Slate Weighs In on ‘Lost’ Season 4
Was the fourth season of Lost the best one yet? Juliet Lapidos from Slate.com thinks so. She makes a lot of good points, but definitely writes off the first three seasons and doesn’t give them the credit they deserve. Check out the article below and weigh in with your thoughts:
When Lost made its immensely successful debut in 2004, it averaged 16 million viewers per episode. Critics routinely called it the best show on television, using terms like "intricate" and "complex" to describe its narrative structure and its seemingly high-concept subject matter. But ratings have been declining steadily, and this year, despite ABC’s massive advertising campaign, nearly 5 million people have abandoned the show. That’s a shame, because only in the current season, which ends Thursday night, has Lost achieved complexity and intricacy worthy of the critical attention it’s been receiving all along.
Throughout the first three seasons, the Lost writers took a "more is more" approach to thematic layering. They dabbled in postcolonial theory, pitting the attractive, tank-top-clad plane crash survivors against island natives, an unkempt group in flannel and polyester called "the Others." Allusions to social-contract theory popped up regularly. When Jack, the survivors’ de facto leader, sees that his companions are reluctant to unite, he warns "If we don’t live together, we’re gonna die alone." And judging from names alone, you’d be excused for thinking Lost was a show about Enlightenment philosophies: There’s a bald guy named John Locke and a mysterious French woman named Rousseau.
Lost was dense with allusions and knotty with themes, but none was particularly deep or meaningful. The mumbo-jumbo may have given the show a pleasing patina of sophistication, but viewers kept tuning in because they were hooked on the mystery of the island, not because they wanted a refresher course on Two Treatises of Government. Nor were the early seasons’ vaunted narrative techniques actually all that innovative. Each episode followed an obvious structure reminiscent of a three-panel comic strip. The first few minutes advanced the central plot (the survivors vs. the Others). The next 30 minutes were filled with character-developing flashbacks to the survivors’ pre-crash lives and with soapy romantic tension: Jack loves Kate, Kate loves Jack and Sawyer, Sawyer loves Kate. The last few minutes returned to big, arc-advancing events and introduced a new mystery, which in turn was developed in the first minutes of subsequent episodes. Consider "All the Best Cowboys Have Daddy Issues," an episode from Season 1. In the first act, Jack discovers that one of the Others has taken Claire, a demure blonde from Australia, hostage. Throughout the long middle act, Jack, while looking for Claire, has flashbacks to the day his father cut a patient’s artery during surgery. In a brief final act, Locke finds a mysterious object buried in the forest.
Even from a seasonal, rather than episodic, perspective, Lost was fairly simple. Here’s a breakdown of the first three years: 1) Are there other people on this island? 2) There are other people on this island. 3) Oh, my God, the other people on this island are way mean!
But in the last episode of the third season, something unexpected happened. Instead of flashbacks, the show flashed forward to a time when six characters—called the Oceanic Six—have somehow managed to get off the island. The flash-forwards, which in Season 4 have largely replaced the flashbacks, may seem like more of the same—an opportunity for character development to fill the space between cliffhangers. In fact, however, the writers have shaken themselves out of the old formula—and are finally attempting a truly high-wire narrative move.
In the flash-forwards, the camera acts like an unreliable narrator. Not in the Wayne Booth sense, in which a first-person narrator deceives his audience by relaying false information. Lost isn’t The Usual Suspects. It’s more like Muriel Spark’s novella The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie, which uses an irregular time sequence to disorient the reader: We’re told in a prolepsis that the title character has been dismissed from her job as a teacher; only much later do we learn the circumstances of her firing. In Lost, the viewer doesn’t know how many years have elapsed since the Oceanic Six left the island, or what happened in the meantime. Did the other crash survivors die? Are they stuck as they were before? Or have they managed to escape off-camera? Without these vital plot points, viewers don’t know whether to think of the Oceanic Six as heroes or as Judases who have somehow betrayed their comrades.
Throughout the first three seasons, Lost viewers knew more about the characters than the characters knew about one another. We knew that Jack and Claire were half-siblings; we knew that Kate was a fugitive, having torched her father’s house. This season, the Lost writers have changed the game: It’s unclear how much the characters have learned by the time depicted in the flash-forwards. We no longer have a leg up on the characters, or at least we’re no longer sure that we do.
