Lost: LA X


Totally worth the wait.

I was very surprised to see Juliet last night. And what a tease it was, further destroying Sawyer (and my husband, a little bit).

She said (via Miles), “It worked.” And, if the 2004 timeline with Oceanic Flight 815 landing in Los Angeles is the ‘real’ timeline (I have my doubts about that), then it did. So what are the Ajira Flight 316 survivors doing running around on the Island, still, in 2007?

At first I thought that somehow, even though they get to land in LA in 2004, they end up on the Island anyway in 2007. But as their memories don’t seem to have skipped, I don’t think this theory works. The 2007 timeline proceeds directly from 1977 and the destruction of the Swan site.

In the 2004 timeline, Jack is clearly feeling wonky. The disappearance of his father’s body is upsetting, but I also think it’s foreboding: I think it’s a sign that this 2004 timeline isn’t true. Yes, it is actually happening. Somehow the bomb — the reset — has split the survivors’ reality (shades of quantum physics).

And somehow, this 2004 reality is going to fall apart bit by bit until only the 2007 reality stands. Although, maybe I have that wrong, and the 2004 timeline will solidify. The timelines are interacting somehow (the bullet graze on Jack’s neck in the airplane bathroom; Charlie declaring, “I was supposed to die.”).

Interesting that Kate hijacks the taxi with Claire in it (Hi, Claire!). I wonder if she (Claire) is pregnant, and if Kate is going to help deliver the baby again.

Do you think Kate will ever give up running? Jeez Louise woman, you killed a man in cold blood. Justified or no, you gotta face up to that and take your punishment. Put enough straight men on that jury, and make yourself into a sympathetic witness. Put on some lip gloss and cross your legs. You won’t be in jail long.

Sorry, my way of saying, again: sick of the running woman bit. I’m actually liking Kate on the Island more so far.

Although in contrast, I enjoyed seeing Sawyer act the part of cock of the walk in LA. I’ve never been hot for Josh Holloway, but that dimple and the deviltry in his eyes were killing me last night.

And where did Desmond go? Back to his seat? I’m thinking no. (Dan said, “Desmond wasn’t on the plane!” meaning Flight 815. But I pointed out that theoretically the Swan hadn’t been built because Juliet blew it up, so he could have been. This was quickly disproved the next time we returned to the Island to see the destroyed Hatch.)

I knew Not-Locke was the Smoke Monster. “I’m sorry you had to see me like that.” Uh, yeah.

Co-worker Lost theory: Richard was a slave on the Black Rock, hence the line about seeing him out of chains. Could Richard have been any more shocked to see Not-Locke? He clearly has an inkling of what is going on (“Don’t shoot him!”), but was still caught utterly flat-footed. And got his clocked cleaned, too.

So, the war is coming: Not-Locke heading to the Temple, the Temple people preparing. The ash clearly points to the fact that it was never Jacob in that cabin; it was what/who is walking around as Not-Locke now. The original crash of Flight 815 must have disturbed the ash (which is why Not-Christian was wandering around, although a co-worker points out that they never found Christian’s body. Christian is a possible wild-card.)

I want to cast Not-Locke as a dark angel, a fallen deity, one trying, as he said ominously last night, to “go home”. Which would make Jacob the good angel/shepard. Was Jacob somehow set over Not-Locke (is the Man in Black ever going to reveal his identity? Lucifer? Esau? Come on!)? Or are our assumptions (good guys wear white, for instance) being challenged? Was Jacob the bad guy in the scenario? It would be hard to believe. Jacob sets about, even after he’s dead, to heal Sayid (although, notably, not Juliet); Not-Locke turns into the Smoke Monster and slaughters a bunch of the “good guys”.

Yeah, I’m going with Not-Locke being bad. Prove me wrong.

Finally: I gasped — literally gasped, with my hands up over my mouth — when Sayid sat up at the end of the episode. (And not just a “holy cats Naveen Andrews in a black tank top” gasp.) I didn’t see that coming. Haven’t we been told: Dead is dead. We also know that Sayid will not be the same. I wonder if his innocence has been restored? I tend to think the Island is a place of rebirth and redemption. I guess I fall on the Locke side of the man of faith/man of science dichotomy. Which maybe means that Sayid’s past as a torturer and murderer has been erased, and he has been reborn.

Or, conversely, he’s going to be utterly devoid of remorse on this go-round.

4 thoughts on “Lost: LA X

  1. I am curious if Jacob’s death has anything to do with Sayid’s “rebirth.”

    Awesome episode-as always-some answers (what’s the smoke monster, what happened after the bomb)-which lead to even more questions!

    • Yes, that is another big theory making the rounds. It certainly makes a ton of sense if, of course, Not Locke is the Man In Black. It’s been floated that Not Locke/Smoke Monster is not the MIB, although that seems terribly unlikely to me.

  2. The writers/producers of Lost are very into C.S.Lewis (e.g. “The Lamp Post”), so starting (or finishing?) a final storyline in which one dies to redeem another’s life is solid Lost material. I think the question is: who’s next? Think “deeper magic”…

    The other question: How on earth can you not be into Josh Holloway? Total Island HOTTIE!

    • I know, I know. He just doesn’t do it for me (neither does Jack/Matthew Fox). Don’t get me wrong, I can *appreciate* his hottness: that dimple, that mischevious smile. That episode that he was shirtless. But Sayid is the one who makes my knees weak.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s