The Tail Section

“LOST” did not deserve ANY major Emmy nominations.  Now, catch your breath;  don’t bother clearing your eyes or re-reading that sentence…  LOST did not deserve a major Nomination, period.

Like this article? Help spread the word!  Digg it!

Why?  What amazes me most is that the fan base that spent the last season complaining about the inconsistency,  the emergence of formula,  the dead patches,  the staccato execution of the underlying plot, the repeats, the plot holes, and etc. etc. ad infinitum, need to wonder now why ‘LOST’ was not nominated in a major category this year.  The answer for me is, as it is for a lot of you, that the honeymoon is over.

Now let me back up a second.  I know I owe you an explanation for my point of view, and I will give it to you, but first I want to make sure I’m clear on one thing.  I thought season two as a whole was brilliant.  Flawed, but brilliant.  My advice to jaded viewers all season long was to wait for the end then look back on it as a whole.  “LOST” is a marathon, not a series of sprints like most dramas; you cannot reflect on an episode to episode basis because you are watching one long story unfold in pieces.

 Yes, yes, I know all the stuff about how at the heart of the show it is about people and characters and blah blah.  I know all that mumbo jumbo.  I don’t buy it, and that is part of why I don’t think they succeeded at a high enough level to get into a best show category, but I know people cling to it and I acknowledge it as part of the “LOST” phenomenon.   The story is more than just the sum of its parts.  On the other hand though,  this is a show about a situation;  a predicament that continues to change in very specific ways,  guided by forces with very specific intents, and set in a locale with extremely unique and specific properties.  At the end of the day,  or the end of the season, we need to ask ourselves if significant progress was made in these areas;  because without progress here, the season truly was a failure.  And the answer  to that question is a resounding yes.  So half of the battle was won.  But it just wasn’t enough…

Before I get into the failings of Season Two, let’s look at Season One.  Aside from the brilliant episodes, acting, and direction of Season One there was an extraordinary set of circumstances embedded in the genus of “LOST”.  “LOST” was not developed to be the show that it is, “LOST” began as a notion fostered by a high powered exec with enough power to shield his production crew from the meddling  that usually controls the creative energies at work in the development of a television show.  Instead,  highly creative individuals were thrown together with a very short amount of time, an unprecedented amount of money, a very bare concept, and total freedom.  We all know the result very well.

Most interesting about “LOST” was its constant “formula” bucking;  just when you thought you had it pegged the show slithered into new territory and kept twisting until viewers lost all sense of direction and just surrendered to the ride.  We wanted to know the answers…. What is the monster, what are the whispers,  will they escape, and of course WHAT IS IN THE HATCH!  To say the production team of season one had become experts at both introducing the disquieting twist and building anticipation would be the understatement of the decade.  “LOST”, season one, was a moving target creatively; as much for its own staff as its fans.  While it has been acknowledged in the most vague terms,  it all boils down to that the writers, actors, directors, etc,  only had the most rudimentary idea of where they were going and often times it was the speculation, kvetching, and theorizing of those in the back seat, us, that helped to shape the more rigid contours of the show.  In simpler terms,  it became about giving people what they wanted.

The summer of 2005 was hot for more reasons then just global warming.  The anticlimactic hatch opening of the season one finale put fans into a tailspin.  The expectation was that we would find out what was in the hatch,  but its significance would no be revealed until the new season.  Instead fans were left cold.   The scene which was intended to have that impact,  the kidnapping of Walt,  was completely muted in its significance by the question of what was down that deep, dark tunnel; and the answer became inextricably tied to the success of the show.  Aside from that,  criticism mounted that season one did nothing more than pose questions.  Skeptical critics began to “assign” a formula to the show; one where the writers sought to purposefully infuse the tale with enigmatic questions with no intent or plan to resolve them.

As a result, the talking points were passed around to cast and crew and everybody from Matthew Fox, Damon Lindelof, on down to the guy who duct tapes the cables together was parroting that “Season two is all about answering your questions.”

