and emotional protector to Wayne, perhaps a little too late for the film.

Morgan Freeman returns as Lucius Fox, one of the people that know Batman’s secrets and the man who creates Batman’s unending plethora of gear. He does this while also running Wayne Enterprises. Freeman’s dialogue is so well written and has a great balance of comedy and seriousness. Freeman handles the role perfectly, making what should be a small cameo into a highlight, even more than he did in Batman Begins.

Aaron Eckhart takes his role of Harvey Dent to a new level. Nolan gives him a very meaty role that some have suggested is more important in the movie than the Joker and Batman. As Gotham’s “White Knight,” Harvey Dent gives an example of why the city might not need Batman. Eckhart does a great job of showing the struggle that Dent goes through before becoming his alter ego, causing the metamorphosis to make more sense. We feel pity for Dent, which is the key ingredient to making the villain Two-Face work. It should also be mentioned that the size of Eckhart’s role in the film was the best-kept secret of the year!

Maggie Gyllenhaal, brother to Heath Ledger’s best friend, Jake, takes over the role of Rachel Dawes beautifully, wiping out any memory of Katie Holmes from audiences’ heads. Her quick-wit and no-nonsense approach to the role is exactly what is needed when up against Bale’s tragic Bruce Wayne / Batman. Her storyline takes an unbelievable twist that becomes a sad moment that would not be so sad had if it been performed by the previous actress in the role. The next question that lies ahead is what is in store in the love arena for Mr. Wayne?

Last, but certainly not least, is Heath Ledger’s Joker. Between the amazing script and magnificent acting, the Joker becomes much more than any person thought possible. He is not just the villain of the story, but the nucleus. Between all of Gordon’s nervousness, Alfred’s advice, and Fox’s warnings, no character has us thinking more than the Joker. He has an entire audience questioning themselves, making them wonder if their own lives are merely jokes for others to laugh at. What is it to be a human being in a post-9/11 world? When everything we know is taken away from us, do we simply fall apart? How many times can we “pick ourselves up again”? It is hard to believe that a comic book villain could get someone thinking that hard, but it is Ledger’s performance that makes it so believable. The trick is the youthfulness that he brings to the role. As oppose to being completely separated from Batman in story and age, Ledger brings out the connections between the two, almost as if they are brothers separated by good and evil. They need each other. Ledger even tells Batman in a comical – but serious – moment “you complete me.”

As previously said, the movie definitely has some 9/11 allusions, but does not beat us over the head with them. It’s there for those of us that want it to be there. As we watch Gotham fall apart at the hands of a madman, we are reminded of how our country fell apart for a short time, but fought together to bring back justice and social norms. The Joker spends most of the movie questioning how many times we can fall before we lie down and die. Batman works on the opposite end to show us we should never give up, even when he is at his closest to quitting.

As did Batman Begins, this film brings great closure, while at the same time leaving itself wide open for another story. What is next for the Batman? In the first film, we saw Batman’s reaction to his own tragedy and to Gotham City. In The Dark Knight, we see Gotham’s reaction to the Batman and how Batman’s “taste for the theatrical” will bring out villains who will try to top him! While this movie tends to focus on politics and “higher-ups” of Gotham, Nolan might want to show us how the media world affects the views of Batman. Will the media be behind him or try to destroy him? This would also open up a nice window for a new love interest – photojournalist Vicki Vale – to enter the scene as either Batman’s biggest fan, or biggest critic. This might also open a door for a new Batman villain – and the only one that seems to make sense in the world that Nolan has built for us – The Riddler.

The Knight is Getting Darker ...

It is now Wednesday and I am sitting at my boss's computer (I'm supposed to be looking at something for a play I'm directing), but I felt an urge to say a few things about the research I've done on the upcoming film The Dark Knight.