Take, for example, the episode "Something Nice Back Home," in which we see Jack and Kate raising Claire’s baby, Aaron, together. During a fight, Jack snaps, "you’re not even related to him!" In the past, Jack has treated the boy with relative indifference, not realizing that he is, in fact, a blood relation. Has Jack learned, at some point during the ellipsis, that he is Aaron’s uncle? If so, he seems to be asserting his natural rights to the child and calling Kate’s into question. If he hasn’t, then it’s a classic example of dramatic irony, in which the audience can find more meaning in a character’s words than the character knows are there. (Only in a later episode, after weeks of uncertainty, do we learn that Jack had indeed discovered his connection to Claire and that his comment was a slight.)
Uncertainty has, of course, always been a part of Lost. From the beginning, the show’s writers have masterfully deployed two conventional techniques for getting the viewer’s heart rate up: surprise and suspense. A polar bear jumps out of the forest. Surprise! If Locke doesn’t enter the numbers 4, 8, 15, 16, 23, and 42 into a computer every 108 minutes, the whole island might blow up. Suspense! Alfred Hitchcock thought suspense was the more effective technique, because it lasts longer. But what Lost has accomplished through its flash-forwards is even more nerve-racking. Instead of waiting for a bomb to go off or not go off, it’s as if the viewers have been transported to a time after the bomb has or has not exploded—only we don’t know which. Without a frame of reference, the viewers experience epistemological anxiety, doubting even their most basic assumptions about the world the characters live in.
There’s a debate currently raging among Losties over whether the show’s writers are making things up as they go along, like ordinary TV scribes, or have always had a master plan—a rarer, more impressive feat. Perhaps the most cunning result of the flash-forwards is that they seem to support the latter argument: If the writers are showing us the future, they must have a damn good idea of how to get us there. But that’s just an illusion. The flash-forwards work like a zoom lens, revealing a detail that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense without the big picture. The writers can still fill in that big picture as they wish. Previews indicate that Thursday’s finale will take a step toward connecting the present and the future. Here’s hoping the writers don’t get their soldering irons out too quickly—they’d be abandoning their most impressive trick yet.









They lost viewers because of DVR. I always DVR Lost and watch it once it is over. I always DVR it and i consider my self one of the biggest Lost fans out there.
Comment by lost815 — June 2, 2008 @ 9:01 am
It’s easy to criticize the first three seasons now, but without the first three seasons you wouldn’t care at all about what happens to these characters, you wouldn’t understand what is going on in this strange island, nor would you care.
The only reason you’re watching now is because of the first three seasons. And the only reason you’ll watch next season is because of the first four seasons. Like Darlton has said, they are painting a mosaic, without one piece, the rest of it doesn’t make sense.
You can critique the previous seasons, but don’t disregard them like they are meaningless, because then you just sound ignorant…..
“1) Are there other people on this island? 2) There are other people on this island. 3) Oh, my God, the other people on this island are way mean!”
Comment by Nevin — June 2, 2008 @ 10:01 am
Really, the first three seasons were unremarkable? I find it interesting that you MUST have watched all three seasons in order to comprehend what was going on in the season 4 finale. So, on some level, like those of us who know and LOVE Lost, you are hanging in for the BIG pay off too.
Except, unlike most of us, you choose to deny the masterful web that has been previously woven. Just keep in mind every puzzle is lacking clarity if the pieces are escewed. Darlton has a master plan - and end game - a desgin for the puzzle. And they will reveal their story one delicious hour at a time.
Enjoy it now, or don’t - but it will be a sad day when there is no more Lost.
Comment by sawyer's#1girl — June 2, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
Really, the first three seasons were unremarkable? I find it interesting that you MUST have watched all three seasons in order to comprehend what was going on in the season 4 finale. So, on some level, like those of us who know and LOVE Lost, you are hanging in for the BIG pay off too.
Except, unlike most of us, you choose to deny the masterful web that has been previously woven. Just keep in mind every puzzle is lacking clarity if the pieces are escewed. Darlton has a master plan - and end game - a desgin for the puzzle. And they will reveal their story one delicious hour at a time.
