Getting LOST :: “Pilot”

As far as seminal television shows go, LOST is probably up there with Dallas and Twin Peaks for holding an entire generation’s attention in a way that no other show could before or after. J.J. Abram’s brainchild was one of the most watched, talked about and imitated televisions shows in the country. The combination of drama, mystery and suspense drew in viewers and captivated audiences to the point of obsession.

I was, I must admit, not one of the horde that drank the show in. I made one aborted attempt to watch the show starting with season two, but found the middle chapters repetitive and confusing, so stopped. However, as time has gone on, I have slowly come to regret not giving the series anything more than my passive attention (and later, contempt). Understandably, some shows go through slumps in their early-middle seasons. So starting now I want to make good. I am going to go through and watch the ENTIRETY of LOST over the coming months. The task seems pointless and thankless for a few reasons, prominent among them that I already know how it ends. Let’s also not think about the disappointed horde still stung by its lackluster finale to ever want to hear about LOST ever again. My only consolation here is that if LOST was really about anything – which I doubt it ever really was – it was that the journey is more important than the destination. So with that in mind I’m going forward with “Getting LOST.”

My goal is to understand not only why LOST was popular, but to look at exactly what made it popular. Even though we know now that the series very rarely delivered on the promises it made in its first few seasons, there must have been something else, something beneath the surface that kept viewers coming back week after week.

There is a fine line between popular art that is good and loved because it is good and popular art that is trash and loved because it is simple and easy to digest. Examples of both types of art abound in television and film (the former is heavy laden with obvious examples) and I want to know exactly which camp LOST falls into.

Here is what I know about LOST going into it:

1. It was popular.
Like, really really popular. There were very few people I know who did not watch LOST. In my office I was one of only two people who didn’t watch the show on a regular basis. This show was a big deal to people. The only fans more rabid about their favorite show are fans of The Wire, and that’s saying something.

2. LOST had a deep, often convoluted mythology.
The most intriguing element of LOST seems to be in its back story, which was deep and often confusing. Most of the mystery surrounding the show focused on the sci-fi heavy plot and its twisted, sometimes apparently nonsensical mythology. People still loved it and loved even more to talk about it.

3. It did not deliver on its promises.
LOST required the viewer to wager a lot of good will and faith over the course of six seasons. Its plot was a matrix of inexplicable mysteries that (we were implicitly promised) would prove satisfying and interesting resolutions. At the end of the show, however, a great many plot elements, events, characters and sign-posts turned out to be nothing but red herrings.

With that in mind, let’s begin

***

“Pilot”

LOST has the unique distinction of having an absolutely perfect pilot episode. Any success that the episode can claim largely has to do with J.J. Abram’s heavy involvement. Not only did he produce (as is his default role) but he also co-wrote and directed the episodes — no small feat. His touches shine through: glossy production, snappy editing and a Speilbergian directorial acumen. Compared to Star Trek (2011) it’s not impressive, but for basic cable it’s fairly astounding.

More importantly, for a first episode (split into two parts) the characters are all amazingly well-formed. Even the ones who do not feature prominently are presented with care. The main characters (Jack, Kate, Charlie) are most impressively drawn through the use of interaction with the other survivors, each other and tactically placed flashbacks. In fact, I’d say the narrative arc in LOST‘s first episode is some of the most ambitious story-telling on modern television. Abrams and company rely heavily on dramatic irony, unreliable characters and are sparing in the narrative details other shows would gladly spew out in the first act.

There is little to dislike in the pilot episode of LOST. I suppose that the one complaint that could be made (if it is really a complaint) is that the episode hints at very little of the weirdness that would later come to define it in future seasons. In fact, if I knew nothing else, I would have assumed that LOST was nothing more than an updated version of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s The Lost World. Very little in this first episode hints at the bizarre, soft science-fiction that would later be a series staple. Although Charlie’s last lines of dialogue are creepy and disconcerting enough to keep any mildly interested viewer coming back for more: “Guys, where are we?”

LOST makes an implicit promise that we are not in Kansas any more, and that is certainly something worth keeping an eye on.

Grade: A+

Spare Thoughts:

-LOST has a great sense of gallows humor (the “pen” gag at the beginning).
-Is Jack our hero or superhero? He seems a little too Superman in this first episode. I’m hoping the show tones down the “Everyman Boy Scout” shtick in later episodes.
-Did I see a Godfather reference?
-Locke is already incredibly creepy. I know where his character goes later on, and it’s disturbing to see how weird he is even at the very beginning. Some serious planning MUST have gone into the plotting of this show.
-There are a lot of abusive relationship here. Some more explicit than others.
-Some of the secondary and tertiary characters are a little archetypal. I suppose that’s alright for now.
-Good use of the medium w/r/t character development. I have a theory that the characters are really the only reason people kept coming back to this show week after week. I might be on to something there.