By now, I have read all the articles and watched all of the trailers and seen all of the Comcast ONDEMAND specials titled "Gotham Tonight." These specials star Anthony Michael Hall (The Breakfast Club) as Gotham news anchor Mike Engel. He's quite convincing and has actually set an interesting tone for the movie. I think we will be seeing a movie that focuses much more on corruption than anything else. How will the bureaucrats of Gotham City be affected by Batman? Good move by Nolan, the director. We always get how the villains are affected, but we never get to see the political arena. Perhaps Nolan's idea is to have each film focus on how Batman affects different areas of Gotham, sort of how HBO's The Wire focuses on different areas of Baltimore and how they are affected by the drug rings.

Based on HBO's Inside Look of The Dark Knight, Nolan is focusing a lot on how Gotham will blame Batman for The Joker's appearance. This was nicely set up at the end of Batman Begins when Gordon questioned Batman about escalation. While most audiences focused on the appearance of the Joker's playing card, the real preview lied in how Gordon warned Batman that when a man in a mask jumps off rooftops, he's only asking to bring about enemies who will escalate their arsenal of tricks. It seems that this will be Harvey Dent's big argument in The Dark Knight.

While this is an excellence plot line for the film and raises a very interesting question not asked by a film before, I worry about something. Will there be a period in the movie where Bruce Wayne decides the only way to save Gotham is to let it go without Batman? We've seen this before too many times. In Superman II, we see Metropolis without Superman and in Spiderman II, Peter Parker decides he can be Spiderman no longer. Is this the cliche of the superhero sequel now? The plot is getting a little too predictable. Bruce Wayne will spend a half hour of the film watching Gotham City destroy itself and then come back to save his city from The Joker. Hopefully Nolan will take a different route, or, if he doesn't, he'll make it more interesting. I have a lot of hope!

I will be seeing the film on Friday, July 18th at 12:01 am. I'm sure I'll have plenty to say on Friday!

The Dark Knight is Coming ...

It's almost here ...

The Dark Knight, Christopher Nolan's second installment of the "Batman" epic, will premier in theaters in one week. Not only is this one of the most anticipated movies of 2008, but it is the last time people will be able to see the work of Mr. Heath Ledger, a very gifted actor who left us too soon. While the death of Heath Ledger is very tragic, sometimes I feel bad for Christian Bale, the other star of the film, who is getting practically no press or acknowledgement for the role. Shouldn't we give credit to the man who finally brought a real darkness to the Dark Knight? You don't really think Keaton was better, do you?

In preparation for The Dark Knight, I've been reading even more than usual about the Caped Crusader. I recently picked up a new book entitled Batman and Philosophy: The Dark Knight of the Soul. A very corny title, granted, but a very interesting read thus far. One particular essay inside by Mark D. White entitled "Why Doesn't Batman Kill the Joker?" struck me. In the essay, White argues that if Batman would simply off the Clown Prince of Crime, Gotham City would be a better place. It should also be noted that it was just recently released that no comic book villain is responsible for more deaths than the Joker. Some of this most potent deaths include Jason Todd, the second Robin, and Sarah Essen, Commissioner Gordon's second wife (is there a theme here? Did Nolan put Two-Face and the Joker in the same film for a reason?).

White raises a very interesting philosophical question: If a train was out of control and was about to hit five people, but you had the power to shift the tracks, causing it to only hit one person, would you do it? White goes further to explain that there are two types of people in the world: utilitarians and deontologist. Utilitarianism is a system of ethics that would encourage the person to shift the tracks and kill the one person, saving the five others. Since more people survived, the one person was worth sacrificing. Deontology states that we should judge the morality of an act based on features intrinsic to the act itself. The fact that five people were saved does not excuse the act of killing the one person. If it's God's plan to kill those five people, it is not up to us the murder the one.

Since the Batman does not kill villains (unless he has no other choice), Batman would be considered a deontologist. The inconsistency in Batman's character is that he risks his life (and that of a young boy) every night in order to prevent what happened to his parents from ever happening again. He does one action to prevent others. Yet, he won't kill the man who has killed so many in order to stop other killings from happening.