Season Two was not produced under the same free circumstances as season one.  When networks have a hit on their hands the pressure is on to sustain it.  And if there is negative buzz,  you can bet that pressure is going to be directed at silencing those critics.  It’s not that I think “LOST” didn’t have a responsibility to answer the questions;  but now, obviously, answering the questions had become part of the model.

With regards to how they did on this side of the challenge,  I would say pretty good.  Without a doubt, fans have absorbed the Dharma Initiative,  the others, Desmond (!), the hatches, the numbers, the Hanso foundation, and now four toed statues, ferries, and yet to be revealed locales as a part of the “LOST” universe.  It is an amazing achievement that they were able to take the characters and locations of season one and integrate them with this whole new show.  It really is a new show now.  Things have changed so much in terms of what motivates their survival, who their adversaries are, why they are there, who is there with them, where they are going, and what their chances of escape are that the entire dynamic has not just shifted… it’s been picked up and dropped in another place.  If this were done consistently, season two would have swept the nominations.  Which leads me to my point…

Lost season two became a conflicted show.  Part of the excellence of season one was not knowing where you were going.   Big beasts crashing through jungles arouses a “monster movie” sort of appeal.  Miracle healings, a spiritual message.  Big metal doors in the ground, a sci-fi element.  Disembodied whispers, a ghostly supernatural feel.  Among this, characters with mysterious pasts whose presents seem to be inextricably tied to the mistakes of yore.   Now they would resolve all of this,  but at the same time try to keep the “formula” of season one in effect.  And therein lays the problem.

In between the brilliantly laid out exposition of just what was going on with the island,  really just the tip of a much larger story itself,  there was a clear effort to maintain the character development at the pace and effectiveness of season one.   Somewhere along the line somebody decided that character development needed to be separated from story telling,  the results were episodes which dealt with the people and abandoned the underlying story.  These breaks were justified by the producers because at the end of the day, this is a show about people.  A completely inane concept that, in my opinion, cost the show a focus and direction that could have carried “LOST” into the record books and armed the naysayers who were just waiting for it to falter.

Let’s be honest with ourselves here,  when the focus switched to the people  we not only lost the rhythm of the story the show also became dangerously invested in its capacity to be a character drama.  Worse yet,  the mission seemed to be designed to continue to turn the characters away from what we knew of them in season one.  Who wants season one John Locke back?   Surely the guy who got the Emmy nom for playing him last year.  Terry O’Quinn himself has been quoted as saying he misses John Locke of season one.  The canned response is that Locke is going through changes.  But when people feel so disconnected from the character of season one that they refer to him as a different person,  is it really that person going through the changes?  We didn’t see Locke change.  We saw another persona dropped in his skin.  One that did not begin or arrive where the Locke of season one was taking us.  And I’m not Locke obsessed here,  I think the same is true for many of the characters.

Matthew Fox, whose career is doing just fine regardless, would probably have loved a rematch for the best actor nick-knack.   But he didn’t get it.  Why?  Maybe because you have to do more then peel onions every episode to show your depth.  Seriously,  just how many times did Jack cry this season?  The man needs a towel, not an Emmy.

What saves the show is the return to baseline of these characters in less “interpersonal” work, and the crop of newbies that have stuck like one of Locke’s bowies in the belly of a razor back.  In particular, the character of Desmond which brought a nom to actor Henry Ian Cusick.

The bottom-line,  season two was near greatness but interrupted by the attempt to “force” the magic of season one.  Yes, time has changed everything.  The freedom of the beginning is gone and will never be back.  There are executives to please.  The pressure was on to show continued innovation, but the transition to this new way of telling the story demanded that some facets be left behind.   Most shameful is the assumption that a “formula” had a role in the success of “LOST” to begin with.

For "LOST" to work its way back up to the top of the Emmy noms in 2007, they must return to the "no formula" story telling of season one.  That means attracting and holding onto talent like David Fury and Javier Grillo Marxuach instead of dumping them for inside players.