So Lost is doing this flash forward stuff now. In some ways it is interesting but in some ways it is bothersome. The usual way for Lost to build its mysterious tension is to withhold information and reveal it at opportune times. And this is successful because we are in the present with the characters and the information has a bearing on what is happening with them. For instance, when something is revealed to us about Locke's back story it has an effect on what is happening in the present with Locke. The other way this happens is when the characters discover something or something is revealed to them about their current plot situation. Something about the Others is revealed and it makes a difference to the characters' present situation. In both cases what is being revealed to us informs our understanding, often alongside of, the present characters and situation.
Some of this happens with the flash forwards and it does create a certain interest in the story. But there is also a way they withhold information that seems to be blatantly manipulative and absent the elements of quality story telling from previous seasons. For instance (WARNING: SPOILERS if you haven't seen the recent episodes), Syed knows who his boss is, in fact, everyone in that flash forward knows who Syed's boss is, yet it is kept from the audience until the end of the episode for the sake of dramatic tension. Everyone (we care about) in Kate's flash forward knew who Kate's son was, yet it was kept from the audience until the end. Knowing who Syed's boss is and who Kate's son is doesn't effect the plot, it is already part of the plot we just didn't know it. This is kind of cheap if you ask me.
The test here is watching it again knowing what you know. Knowing the end always effects your enjoyment of the story in one way or another, but sometimes knowing the end undoes the story. When you know who Kate's son is, for instance, all the mystery of watching it the first time is gone. The mystery only applied to the audience and has no bearing on the story at hand. Watching the episode again would be annoying because it's main dramatic element is merely an audience set up. This happens a good bit in the first three seasons as well but many moments remain when, even knowing what is going to happen, you can still enjoy the story because the mystery matters to the characters and plot as well as the audience.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
yeah, but there is a greater mystery: how did sayed's boss become sayed's boss? and how did kate's son become kate's son? the whole show, once it's over, will be completely non-mysterious to us so that doesn't mean anything that re-watching the show is less mysterious. i guess i don't know what you mean about the old episodes still being enjoyable because "the mystery matters." why do the characters' back stories matter more than the future stories? they still aren't to the end of their stories. so the new mysteries matter too. how did they happen? why? what will happen with the characters because of the new circumstances?
maybe this has nothing to do with your point. i am not sure if i completely understand your point. because with the flashbacks, it wasn't that everyone else on the island was finding out people's pasts, just the tv audience. and the person with the past already knew their past too. so it was pretty much the same type of withholding. or maybe we should think in terms of the present now being the flash forwards and the past being what happened on the island. so the past is effecting what is happening in the present, what we are calling the future. all this to say, i don't know if i'm with you on this one, my dear. but feel free to try to convince me :)
I am so glad I never started watching Lost. Seems like a lot of work.
What I mean is what happens in the old stories, the mystery that is revealed, matters to that story. So even when you know the punch line you can still enjoy re-watching the story happen.
In the flash forwards the mystery doesn't matter to that story (because it isn't mysterious to the people in the story it is only mysterious to the audience). This is proved when you re-watch. The way the story is presented is pointless. The tension isn't tension because it is only tension for the audience and it is already spent because we know the punch line.
I think it is a cheap way to look smart.
Very rarely do I completely agree with Matt, but in this case I'm waving his banner.
George - what do you think about this...
http://www.timelooptheory.com/the_timeline.htm
Sounds plausible, and sort of like the time machine I invented. Some of that at least has to be true, it makes too much sense not to.
I stopped reading it half way through in case it was right, I don't like to know more than I should.
Post a Comment