Still thinking about whether or not you are a utilitarian or a deontologist? Take this scenario into account. This is White's second situation. If you were a doctor, and you had five patients on operating tables in front of you (rarely happens, but go with it), and each one needed a different organ, and another doctor was in the room, would you kill the other doctor and use his organs to save the five patients? Probably not. Why was that decision so much easier than the situation on the train tracks? It's still one life for five. The character of the Batman would never let either of these situations occur. Like most heroes, Batman would find a way to fix the situation without anyone being killed. Batman would sooner allow himself to die than to let an innocent person be killed.

But the Joker is NOT innocent. Why should this human life be treated with the respect that he does not have for the rest of the human race? As a deontologist, is Batman in the right state of mind to actually think that there is a chance that the Joker might not kill again? That he might actually turn over a new leaf this time? It is also worth noting that a deontologist would consider self-defense an appropriate reason to take another life. Is it reasonable to say that Batman has never been in a situation where killing the Joker would be considered self-defense?

Throughout the entire essay, I could not help but ask myself a few questions. How would the world react to Batman killing the Joker? Would the Joker be missed? Is there a Batman without a Joker?

How would the world react to Batman killing the Joker? Like the deaths of so many comic book characters (Superman, Jason Todd, the Flash to name a few), publishers would have to find a way to bring him back. The Joker is the model for all other villains, yet no one has ever been able to recreate him. Why? It's quite simple. Look at other famous villains. Lex Luthor wants to make money, Mr. Freeze wants to save his wife, and the Riddler wants to show off his intelligence. But the Joker has no motive. This is what makes him so diabolical. There is no point to his wrath other than to make a joke of life. He finds his crimes funny. The public loves him so much because they can't relate to him. He can understand the need for money, revenge, and to show off. The Joker is an untouchable villain because no one can understand him. So he attracts us more.

Would the Joker be missed? Yes! Not only would the public miss him, but Batman would not be able to continue without him. Throughout his career as Batman, Bruce Wayne has never come up with a reason for the death of his parents. Since the Joker has never given a reason for his insanity, he attracts Batman to crime fighting. Like Batman, the Joker is attracted to the Batman's motiveless (the Joker does not know about Batman's parents) need to protect a city that is completely ungrateful to him. They keep each other in the game and without the other, one would fall.

Is there a Batman without the Joker? Again, no. The air that Batman breathes is the knowledge that there is someone out there who will kill for no reason and laugh at his triumph as well as his defeat. This brazen disregard for human life reminds Batman that he is not the only person to lose his family and suffer for no reason. In this sense, the Joker makes Batman feel better. The Joker gives Batman a purpose in life. Without him, Batman has no purpose. As a human -- which is what Batman simply is -- Batman needs a purpose in life or else his life need not continue.

Why doesn't Batman simply kill the Joker, Mr. White? While we can argue about whether or not it is morally right until we are blue in the face, it's not a question of morals. In fact, if Batman is keeping the Joker alive to give himself a reason to keep going, than the Batman is neither utilitarian nor deontologist. He is, in fact, just as sick and twisted as his greatest archenemy. Actually ... maybe sicker!

Everything's Coming Up Patti!

The month of July is a very busy one for me. Unfortunately, after the Tony's are over, I am going to see the two shows in the biggest race of the year: the Musical Revivals. At the end of the month, I will be seeing South Pacific, thanks to a terrific friend who happens to be in the cast (I know big people in high places ... I feel so cool). Last night, I started the month of theater seeing Gypsy starring Patti LuPone.

Now, I am going to sound hypocritical after I wrote some harsh things about Ms. LuPone in my Tony review, but I have to say her performance sincerely changed my attitude. Though I still think everyone else would agree she's a total bitch. I had a comical moment yesterday when I went up to the House Manager around 6 pm just to confirm that "Ms. LuPone would be going on tonight." The man simply replied dryly, "Yes, the queen will be going on." Obviously, he enjoys his working relationship with Patti.

