At the moment, I'm re-watching the first season of Lost. In the first season, the show had not yet become all about mystery and weirdness for its own sake. Since I know what's going to happen (mostly), I know I'm going to really enjoy the appearance of Ben Linus (and Michael Emerson's performance). I know that I'm only going to hate Michael more and more every episode. I seriously wish someone would drive wooden stakes through Michael. For me, though, the most interesting aspect of this show is the relationship and dichotomy between John Locke and Jack Shephard.
The thing I find most puzzling about these two characters is the characterization of Shephard and Locke as “man of science, man of faith”. In particular, everyone—including the writers unless I'm mistaken—seems to be suggesting that Jack is the “man of science” and John Locke is the “man of faith”. And they have it backward.
Insofar as Jack continues to ignore the weirdness he sees with his own eyes and clings to what he has always believed, Jack is a man of faith—blind, arrogant, stupid faith. John Locke, on the other hand, immediately accustoms himself to learning based on what he sees, no matter how strange it seems. John is a man of science. Is that what the writers had in mind all along? I really don't think so. Somehow they don't seem quite smart enough to realize the irony of their own creation.
No comments:
Post a Comment