May 02 2008
Hoopla over “Lost” not worth it
Swapping theories about ABC’s “Lost” may be more enjoyable than watching the show these days. The web abounds with “Lost” forums in which viewers puzzle over anagrams and character connections. Jeff Jensen, senior writer at Entertainment Weekly, practically wrote a dissertation on yesterday’s episode, analyzing each reference and theme as though dealing with great literature.
As a “Lost” viewer myself, I doubt the series is worth it. Sure, there have been some kicks and bangs, some real shake-ups, especially early on. Locke suddenly able to walk, that was cool. Henry the hostage unmasked as the Others’ leader–riveting TV.
But the suspense proved unsustainable. Instead of taking us deeper into the mystery of the island, the writers kept throwing new wrenches into the story. When an explanation couldn’t be withheld a moment longer, the writers took the lazy way out and shouted, “Hey, look over there!”
Soon the flashbacks went from revealing to tedious, characters reduced to pawns in a hulking, ever-shifting mess of a plot. Those special “Lost” recaps are so helpful because in them the writers can refine what they didn’t get across the first time. They can tidy up the sloppy narrative for us. Now the writers are juggling about thirty wildly disparate elements–time travel, teleportation, and the supernatural, to name a few–and trying to convince us they can be fit together into a plausible whole.