Her reputation for missing performances was bigger than I thought. The final announcement after turning cell phones off and unwrapping candy was, "Ms. Lupone has injured her foot ..." The crowd gasped! "...and will be performing tonight with isotoners." That was Patti's first roaring applause of the night. It was followed by many others.

Anyway, I can honestly say that Patti's performance (though filled with her consonantless and warbled singing) was superb! It was possibly the greatest musical theater performance I have ever seen in my life. She found a balance to Mama Rose that I have never seen before. She was horrifying, yet so nurturing and loving. She was overbearing, yet found moments to be passive. She was huge, yet found moments to be small. Never has a role been played so perfectly on the stage in front of my eyes.

You almost feel bad the cast members of Gypsy who appear in the opening minutes. While a group of children (Baby June and Baby Louise included) and Uncle Jocko hold an audition, you could feel the audience's tension. Where is Patti? When is she going to enter? Then the roar came! "Sing it out, Louise!" What a beautiful foreshadowing moment that is! It's only the first of so many beautiful moments that writer Arthur Laurents creates in what I would argue is the best book of any musical ever written. This moment for Patti was the first of many loud and long applauses. I timed this one at around 40 seconds.

Mr. Laurents should be given a lot of credit for helping find Patti's vulnerable side, a side not found in many productions, including her last stint on Broadway, John Doyle's Sweeney Todd. Mr. Laurents is a director that is not only unafraid of silence on stage, but cherishes it. Ms. Benanti, as the title character, especially thrives off of Mr. Laurents' quiet moments as we see her entire struggle in her body language. The most memorable moment of this would probably be when she watches her mother reveal her newest dream in "Everything's Coming Up Roses." The look on her face truly supporting Ms. LuPone's acting. We were all terrified by the lyrics and not simply bopping our heads to the old familiar tune.

Mr. Boyd Gaines also gave a terrific performance as the lovable agent Herbie. While there were plenty of opportunities for him to show his talents, he truly gave his all to making Ms. LuPone look better! His struggle between love and show business was apparent throughout, only making Ms. LuPone’s performance more appealing. It was a lesson in how to make your star look better.

Mr. Gaines and Ms. Benanti has a particularly comical moment during “Wherever We Go” when instead of singing the notes of the song in their natural, beautiful voices, they followed the lead of Patti LuPone and trumpeted their way through it. They even mimicked some of her famous facial expressions. It was unclear whether or not it was Mama Rose or Patti LuPone they were having fun with, but either way, it made this simple number a highlight in a practically flawless production.

While the final number, “Rose’s Turn,” is usually a big discovery for the audience, Ms. LuPone foreshadowed it the whole show. It was clear that Mama Rose was not just a stage-mother, but also one that had a “dream” of her own. Her mental breakdown at the end was not sudden but was being built up the entire show, making the number even more brilliant! At the conclusion of the final note, half the audience sprang to their feet and to give her a rousing ovation. The rest of the audience soon followed. During the two-minute standing ovation, Mama Rose (and I’m sure a little Patti) blew kisses and waved at the audience during her proud moment! Patti truly stopped the show!

It was a terrific night of theater and one that will be hard to top! I am curious to see if Lincoln Center’s South Pacific will earn their Tony over this amazing production. I can’t imagine anything being better, but I am eager to see for myself.

Next week will be a trip to see City Center's Encore’s Damn Yankees starring Sean Hayes of Will & Grace fame as the Devil himself and Jane Krakowski of 30 Rock as Lola. I am also eager to see Xanadu’s Cheyenne Jackson as Shoeless Joe Hardy. Who knows? Maybe I’ll be seeing next year’s big Broadway Revival!

Those Who Teach ... Do!

It is not often in a person's life that they get to watch their mentors work in the field in which they teach. In my life, I have had many people that supported me and guided me through my life. Two people high on the list are Ed Bara, my voice instructor, and Charles Richter, my directing teacher. Both of these men spent four years teaching me the skills I needed to enter the field of musical theater performance and direction. Fortunately, neither one was upset when I entered teaching. In fact, I knew they were both (reluctantly) proud.

