Thursday, May 13, 2010

Lost: Thoughts on Jacob, MIB, and Mother in "Across the Sea"

The episode “Across the Sea” reveals the backstory about MIB, Jacob, and their “Mother”. It was a fairly interesting episode in that it provided a lot more history to the mythology, but I was generally disappointed in it as a self-contained episode. However, it did give me tons of inspiration about the characterization of Jacob and MIB.

 One thing I thought was interesting was the relationship between MIB and Mother. Mother first favors MIB, hoping he will be her replacement, but then MIB becomes the estranged of the two sons. MIB rebels from Mother, eventually murders her, and proves Jacob to be her rightful replacement. Yet it’s curious that it’s Mother who originally says what is echoed by MIB long after his matrical falling out with Mother – “they come, the fight, they destroy, the corrupt, and it always ends the same”. It’s also ironic that the two characters that detest the evil of humanity are the two that deceive and commit murder.

On the other hand, Jacob seems like a dull, sheepish, buffoon in this episode. However, though viewers might be tempted to lose respect for him, it’s obvious that he grows up a lot between the time he “killed” his brother and the time his brother kills him. For example, in the first meeting between Jacob and Richard, Jacob seems to me how I conceive God must be if He actually existed: bad things happen, not because it’s in God’s Plan, but because He tries His best to be a passive observer. This superior-being moral viewpoint is also like the Star Trek Prime Directive which states that Starfleet stay out of matters of alien races whose technological advancement isn’t yet at warp-level. Basically, it’s a viewpoint of advanced beings leaving lesser beings alone and giving them the opportunity to let their evolution run its own course.

Jacob is also like God because he has faith in humanity. Some people look at humanity and lose heart because, though we should have learned from all our wars and injustices of the past, we generally seem to repeat the same mistakes again and again. Even after 4000 years of civilization we are still essentially as MIB describes us to Jacob: “greedy, manipulative, untrustworthy, and selfish”. It’s also noteworthy that MIB claims that Jacob doesn’t see this because he’s “looking down on [them] from above.”

MIB and Mother’s pessimism of humanity is fair. Similarly, in Stephen King’s novel “The Stand” -- a tale about an end-of-the-world type battle between Good & Evil -- the hero asks at the end of the story, “do you think people ever learn anything?” and the question just hangs there in hesitation and doubt. It is a valid concern -- will humanity ever learn? Neither Mother nor MIB thinks so. Jacob does – “it only ends once; anything before that is just progress”. In this respect, he keeps pulling people to the island because he believes, I suppose, that they will eventually redeem themselves there.

And perhaps Jacob is right. Though the Oceanic survivors deal with lots of internal conflicts and commit great sins on the island (Jin attacks Michael, Sawyer attack Sayid, Charlie abducts Sun, Michael shoots Anna Lucia and Libby, etc.), they have all acted as heroes at one time or another, and have found themselves to be good people. Even Sawyer, who was the most immoral survivor in season one, becomes a leader in the Dharma Initiative, a cop in his flash-sideways, and a hero in general. It’s not a stretch to consider the Oceanic survivors as the exception to Mother and MIB’s pessimistic rule about humanity. In fact, if it wasn’t for Ben Linus and Charles Widmore, maybe the Oceanic survivors would have all gotten along in a semi-utopia long ago! In creating heroes out of these flawed people, Jacob has certainly seemed to have matured since his brother’s transformation/death.


The most telling sign of Jacob’s maturity since his youth in “Across the Sea” is his way of doing things his way, against his mother’s rules. For instance, he has begun selecting new candidates in a style completely different from that of his mother.


I don’t know if Mother needs to select the “chosen one” out of the twin candidates that washed up on the island, but her selection isn’t very formal at all. Basically, one candidate leaves so she chooses the other one. This is supposed to be explained when Mother tells Jacob that he was always the rightful heir, even if she never realized it before, and that he would one day understand. I don’t know if Jacob ever understands, but I sure don’t. To me it clearly seemed like the sad rationalizing of a flawed human being, and that MIB would have inevitably been the replacement if some dead person hadn’t intervened. And unless dead Mother or grand-Mother appears to Jacob (which seems problematic, considering his real mommy never did), then what could Jacob possibly even know about the candidate selection procedure?


Well, he doesn’t need to know; he no longer needs to know anything from Mother. Jacob creates his own rules now, as a young MIB once teased: “one day you can make up your own game and everyone else will have to follow your rules”.

Other Thoughts

If Jacob is just making up the game, do we really know anything about the consequences of the current character’s actions? MIB certainly doesn’t seem to think that he’ll destroy everything by leaving. How could Jacob be so sure of it and why should we believe him?

If Jacob is pulling people to the island to find his replacement, what’s all that talk about “it only ends once; everything else is just progress”? Does he have both things in mind by pulling the Oceanic survivors?

What does Mother really know, and who gave her the job of protector? Is she simply a naïve pawn in a situation like Desmond or Locke, who were told that they had to push a button to save the world? They weren’t exactly filled in on many details, and the one detail they were given was a little misleading, wasn’t it? Does mommy know the truth about the light, or is it just another skimpy myth told by someone who, like the creators of Lost themselves, hate giving any real answers?

And is it just me, or was the scene where mommy reveals the Cave of Light to the twins just plain bad? I mean, either the character of mommy was lying about the Cave or the actress playing her did a terrible job. I’m thinking it was just bad acting, which I can forgive because I’m sure the actress has no f’n idea what the Cave really is and thus can’t really give her lines the gravitas they deserve. But to me, that whole little speech rang hollow.


