spring forgot to log in
Guest
|
Post by spring forgot to log in on Jan 28, 2006 11:57:07 GMT -5
Hey Spring! Your reply made me think- it's interesting that Locke sacrificed his kidney to save his dad, but he really needed something in return. When he was later scorned he could not make it be OK with him. On the other hand, Eko sacrificed his soul for his brother and didn't seem hurt at all that his brother now scorned him. I know it's a totally different situation, but I think it speaks to the idea of locus of control. Yes - victimization/control . . . how you see yourself in the tableau. Makes sense - Locke is right about Charlie (who spends the ep trying to "save the baby" and then is seen dressed as a baby) but nice insight on how it also applies to Locke. This makes me think of Jack and his wife telling him he "always need something to fix,' and going around "saving everyone." Hadn't noticed it until I read your comment, but lots of parallels to Charlie's story this week.
|
|
|
Post by William the Bloody on Jan 28, 2006 12:33:28 GMT -5
I agree that heroin could be a usefool tool, in the right hands. But right now, it's not in the right hands at all. Why didn't Locke tell Jack, the doctor, or even herb-wise Sun, about the heroin he stashed? What kind of use does Locke have for it? Does he personally know what dosage to use if someone is hurt and needs a painkiller? If not, again, why didn't Locke tell the doctor who would presumably decide on when and how much of the heroin is to be used?
I can't help but take a dim view of Locke's secrecy. He shouldn't have told everyone about it, but he should definitely have told Jack.
I like Locke; he's a fascinating character; and he's neither hero nor villain, and has suffered greatly. But he is to a certain extent in thrall to the Island, and willing to endanger others for the sake of appeasing or obeying what he thinks the Island is telling him. So I like him, wish him well, think he's mostly a very useful man to have around, but cannot trust him.
I do trust Eko's fundamental decency and think that he is in general more trustworthy at this time than is Locke, despite his vicious past. We don't know if he just told people he was a priest, and assumed some functions of a priest, or actually took holy orders. He could be a real priest. But so far, he has not tried to harm any of the Lostaways and has exerted a calming influence on Ana-Lucia (which is sorely needed). Eko seems to me a man of faith and reason; he believes in his spiritual truth, but can also see the other side, the practical and earthbound and rational.
Locke has a hidden agenda again; as he did throughout most of Season One. If Eko has a hidden agenda; we haven't seen it.
GAIL
How do we know that Locke DIDN'T tell Jack? I watched the ep again last night with Havoc and I realized something. When Jack goes to tend Charlies wounds at the end, Charlie says something to the effect of: " I know what this looks like, what people think, but I didn't use. I wanted to, I really wanted to, but I didn't." Jack doesn't even blink on this, but says to him "That's not what I asked Charlie" (about clarifying that Charlie would never do this {ie. mess with Claire's baby/start the fire} again) If Jack didn't already know about the heroin, don't you think he would have been surprised and questioned Charlie on this statement further... maybe asked for it A) to get it away from Charlie and B) for his own personal medical stores? I think a lot of assumptions are being made here possibly and it may be another case of characters interacting without the audience seeing it happen, like so many knew about the polar bear, or Kate's horse, when in actuality, we never saw anyone tell anyone anything. Vlad
|
|
|
Post by leftylady on Jan 28, 2006 16:14:39 GMT -5
Hee! My closed-caption was singing 'you all every buddies". Buddies diapers. That crib scene was more surreal than most of the stuff that we see on the island. Buddies? I need to rerun my tape, but I thought I thought the package had "Butties" as in diapers for babies' cute little butts, although "buddies" would be closer to the original song wording!
|
|
|
Post by leftylady on Jan 28, 2006 16:24:25 GMT -5
I think you may be right on this. Monnie said the same thing last night. Something was just "off" about that. I like the idea of Libby somehow knowing Hurley from before the island - from the institution or knowing he's rich. There's just something slightly . . . off about her. And it's either that or she's another secret Other spy. ;D Hmmmmmm. Wonder if we'll be getting a Libby flashback. And where are Rose and Bernard lately? Well, other than in their tent making up for the time they were apart . . . Yes, definitely "off". The mental institution idea might be the right direction. Has anyone checked the dvd/tape of the Hurley episod ("Numbers"?) to see if she might have been there when Hurley visited the old numbers guy? It was late enough in the season that they might have already picked the cast addition and inserted her in this episode, like they did in the finale with Jack meeting Ana Lucia. The idea of a Dharma observer/replacement was already raised when Libby was first introduced, but an Other spy is possible - or spy for one of the other Lost groups we've been speculating about is another possibility too. And I'll vote for a Bernard/Rose flashback too, but we probably won't get any since they aren't really regular cast.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Jan 28, 2006 18:32:27 GMT -5
Hey Spring! Your reply made me think- it's interesting that Locke sacrificed his kidney to save his dad, but he really needed something in return. When he was later scorned he could not make it be OK with him. On the other hand, Eko sacrificed his soul for his brother and didn't seem hurt at all that his brother now scorned him. I know it's a totally different situation, but I think it speaks to the idea of locus of control. Couple more thoughts... Firstly, when Locke says "Charlie wants to save the baby because he can't save himself" I think we can read it as "Locke wants to save the baby (Charlie) because he can't (or couldn't) save himself." I think this partly because whenever people psychobabble about other people it's mostly about them, and also because it helps me explain the crazy baby scene with grown men in daipers. A little on-the-nose perhaps, but I think this was part of the meaning. And another thing... I think this episode makes it clear that Charlie didn't become a real addict untill he didn't have anyone to take care of anymore. Though it was wrong of his mom and his brother to rely on him so, Charlie depended on their reliance on him to keep him together. Even though he was already using, and his career dwindling, it was only once he didn't have someone to save that he really went off the deep end. This bodes poorly for his role on the island now that he's been kicked out of Claire and the baby's life. I really like your point about Charlie doesn't hit bottom until he has no one to take care of. It's important for us to remember this about his personality. We see this in how important it has been to him to take care of Claire and her baby right from the beginning, and in his very desparate actions in this ep.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Jan 28, 2006 18:33:14 GMT -5
Psychologist. I'm giving good odds that she was at the facility that Hurley was commited to, originally. This is my thought too... And hows this for even another connection: Is it possible she was the shrink for the guy that had the numbers originally? The one that Hurley played Connect 4 with and kept reciting them? That might be why she remembers Hurley but Hurley never necessarily saw her. She was observing the other guy and saw Hurley was his "friend." And now, on the island.. the creepy stuff.. Does she know about hte numbers yet? What did the nuts pilot tell Libby? Vlad Oooooooooh. If she knows about the numbers too . . . .