This weekend, I had the pleasure of seeing Muhlenberg College's production of Kiss Me Kate starring Ed Bara and directed by Charles Richter. Throughout college, I often had opportunities to see Charles' work. I even got to work at his side for many productions. Never did I leave a project without feeling like I had learned something important about theater, directing, performance, or life. Because Charles taught me how to speak my opinions about theater, I always have things to say about his productions. Some good, some bad. Whatever they are, he always listens (and argues). These arguments have always taught me even more than the exordinary about I learned in a classroom. It was this attention he gave to me that makes him such a special teacher and person in my eyes.

Mr. Ed Bara is someone that I can't just call a mentor or a teacher. He is my friend. Seeing him perform on stage in a musical was a collision of all my worlds. Ed was no longer the opera singer who enjoyed working on musical theater material with me. He is now apart of my musical theater world. I will no longer be able to listen to Cole Porter's score without hearing Ed's voice.

The strangest thing about the experience was the sense of reversal I was feeling. It wasn't, "Wow, that's my teacher!" It was almost as if I was the adult watching my child perform. That is not exactly it, but it's the closest I can come to explaining it. It was the overwhelming sense of pride I had watching him share a gift with the audience that I honestly never knew he had. Whenever I would watch him sing in the past, he was a singer. He stood with one foot in front of the other, diaphragm expanded, vowels formed correctly, and sang the songs, giving it just enough emotion that we knew what the song was about, but not distracting us from the gorgeous operatic voice. This time, I was watching the world of acting and singing truly being put into one package.

I have stayed strong in my contention that I do not miss performing. I do love teaching and look forward to directing high school shows for the rest of my life. When I graduated from Muhlenberg, Ed warned me that I would miss it someday. "One day, my friend, you and I will get together at a bar and catch up. You will say to me, 'I want to go back' and I will say, 'Told you so.'" I didn't believe him. Who would have guessed that it would be his performance three years later that would be the cause for my hesitation from moving forward, away from performing? Damn him! I wonder if he knew ...

"Those who can't do teach." Ha! Thank you, Ed. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for giving me the opportunity to see a teacher do and do it at a level that went beyond professional. Though I have been gone for three years, you continue to be an inspiration to me. I hope that one day, my students will feel the same emotions that I felt on Saturday night!

Tony Award Recap

The big question of the night is "How long has it been since Patti LuPone has won a Tony?" I can't remember! The announcement said 1980 (for Evita), and then Patti went on to say 28 years, - which mathematically makes sense - then went on to say 29 years! It's amazing how time flies! Time also flew last night! Three hours went by pretty fast as we got to watch the best (mostly ...) of this year's Broadway season.

The night opened with a scene from The Lion King. This was the first of many Disney references of the night. Why does Disney give us so many oportunties to remember that their show was not nominated? To quote one of the nominated shows, "move on!" Not only was the performance inappropriate, but it was really bad! When did the score change notes to screams?

While Best Musical is usually the big race of the year, it seemed as if the Best Revival of a Musical category was the one most anticipated of the year. Though the Best Musical category seemed to be the biggest upset. Was anyone really surprised that South Pacific won (other than Patti LuPone)? In the words of my friend, Jeff Simno, everyone is just "gaga" over South Pacific. As said before, the upset of the night was In The Heights beating Passing Strange. Though I have not seen either show, the performances seemed interesting. I was more entertained by In the Heights performance, though I saw great potential in Passing Strange.

Acting categories had few surprises. In fact, I don't think there was the typical shocker of the evening. Patti got her glory (can she quit now?), newcomer Paulo Szot won for his performance in South Pacific (his performance was one of the nicest), and, as predicted, Deanna Dunegan and Mark Rylance won for their respective roles in August: Osage County and Boeing-Boeing.

Best Featured Actor and Actress in a Musical also went to Boyd Gaines and Laura Benanti, both from the revival of Gypsy, giving actor awards to the three stars of the Musical, but still not helping it win the overall award for Best Revival.