Enjoy it now, or don’t - but it will be a sad day when there is no more Lost.
Comment by sawyer's#1girl — June 2, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
Really, the first three seasons were unremarkable? I find it interesting that you MUST have watched all three seasons in order to comprehend what was going on in the season 4 finale. So, on some level, like those of us who know and LOVE Lost, you are hanging in for the BIG pay off too.
Except, unlike most of us, you choose to deny the masterful web that has been previously woven. Just keep in mind every puzzle is lacking clarity if the pieces are escewed. Darlton has a master plan - and end game - a desgin for the puzzle. And they will reveal their story one delicious hour at a time.
Enjoy it now, or don’t - but it will be a sad day when there is no more Lost.
Comment by sawyer's#1girl — June 2, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
Really, the first three seasons were unremarkable? I find it interesting that you MUST have watched all three seasons in order to comprehend what was going on in the season 4 finale. So, on some level, like those of us who know and LOVE Lost, you are hanging in for the BIG pay off too.
Except, unlike most of us, you choose to deny the masterful web that has been previously woven. Just keep in mind every puzzle is lacking clarity if the pieces are escewed. Darlton has a master plan - and end game - a desgin for the puzzle. And they will reveal their story one delicious hour at a time.
Enjoy it now, or don’t - but it will be a sad day when there is no more Lost.
Comment by sawyer's#1girl — June 2, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
I agree with the first comment, I came to LOST late and caught up on DVD’s of season one and two, I don’t like having my LOST experience interrupted by inane commercials. (Which is funny, since I am in advertising!) So I always DVR the episodes and super fast forward through the commercials.
Otherwise, she makes some good arguments, that I can’t agree with. Seems like a simplistic approach to so narrowly define the first three seasons. I agree that season four has been outstanding, but that isn’t at the expense of what has gone before, only because of it.
Comment by Bryan Ward — June 2, 2008 @ 3:11 pm
– I think that Juliet Lapidus is a loser, if she truly believes that the first 3 seasons were meaningless then she is definetely way off.
– I beleive that the majority of lost fans (including myself) agree that the first season was probably the best, but season 2 and 3 were still pretty awsome. Now that season 4 is over I could say that its probably the second best season of lost, even thought it was about 10 episodes short of normal.
– Nevertheless, without watching the first three seasons you would be completely “LOST”.
Comment by Aaron — June 2, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
“…only in the current season, which ends Thursday night, has Lost achieved complexity and intricacy worthy of the critical attention it’s been receiving all along.”
Ouch! That’s a pretty harsh comment. After all, S1 set the pace of this show. Was it not worthy?
Comment by Tominrichardson — June 2, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
This review, although eloquent and thought-provoking, does not give the first three seasons the credit they deserve. It seems that everyone loves seasons one and four, but seasons two and three are masterful in a different way. Whereas the first and fourth seasons offer the most exciting new mysteries and answers, with break-neck pacing, the second and third seasons delve deeper into specific themes at the expense of answers and pacing. That is why I highly disagree with the statement, “Lost was dense with allusions and knotty with themes, but none was particularly deep or meaningful”.
For example, many fans complain that season two is too slow due to its intense focus on the Hatch and Henry Gale. However, such focus allows the writers to deeply explore the two major themes of faith vs. reason and trust vs. paranoia. Following the faith and subsequent lack thereof of John Locke, numerous questions are raised. Who has the better argument initially about the Hatch’s purpose or purposelessness in the episode “Orientation”: Jack or Locke? In the episode “?”, does Eko really have evidence that supports his conviction to continue pushing the button? That brings up the question of how one should define good evidence. Also, if Desmond saw the effects of not pushing the button on September 22nd, what made him doubt himself at the beginning of the finale? Pondering these questions not only reveals vital insight about the characters, but also sheds light on some major religious and philosophical ideas.
Moreover, certain patterns arise in the second and third seasons that are well worth thematic analysis. For instance, in the second season, Desmond willingly pushes a button to postpone a fated catastrophe. In the third season, he willingly saves Charlie to postpone a fated death. This thematic repetition underscores the core idea that free will and fate can coexist, but are often at odds with each other. In both cases, free will and fate are seemingly balanced by a freely willed self-sacrifice that appeases fate. Analyze this recurrent theme, and you may see parallels with Christianity and other philosophies. Plus, fate and free will are constantly at battle in other ways that offer more revelations.