Seeing Jacob as a parallel of God (with the love of humanity + the non-involvement) means that Richard is Jesus (though much less mortal). But as a more human-like being, Richard can serve as an intermediary between God and Man. But then who is the MIB? Maybe he’s Satan, but before he becomes Smokey he seems like a Jesus who just happened to be unimpressed with man volunteering to live among them for *wink wink* 30 years. MIB seems like a Jesus figure who, in the end, agreed with Satan that Man just wasn’t worth the trouble.  

Young MIB asks “what’s dead”, but in the very next scene he’s hunting a boar. WTF? Plus, don’t very young children get all these curiosity questions out of the way such as “where did I come from” and things? Did these children never ask where they came from, or where their mother came from? 

Also, why would he know what an island is? I mean, the mother (who might be from off-island) could just call it that. But it’s really a relational term, meaning a small piece of land separate from a continent. If an island was simply land surrounded by water, then all continents would be known as islands. Calling something an island, in my book, means that you are aware of other land that isn’t an island – something we call a “mainland”.

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Boston Legal and Activism

I am a HUGE fan of the now-cancelled court dramedy Boston Legal. Especially if you're a liberal, this show has the most ingenious courtroom scenes on television. The issues it raises are both absurdly entertaining AND, most importantly, extremely progressive and topical. 


Aside from it's amazing cast, the series is brilliant on at least three levels:

#1) The Closing Arguments

It deals beautifully with great, relevant topics every episode. Episodes often deal with legal issues recently introduced in real American court rooms, or with issues that SHOULD be dealt with in real court rooms. The ebb and flow of arguments for and against, plus some beautifully written and acted closing arguments make the episodes really shine. James Spader, specifically, performs some awe-inspiring arguments and closings that match any great rhetoric or moral conscience. 

#2) The Balcony

Almost every episode ends with Alan Shore and Denny Crane smoking cigars, drinking scotch, and reflecting on the day’s events from the balcony of Denny’s executive office suite. These scenes are so special because the friendship between Spader's Alan Shore and Shatner's Denny Crane is one of the most beautiful fictional friendships ever written. The friendship is also a brilliant interplay between liberalism and conservatism.

Alan Shore is a fierce Democrat who believes in social justice. He has argued against the death penalty, abuse of the 1st amendment in protecting the worst in religions, big tobacco, the credit industry, the gambling industry, radical prejudice, and -- for lack of a more concise term -- George W Bush.  
    
Denny Crane, on the other hand, is a stout Republican. He believes in big business, old-fashioned values, the second amendment / NRA, free-enterprise, and American exceptionalism. He staunchly argues against a liberal town from succeeding from the USA, argues for the 2nd Amendment, and even for the right of a home-owner to protect his property by means of electrocution.

Their friendship is great because, despite their seemingly incompatible beliefs and ideologies – not to mention their frequent falling outs – they share one of the great bromances of our time. They are each other’s “flamingos”.

#3) The Heart + The Silliness

Boston Legal is both brilliantly topical and ridiculously silly. The friendship of Alan and Denny is just one great example. They are both silly, dysfunctional, sexist, and unabashedly confident. They also get into all kinds of hijinx in and out of court.

Yet, at the same time it’s an endearing friendship of two completely different people finding a soulmate in the other. It is also a friendship between  one person at the height of his legendary legal career and another who -- suffering from Alzheimer’s disease -- struggles to keep his legendary reputation and pride from utter ruin.

In this vain, Boston Legal often balances bizarre shtick with topical and moving issues – and it does a great job of delivering on both accounts. If you haven’t seen it, please pick up a season on DVD or catch it in syndication! If you do neither, then I hope you still enjoy the clips I have selected for the purpose of bringing different topical issues under discussion. I hope you argue or supplement the views of the characters and myself on the comments section.     

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Boston Legal - Argument for Legalized Prostitution



In this scene, Jerry Espenson (played by Christian Clemenson) argues that it has been estimated that legalized prostitution could lower the rape rate by as much as 25%.

Also, criminalizing prostitution doesn't work -- it never has. Making it illegal is a stubborn way of trying to impose a moral viewpoint, but ends up only making it more dangerous. It creates revenue of criminals and is connected with the child sex trade and slave trafficking.

On the other hand, if it became legal we could regulate it -- reducing occurrences of STIs and AIDS. He also hints that we could protect the sex workers themselves, giving them benefits such as insurance (though I would add a fair wage, free health checks, and protection through labour law). Also, we could keep prostitutes from ending up in the morgue. As of now they're easy targets from pimps and customers. Legalizing prostitution can literally save lives.

And -- TRUMP CARD -- we could TAX this billion dollar industry. And tax money can help Support The Troops! Jerry wins!

Unfortunately he doesn't, but this scene demonstrates the brilliance of Boston Legal in that it is very smart and topical, while also being extremely off-beat and silly. Jerry suffers from Asperger's syndrome which gives him various nervous ticks and quirks. In this scene, he argues with his hands planted on his thighs while walking around in circles.

The prosecuting attorney in this scene is played by Gina Torres who played Zoe in the TV show "Firefly".

Boston Legal - Alan Shore argues for Condoms and against Abstinence Only Education





In this scene, from s04e03 "The Chicken and the Leg", Alan Shore (played by James Spader) argues against abstinence only education. His client, a 15 year old girl, was taught abstinence only. When she finally gave in to her biological urges she had unprotected sex. As a result, she contracted HIV. 

In this episode, Alan Shore helps her sue her school because it chose to teach abstinence only education in order to receive federal funding from the Bush Administration.

In his powerful closing argument, Shore argues that the condom is perhaps the most important invention of the last 3000 years, and for schools to discredit the effectiveness of condoms is akin to conspiracy to commit murder. He details how the health of the world depends on condoms, how important they've become since the rise of HIV, how there's no evidence linking abstinence only education to lower teenage pregnancy rates, and how some the the abstinence only literature shamefully and wrongfully compares using a condom to playing Russian roulette.