Now for the performances ... My vote for the best performance of the night would have to go to Jenna Russell and Daniel Evans for their rendition of "Move On" from the Revival of Stephen Sondheim's Sunday in the Park with George. It was so nice to hear the female part sung and not screamed (sorry to any of you Bernadette Peters fans out there). However, I do think the only thing that might have made the performance stronger would have been ending it with a bit of "Sunday," one of Mr. Sondheim's greatest achievements. Since we were awarding him with a Lifetime Achievement, which he reluctantly accepted through Mandy Patankin, the least we could have done was show off his most beautiful combination of music and lyrics.

Also on the top of my list was Xanadu, which surprised me. I felt Cheyenne Jackson gave a hell of a performance, causing me to wonder why he was not amongst the other Best Actor nominees. Kerry Butler, who rarely impresses me, did well, though it was obvious she was trying a bit too hard.

Though I do not like her, Patti LuPone did not do a terrible job. I only counted four flat notes throughout the entire performance, which is still a considerable amount less than Ms. Peters' "Roses' Turn" in the 2003 Tony Ceremony. I did like seeing the scene before the number. It built up the momentum and helped her get through it - though I did get a little nervous towards the end. Would she make, would she not?

While on Ms. LuPone, did she really need to remind us three (or four?) times that she has not won since 1980? Let's face it! She hasn't deserved it since 1980. Her constant reminder of the time span only welcomes invitations for us to laugh and remind ourselves that she has not been worthy since Evita. No, Patti, your Mrs. Lovett was good, but not worth a Tony.

The night took an awkward turn when the non-nominated musicals (one more bitter than the next) performed in a window of two minutes (not each - all in two minutes). Poor Sierra Boggess had about 30 seconds to get to her favorite moment of the show (and ours, let's face it) the end of "Part of Your World: Reprise." The editing of the song was very rushed and quite transparent to the main goal. Poor Faith Prince had to tell a whole story of a wedding in about 40 seconds. Couldn't we give the veteran (not to mention Tony-Award nominated) actress a little more time? Then the finale was Megan Mullally's "Deep Love" from - let me get this whole title right - The New Mel Brooks Musical Young Frankenstein. First of all, if the point of this segment was to advertise these shows, this was a terrible number to pick. Its a one-joke song (where the joke is not that funny) and shows off the actress who is in the show the least. Now, Mel, by now you should know exactly what America wants to see: "Putin' on the Ritz." Would the make-up and work be worth the 30-second slot? Hell, Yeah!

One of my favorite moments of the entire night was the Rent performance. I was one of those high school students who had memorized every lyric and fell in love with every character. It was a very nice (and short) tribute to a terrific, groundbreaking show and to its writer. I must compliment the original cast for their performance. They truly put the latest cast to shame. It was pretty evident as to why the show is closing. It has nothing to do with being dated, but more with the fact that a cast that can live up to the original just has not been found.

Finally, let's talk about Whoopi Goldberg. If we needed a reminder that Disney owns ABC, our newest "View" host reminded us last night. Disney's shameless plugs were endless throughout the night. At least the costumes she wore in those segments saved us from having to see her in her puffy, clown/pirate shirt. Ms. Goldberg, I understand if Barbara Walters does not require you to look nice on "The View," but you should have enough respect to wear a gown to the Tony Awards. At the risk of disagreeing with one of my favorite theater columnists, Michael Riedel, Whoopi should never be allowed to go near the Tony Awards again. I would rather see David Letterman host!

Overall, it was a nice night to finish out an interesting year! I am looking forward to next year when a whole new group of shows enters the arena. Anyone else excited about Billy Elliot?

LOST Theories

So a week has gone by ... There have been many theories out there about what did happen and what will happen on the ABC Drama LOST. There are a few ridiculous ones and a few interesting ones. Either way, they start great conversations. Here are a few I have loved.

