|
Post by Sara on Mar 27, 2006 9:47:15 GMT -5
I don't think I would have left Jin. If I wanted my marriage to work, I think I would have pointed it out. And even Jin not only seemed to realize that he has anger issues, he had also hinted that he's getting tired of allowing his temper to get the best of him. Jin needs to work on his temper. Sun needs to stop being so secretive with him. There's hope for these two, yet. True. People have tempers - you can't leave them every time they display them or you'd never have a long term relationship of any kind. You'd also have to put a really unpleasant governor on yourself, to live with yourself. It's a matter of how (how violently, destructively), how often, and how easily the temper is displayed. I wouldn't leave a husband over what happened in that garden if it was basically an isolated, or very infrequent, type of incident. "Hitting me" would definitely be a one-time only incident. With Jin & Sun, it's a complicated picture - all that co-dependent stuff going on and such. Yeah, I'm with you on this. If Mom had considered leaving Dad every time he had an inappropriate display of temper... well, I might have spent a solid portion of my childhood in a single parent household. My father tends to let everything build up and then have a major fit about something completely minor. I've seen him get angry towards my mother on more than one occasion, and once was on the receiving end when he thought I'd switched a channel so I could tape something ("Who Are You?", actually) without asking him if it was okay. Hell, Dad got so pissed off about something once (not in relation to any of us) that he pulled a Xander on one of the walls. Over the years, Mom's gotten more and more likely to call him on it when she thinks he's being unfair; other times she waits until he's had a chance to go out for a walk and cool off before talking to him about what happened. Have any of his outbursts bordered on emotional abuse? Yeah, probably. Have they always been isolated events? Most definitely. Does he apologize later? As far as I know, yes. Have I had issues with the way Dad's treated Mom during one of his "moments"? Oh yeah--it used to piss me off to no end. I still don't like it very much. But I guess over the years, watching my parents' dynamic and trying to come to terms with this side of my father, I've come to realize that when you love someone, sometimes you have to be willing to expand your capacity to forgive. This is not to say that I don't suspect my mother would have drawn the line at physical violence; some things are still unforgivable. And if his tantrums had been more frequent and more personal, directed at someone's personality instead of reactions to specific events, that would have also been a different kettle of fish. But Mom understood what was causing him to behave that way, even though she didn't necessarily like it. So she was able to accept and move past it. So no, it's never right to act angrily towards someone you love. But it does happen, even between couples who love each other beyond measure. I'd wager it's happened with Rose and Bernard--personally, I can easily see her chucking a vase or two in his direction during a fight. I guess I just believe that there is a real, substantive difference between behavior that's truly, dangerously abusive and when someone is behaving like a complete and utter jackass. The former is inexcusable, and should not be tolerated for a nanosecond; the latter sucks, and it hurts, but can ultimately be dealt with and worked through. My , anyway.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Mar 27, 2006 19:21:08 GMT -5
True. People have tempers - you can't leave them every time they display them or you'd never have a long term relationship of any kind. You'd also have to put a really unpleasant governor on yourself, to live with yourself. It's a matter of how (how violently, destructively), how often, and how easily the temper is displayed. I wouldn't leave a husband over what happened in that garden if it was basically an isolated, or very infrequent, type of incident. "Hitting me" would definitely be a one-time only incident. With Jin & Sun, it's a complicated picture - all that co-dependent stuff going on and such. Yeah, I'm with you on this. If Mom had considered leaving Dad every time he had an inappropriate display of temper... well, I might have spent a solid portion of my childhood in a single parent household. Both of my parents had a temper, so I know of what you speak. If it's a display of temper the "emotional abuse" part of it is kind of a given. It's unreasoning, and directed outward. But I don't think it's possible to have any long term, close relationship with anyone, where never the slightest abuse has taken place. You have to be able and willing to forgive your loved ones, if you expect that you might need to be forgiven now and then (and of course, we all need that). And you need to forgive them so that you can get over the incident yourself. No good to carry stuff around. Of course, forgetting is different than forgiving. I think if you have self-respect and self-regard, and you love others well, you just need to trust yourself when it comes to deciding who to keep in your life, or let into your life, or let back into your life - and under what terms. I agree there's basic rules, like "never hit," "never do anything dangerously abusive," etc. But ultimately, every situation has to judged for itself, and nothing can relieve a person of that duty. People get better and better at that as they grow and mature and change (if they grow and mature and change). I listen carefully to others I love and respect, but in the end, I don't let anyone tell me who I should absolutely kick out of my life, or who I should absolutely let in, when. I trust me, if you know what I mean. Anyhow, interesting post, Sara. Thanks for sharing these thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Mar 28, 2006 10:48:56 GMT -5
Wonderful review, Sara. Love the "the truth" vs "a truth" theme.