Seasons two and three deal with such themes in a deep and sophisticated manner, making them great art. However, great art often does not translate as well into serialized drama, which is meant to entertain. Questions of faith and reason may be vital to life, but staggering them over weeks does not draw in new viewers. Deep philosophical questions require patience, and average TV viewers just want immediate entertainment; the fact that they have to wait a week between episodes only exacerbates the problem. That is why so many people who have always watched the show on TV do not like seasons two and three. However, most of the people I know who caught up with DVDs absolutely loved those seasons, since they could explore the themes without having to wait weeks. With those themes firmly established, season four can afford to focus on plot and action without losing depth. Locke and Jack can have a short discussion on faith in the Orchid, and the discussion’s relevance to recurrent themes makes it deep despite its brevity. That brevity in turn allows more time to be spent answering plot questions. Therefore, Lost has always been brilliant, but while seasons one and four are brilliant plot-wise, seasons two and three are brilliant in character and theme.
Comment by tkmacdon — June 2, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
Aaron, there’s no reason to be abusive. Juliet’s article, though I disagree with it, was a thoughtful and eloquent piece–unlike your followup, which was juvenile, pointless and rude. She’s a loser just because you disagree with her? Serously? You actually believe that? If so, that says FAR more about you than it does about Juliet or anyone else. I think you should take a nice long look in the mirror before posting again–or, at the very least, read a book on communication skills. In any event, if you can’t stand reading opinions other than your own, then an online forum–indeed, the entire outside world–is not a good place for you.
Comment by Grow Up, Aaron — June 3, 2008 @ 11:30 am
It sounds like this writer is just trying to look for an angle
from which to make *her* point sound like *the* point there is
to make. Perhaps, she is doing so b/c this is what is required
to make the article publish-worthy on slate or b/c this is
the way she actually has experienced the show; but, regardless,
the analsis seems kind of simplistic. You can find a ‘basic
pattern’ in anything if you are willing to be broad enough about
what the ‘basic elements’ are, and that is largely how she
comes up with her ‘formula’ about the episodes in season 1 and
also when she views the show not from the perspective of
individual ep’s but individual seasons. (And, to boot, she seems
to be getting the broad characterization wrong: season 1 was not
about whether there were other *people* on the island but
Charlie’s question about where/what this island was, what with
‘others’ [who turn out not to be one group of 'people' but at
least two, if not more, as we now know], its polar bears, its
weird monster, its adam and eve skeleton, its slaving ship, its
heroin plane, etc. Similarly, season 2 is just as much about the
hatch as it is about there being the one bunch of other people
(Dharma) it alerts us to, not to mention the tailies as well).
It is good that she is devoting an article to Lost but there are
better ways to do it then to endlessly repeat the same cliches
(season 3 ’started slowly’; lost is down in viwers, and there
is a debate ‘raging’ (???) about whether it is all being ‘made
up’ or if the producers have a plan.
Comment by Feroz — June 5, 2008 @ 12:50 am
Some of what has gone on with this show has been strange, odd, unbelievable, weird and even silly but Lost has still kept or at least reclaimed what made it good in the beginning. It’s characters are worth watching. They aren’t Gilligan and the Skipper. They are real people who all have a past. The common thread seems to be that these characters made decisions in their pasts and now they are either paying the price for those choices or they’ve figured out how to redeem themselves. Sun and Jin. Look how they progressed from the beginning of the show.
Jin was selfish and kept his emotions with his wife at bay. Since then, he became one of the most selfless people on the island, learned English and they made a baby together.
John Locke, lost his faith, found his faith, lost his faith and now he’s basing his entire existence on his faith in the island.
There are still alot of answers to uncover. I am using my faith in these writers and the creators of the show to continue to keep me hooked. Someone call those 5 million who left the show and let them no they won’t find any redemption in watching reality tv. It’s fake. There is nothing real about reality tv. Stick with people who at least have imagination. Lost! You got my vote!
Comment by Bow! You! Kneel! — June 5, 2008 @ 5:56 pm