Locke is not dead, but has been bitten by the same bugs that paralyzed Nicki and Paulo. If you remember back in Season 3, there was a "random episode" where two characters who we had never seen before were bitten by two spiders and eventually buried alive by the main characters who thought Nicki and Paulo were dead. This was the only way for Locke to grab the attention of the Oceanic 6, whom he is trying to get back to the island. He learns about the bugs from Juliet, the doctor on the island.

This theory definitely grabbed my attention. As I thought further, it does make some sense. Locke is a character that was once paralyzed from the waste down. The character has now taken the next time and paralyzed his whole body, keeping with one of the themes of the character. It would also make sense that Juliet, the doctor on the island, would know about these bugs. In fact, I would not be surprised if she was responsible for the bugs because of a medical experiment she was running in her secret medical facility.

I also like this theory because it would finally explain the origin of Juliet's name. As a literature teacher, I cannot help but think that Juliet is so named for a reason. It's not your average, everyday name. The female half of the tragic lovers Romeo & Juliet did in fact take a potion in the play that made her seem to be asleep. It would make sense to name the character Juliet if helping Locke fake suicide is going to be her main action during Season Five.

Christian Shephard used to work for DHARMA and was the first person to ever move the island. After becoming a doctor, Christian Shephard was recruited by DHARMA to work on the island, probably on the medical station. In the season Three finale Ben says, "I was one of the people that were smart enough to make sure that I didn't end up in that ditch." One of these other smart people was Christian Shephard. He joined the others early on and learned some of the island's secrets.

After the purge Christian was the one who turned the donkey wheel, so that the DHARMA people couldn't find the island. When he moved the island, he teleported somewhere. He eventually got back to civilization, got married and had a child (Jack). He continued working for the island until he died.

Ben says in the season 4 finale, "whoever moves the island can never come back." This only means coming back alive. After Christian's body ends up back to the island Jacob somehow "resurrected" him. He's not really alive but he still works for the island in this "spiritual sense." The same thing is going to happen to Locke. He has to get off the island because "some very bad things" will happen, so he moves the island. He knows he can't get back alive, but he's willing to make the sacrifice. When the Oceanic 6 finally bring him back he will experience the same kind of resurrection as Christian Shephard did.

I like the theory of the "Spiritual World" because it may finally explain those damn whispers we are always hearing. Perhaps there are spirits on the island (and not just in Hurley's head). I also think it makes sense that Christian Shephard would know Ben. It would explain Ben's attempt to capture Jack, Kate, and Sawyer. The only problem is that Kate has no connection to Christian ... yet! It also may have been the fact that Ben could see Jack's feelings for Kate. The main reason that Ben wanted Jack was for him to perform surgery, but why not Juliet? Wouldn't be more interesting for Ben to have the son of his enemy (who refused to perform the surgery) do it instead?

I would it if this were true because it would mean that Christian Shephard was truly not dead. This event would concur with my previous theory that Christian Shephard's name comes from the idea that he can resurrect like Jesus Christ did in the Bible (Christian + Shepherd).

It's not Locke; It's his twin, Jeremy Bentham. DHARMA experiments with cloning (there is a mention of numbered rabbits being cloned in Season Two) and Locke clones himself. This other self witnesses something bad happening. The clone gets off the island and tries to get the Oceanic 6 to come back and stop the bad thing from happening.

Are we laughing yet? This is a ridiculous theory, but one I have heard more than once. I do remember the rabbit that Ben kills. It had the number 8 on it's back -- surprising that the number on it's back happens to be one of Hurley's lottery numbers.

The biggest loophole in the whole theory is why Jack and Kate wouldn't mention this. Why wouldn't they say, "Locke's clone" or "Locke's twin"? The writers of the show are much smarter than to ever allow cloning to come into play. Why wouldn't Locke just get the Oceanic 6? Why a twin?

More theories will come and more theories will be forgotten. No matter what, there will be people who will say, "I knew it!" when the series finale finally occurs. I always love to hear LOST theories, so please feel free to share. Please give my essay on Biblical References a read as well.