Not sure if this is relevant, but it makes me think of one of my favorite quotes, from Jesus Christ Superstar ("The 39 Lashes"):
But what is truth? Is truth a changing law? We both have truths; Are mine the same as yours?
|
|
|
Post by fish1941 on Mar 28, 2006 14:25:52 GMT -5
I don't know if Kate is the right person to teach Sun about self-confidence, considering her own emotional problems.
|
|
|
Post by Squeemonster on Mar 28, 2006 20:28:27 GMT -5
Wonderful review, Sara! #clap# Very well done, as usual. I especially appreciated and was in awe of your ability to look beyond the half-naked men in order to analyze the plot and meaning of everything. Your strength and determination are admirable. ;D Also, you gave me lots of food for thought. I may not comment very much, but I love your reviews.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Mar 29, 2006 8:33:14 GMT -5
"The truth is rarely pure and never simple." #claps# Most excellent job, Sara! I loved how you took the "simple" theme of truth, pulled it out of all the places it was hiding in the ep and built the review around it. Loved how the "everything - the whole truth" that Sun ended up telling was revealed to us in layers. That there was always, as you so succinctly put, another shoe to drop. And a size 13 EEE at that. Loved love loved how you described the moment when Jin really learns "the truth". It certainly helped that it was the kind of miracle that Jin would want very badly to believe in. First, that they are having the child he wants so badly. But more importantly, the miracle removes the sting from the news about his infertility. So, first he learns something that no doubt hurts his pride and turns a lot of their relationship on its head and then, but wait! Pay no attention to that, you don't really need to think about what that means to you because it's been magically fixed! There's nothing wrong anymore! Voila! You also really helped me see that the journey that Sayid and Ana L and Charlie take was much more a part of the episode theme than I had been thinking. For some odd reason, I had only been thinking about the momet when Ana L and Sayid tell "the truth" to each other when they talk about Shannon's death. Ana L stepping up and speaking honestly about her actions and apologising. Sayid accepting her words but adding his own (slightly twisted) true feelings. That ultimately the Others are responsible (pushing the truth quite a bit there, Sayid) because of the way they have forced the survivors to defend themselves from attacks. As you said, Sayid really just wants to prove Henry is lying so he can make someone pay for Shannon. But I hadn't really thought about how the whole trek was supposedly to get at "the truth" about Henry. To prove he is who he says he is (or not) by finding or not finding the balloon. And of course, I totally love how you point out the false reasoning they are using. How the balloon or its absence will of course not really tell them anything at all about who Henry really is and what he is doing. When I printed out your review to read and so on, I found myself writing "exactly!" next to that part. And finally, you bring up the bits of truth that Henry himself is saying - all his "what if" musings meant to hurt and scare and pay Jack and Locke back for the way they've hurt Henry. You put it perfectly when you said: Nice job all 'round, Sara! Brava! Especially with all the . . . distractions . . . the episode offered. Good thing you had all those screencaps to reward yourself with later.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Mar 29, 2006 8:36:47 GMT -5
I don't know if Kate is the right person to teach Sun about self-confidence, considering her own emotional problems. Some folks are good at teaching others what they don't necessarily do all that well themselves. Kate is actually pretty good at presenting a confident image of herself to the world, regardless of the doubts she might have underneath. And really, everyone has some doubts inside; I sometimes think self-confidence just means being able to take positive action regardless.
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Mar 29, 2006 11:38:38 GMT -5
I don't know if Kate is the right person to teach Sun about self-confidence, considering her own emotional problems. Some folks are good at teaching others what they don't necessarily do all that well themselves. Kate is actually pretty good at presenting a confident image of herself to the world, regardless of the doubts she might have underneath. And really, everyone has some doubts inside; I sometimes think self-confidence just means being able to take positive action regardless. Exactly. It's a mom-thing - don't do what I do, do what I say. I also think that being around women like Kate, who are independent and make their own lives without/outside of marriage, is good for Sun.
|
|
|
Post by fish1941 on Mar 30, 2006 18:30:35 GMT -5
What I had found disturbing about Sayid was his desire for revenge. He wants to hurt someone.
But in a way, I think he had a point about the Others being resonsible for Shannon's death. If you look at it from a certain perspective, the Others played a heavy role in leading to the moment in which Ana-Lucia shot Shannon:
1) The Others kidnapped Walt, which led to Shannon having visions of him;
2) The whispers in the jungle (which may not be the Others, but who knows) that scared the hell out of Shannon, Sayid, the Tailies, Michael and Jin.