|
|
|
Post by fish1941 on Jan 30, 2006 12:09:59 GMT -5
I still cannot help but feel disturbed by that Christmas flashback. And how Charlie's mother gave him a present . . . not for him to enjoy, but as an opportunity for the family to exploit or depend upon Charlie's talents. There was something very selfish and manipulative about her act. Especially since Charlie was a young boy at the time.
Don't you mean . . .was sorely needed at the time of Shannon's death? Ana-Lucia doesn't seem to be in need of any calming influence right now. However, I do think a good number of Lostaways (maybe all of them) need a good counselor.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Feb 9, 2006 17:26:23 GMT -5
I still cannot help but feel disturbed by that Christmas flashback. And how Charlie's mother gave him a present . . . not for him to enjoy, but as an opportunity for the family to exploit or depend upon Charlie's talents. There was something very selfish and manipulative about her act. Especially since Charlie was a young boy at the time. Definitely a disturbing comment from mom. Too much pressure to be putting on a small kid - save the whole family! *nods* I think we're gonna see each of them go off the rails sooner or later.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Feb 9, 2006 17:26:50 GMT -5
Sara!!! How much did I love your analysis? Lots and lots! How do you do it, girl? How do you manage to weave together theme and bigger picture and character development (past and future)? I can never manage to pull it all together that well.
I think you really got to the heart of things when you talked about how Charlie’s faith (and much of his life, I’d say) is . . . exterior. It’s like Charlie lives on the surface – as you said, not really present in his own life, doing something instead of being something (really excellent ways of explaining, by the way). Everything he does is motivated by how he thinks life should be, how people should react to him, how things should look. I would hope that music could be a source of true deeper meaning for him, if he’d let it, but with all the outside expectations that have been attached to his talent and judging by the examples we’ve heard of his songs . . . maybe not.
I really liked your possible explanations of just why Charlie was seeing visions in the first place. I too don’t buy that he had started using again, (I don’t think he is using yet even now), or even if he is, that this would explain what he saw and did. Island forces? Very possible – ‘cuz he was acting way less like “junkie on a high” weird and way more like “guy with mega issues on an island that messes with people’s heads” weird. Your second theory of possible involvement by Locke was inspired!! Especially in light of the episode that came right after this one! Charlie perhaps could be seen as a pawn being tugged back and forth between Locke and Sawyer – manipulated by each even as he thinks he’s acting for himself. I keep thinking, someday Charlie is gonna have to actually just be himself – will he even know who that is?
All this delving into Charlie’s background and the way you laid all the pieces out really helped me understand his actions, and therefore this episode, a lot more clearly. I particularly loved:
Finally, I also think you are right that this ep will turn out to be more meaningful in the “grand scheme” of things, rather than as a stand-alone. In fact, I’d wager we already saw the start of the larger arc and Charlie’s part in it in the following episode that we just saw.
Brava again, Sara! This analysis really helped me organize by thoughts about several things!!
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Feb 9, 2006 22:01:21 GMT -5
Sara!!! How much did I love your analysis? Lots and lots! How do you do it, girl? How do you manage to weave together theme and bigger picture and character development (past and future)? I can never manage to pull it all together that well. <snipped for space> Thanks so much for the kind words, especially as I wasn't feeling all that confident about this particular review. I really appreciate it. Your check's in the mail, btw
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Feb 10, 2006 12:25:13 GMT -5
Sara:
Lovely review of this ep. Most excellent sketch of Charlie - his emotional state, his motives and the like.
We did learn, in Catholic school, that anyone could baptize anyone, anytime if needed. We even learned how to do it, and were told it was appropriate in an emergency sort of situation (someone is dying and wants to be baptized). It was presented in much the same way CPR training might be. Naturally, you do not need an oceanful of water.
Baby in a basket on the water, very biblical image (though for Moses, not Aaron, but then brothers, we learn in this ep, can take each other's places) . . . yes, a graduate thesis awaits.
That baptism imagery - John the Baptist baptizing Jesus . . . it was what I thought of when John Locke "baptized" Charlie in the water, as well.
Especially loved this take on Charlie: But what I think Charlie has never realized is that such knowledge is ultimately superficial: he mistakes familiarity for faith, ritual for reverence. And it’s exactly that disconnect between doing something and being something which, in my opinion, lies at the root of all the wrong turns his life has taken.
Thanks for writing this. It increased my appreciation of the ep, and mostly, of Charlie.
|
|