3) Cindy's disappearance
4) And the terror that the Others had inflicted upon the Tailies during those first 48 hours.
Yes, Ana-Lucia is responsible since in her emotional state, she had panicked. But the Others did contribute to a lot of factors that led up to that fatal moment for Shannon.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Apr 2, 2006 19:41:19 GMT -5
Wonderful review, Sara. Love the "the truth" vs "a truth" theme. Not sure if this is relevant, but it makes me think of one of my favorite quotes, from Jesus Christ Superstar ("The 39 Lashes"): But what is truth? Is truth a changing law? We both have truths; Are mine the same as yours? Love your JCS quote, Liz. Great review, Sara! I missed most the episode, so your review helped fill in the blanks for me. And you quoted Kahil Gibran! Cool. “Say not ‘I have found the truth,’ but rather, ‘I have found a truth.’”I remember the confusion some of the lostaways had when the others in their group talked about Sawyer shooting a polar bear. Even within their own group, they each have different memories, and thus their truths also vary. Thanks, Sara!
|
|
|
Post by fish1941 on Apr 3, 2006 13:29:50 GMT -5
It's interesting how some of you would describe Kate as an independent woman who makes her own life. Because this description seems quite a contrast to her habit of fawning over or idealizing Jack.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Apr 3, 2006 16:28:55 GMT -5
It's interesting how some of you would describe Kate as an independent woman who makes her own life. Because this description seems quite a contrast to her habit of fawning over or idealizing Jack. Hmmmm. Idealizing, yes, sometimes. (Frankly, much of the group leans toward doing this.) Fawning . . . I'm not so sure. Flirting and generally giving off some "perhaps sexually interested" vibes, I'd say yes. And not just to Jack. But, also: Pretty much always doing what she wants or thinks is the best choice? Making her own good and bad decisions? Acting like any other individual person (male or female) within the group? Yep.
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Apr 3, 2006 18:26:28 GMT -5
It's interesting how some of you would describe Kate as an independent woman who makes her own life. Because this description seems quite a contrast to her habit of fawning over or idealizing Jack. Hmmmm. Idealizing, yes, sometimes. (Frankly, much of the group leans toward doing this.) Fawning . . . I'm not so sure. Flirting and generally giving off some "perhaps sexually interested" vibes, I'd say yes. And not just to Jack. But, also: Pretty much always doing what she wants or thinks is the best choice? Making her own good and bad decisions? Acting like any other individual person (male or female) within the group? Yep. I wonder if part of Kate's behavior towards Jack and Sawyer isn't just reflex - she flirts with men as a way to get their guard down and manipulate them.
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Apr 5, 2006 8:07:08 GMT -5
It's interesting how some of you would describe Kate as an independent woman who makes her own life. Because this description seems quite a contrast to her habit of fawning over or idealizing Jack. Hmmmm. Idealizing, yes, sometimes. (Frankly, much of the group leans toward doing this.) Fawning . . . I'm not so sure. Flirting and generally giving off some "perhaps sexually interested" vibes, I'd say yes. And not just to Jack. But, also: Pretty much always doing what she wants or thinks is the best choice? Making her own good and bad decisions? Acting like any other individual person (male or female) within the group? Yep. #metoo# I'd also add that, to me, Kate's behavior toward Jack evinces all the classic signs of a crush: idealizing the object of adoration, acting goofy around them, occasionally swooning at their feet... And I suspect many folks would agree that even the most self-confident, self-assured person in the world will still act like a total goober while in the throes of a crush.
|
|
|
Post by fish1941 on Apr 5, 2006 12:35:01 GMT -5
It seems to me there is a difference in Kate's behavior when she's with Jack and when she's with Sawyer.
Yes, she flirts with both men. But with Jack, she does seem to fawn over him at times. In fact, I can recall being a little annoyed with how she seems to put him on a pedestal. There was a remark she had made to Jack in the episode following this one ("Lockdown"), which made her seem like a 15 year-old. Very disconcerting. Even Evangeline Lilly has expressed annoyance at Kate's fawning over Jack.
With Sawyer, Kate seems to act a little more mature . . . and at times, be quite brutally frank, when she thinks he is screwing up. Just as he tends to be frank with her.
Like I said, there seemed to be a difference.
But isn't Kate too old to be acting like a 15 year-old with a crush, instead of simply projecting good 'old fashioned adult-style sexual interest at Jack? This only leads me to believe that Kate and Jack do not have a relationship based on one between equals.
|
|