Jump to content


Photo

Lost: The Final Season


  • Please log in to reply
205 replies to this topic

#181 ZachTavlin

ZachTavlin

    Double A

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,230 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 May 2010 - 07:54 PM

Zach, still cannot follow this. Despite my first class education, I got no idea who Deluze or Guattari are, and (I truly mean no offense) the rest of your analysis is totally incomprehensible to me. Totally.

Deleuze's Wikipedia Page

Forget I said Guattari: he wrote a few famous books with Deleuze, and the concept of 'territorialization' is from their Capitalism and Schizophrenia.

The only part I can sort of de-code is your comment "In LOST, the montage, the close-up and the pathetic moment that serves as a story's climax sensitizes the viewer to things about characters and events that would otherwise go unnoticed." Your point seems to be that through the magic of savvy editing, the writers and producers manipulate otherwise insignificant events to create emotion in viewers that, in hindsight is false. You also seem to be saying that the reason the re-uniting scenes are effective is because they don't demand that the viewer draw on prior developments in the series to feel an emotional impact that seems more genuine and hard hitting than (at least for me) the final scene. (I think the re-uniting between Juliet and Sawyer is truly up there with the great devastating romantic scenes of all time. No joke - its Casablanca-worthy).

No! This is not at all what I mean. But it's interesting that you say this because it's very much Benjamin's point of view (and that of the post-Marxist critical perspective): for them, the same way the dumber aspects of Freud make the analysand necessarily link up slips to some pre-symbolic 'lack' in the subject, the camera provides an environmental perspective that isn't really there.

What I'm arguing is the opposite. The Deleuzian (check out The Movement-Image and The Time-Image; they are two of the best books ever written on cinema) posits that the camera consciousness re-orients viewer consciousness and forces a rupture in pre-conceived structures like linear time and relational positioning. This isn't about fooling people, it's about pure creation: "And if from the point of view of the human eye, montage is undoubtedly a construction, from the point of view of another eye, it ceases to be one; it is the purest vision of a non-human eye, of an eye which would be in things."

As for your second point, it's not as simple as distinguishing between stuff that relies on past developments and stuff that doesn't. Of course caring about characters requires time and history. But how is that characters can even have a history? They have histories because they move through space and alter their dispositions by 'overhearing themselves', which drives change through desire (toward a limit). They desire each other and develop tastes and distastes toward themselves.

But to honor whatever reality we pay for in 'getting to know' these characters, we should in turn desire the desiring-machines to continue desiring. This means confounding expectations (ours and theirs), not meeting them. It means not writing characters to fulfill some telos or the Hegelian Idea of what a good character should be. It means, paradoxically, doing the impossible: having people that fold back upon themselves only, that create the way we all create as we move through a world.
Posted Image

#182 gak29

gak29

    Made "The Show"

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,335 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Poughkeepsie, NY
  • Interests:Mets, Knicks, Jets, Rangers, Marist College, George Lucas's creative expenditures, analytic philosophy, and all facets of music

Posted 24 May 2010 - 08:10 PM

Deleuze's Wikipedia Page

Forget I said Guattari: he wrote a few famous books with Deleuze, and the concept of 'territorialization' is from their Capitalism and Schizophrenia.


No! This is not at all what I mean. But it's interesting that you say this because it's very much Benjamin's point of view (and that of the post-Marxist critical perspective): for them, the same way the dumber aspects of Freud make the analysand necessarily link up slips to some pre-symbolic 'lack' in the subject, the camera provides an environmental perspective that isn't really there.

What I'm arguing is the opposite. The Deleuzian (check out The Movement-Image and The Time-Image; they are two of the best books ever written on cinema) posits that the camera consciousness re-orients viewer consciousness and forces a rupture in pre-conceived structures like linear time and relational positioning. This isn't about fooling people, it's about pure creation: "And if from the point of view of the human eye, montage is undoubtedly a construction, from the point of view of another eye, it ceases to be one; it is the purest vision of a non-human eye, of an eye which would be in things."

As for your second point, it's not as simple as distinguishing between stuff that relies on past developments and stuff that doesn't. Of course caring about characters requires time and history. But how is that characters can even have a history? They have histories because they move through space and alter their dispositions by 'overhearing themselves', which drives change through desire (toward a limit). They desire each other and develop tastes and distastes toward themselves.

But to honor whatever reality we pay for in 'getting to know' these characters, we should in turn desire the desiring-machines to continue desiring. This means confounding expectations (ours and theirs), not meeting them. It means not writing characters to fulfill some telos or the Hegelian Idea of what a good character should be. It means, paradoxically, doing the impossible: having people that fold back upon themselves only, that create the way we all create as we move through a world.


UGH....late 20th century continental philosophy gives me a headache....
Posted Image

#183 DW

DW

    Double A

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,472 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Marlton, NJ/Boston, MA

Posted 24 May 2010 - 09:05 PM

I loved the finale, but I'm not about to write a research paper about it.

EJ, that review was great. Cleared up a couple things I wasn't 100% sure about.

Also...theory no one's talking about...

Locke and Boone didn't have female counterparts in the church...who remembers how Locke and Boone were before Boone died...a little Greek mentor-student thing going on perhaps? Just sayin...
#1 All-Time Profile Viewed Member.

#184 Doc

Doc

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,294 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maine
  • Interests:Family, movies, graphic novels, music, Mets, Knicks, cycling, and shoveling snow.

Posted 24 May 2010 - 09:49 PM

Dammit, who the hell is Rosebud?
We Live. We Learn. We Teach. Posted Image
"Living the dream, Baby."--Mr Met.


#185 goldglv17

goldglv17

    Admin Team

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,296 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bridgewater, NJ
  • Interests:For legal reasons I can not answer this on a public forum.

Posted 24 May 2010 - 09:53 PM

Dammit, who the hell is Rosebud?



The Polar Bear
:(



I still have no idea what's going on....


#186 goldglv17

goldglv17

    Admin Team

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,296 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bridgewater, NJ
  • Interests:For legal reasons I can not answer this on a public forum.

Posted 25 May 2010 - 12:02 AM

Quick 3 minute interview w/ Carlton and Damon on their favorite parts of the finale and a supposed big clue we were given in the season premiere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=nagGI_s13sQ
:(



I still have no idea what's going on....


#187 Nigel'sStillConfused

Nigel'sStillConfused

    Double A

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,367 posts

Posted 25 May 2010 - 08:58 AM

Deleuze's Wikipedia Page

Forget I said Guattari: he wrote a few famous books with Deleuze, and the concept of 'territorialization' is from their Capitalism and Schizophrenia.


No! This is not at all what I mean. But it's interesting that you say this because it's very much Benjamin's point of view (and that of the post-Marxist critical perspective): for them, the same way the dumber aspects of Freud make the analysand necessarily link up slips to some pre-symbolic 'lack' in the subject, the camera provides an environmental perspective that isn't really there.

What I'm arguing is the opposite. The Deleuzian (check out The Movement-Image and The Time-Image; they are two of the best books ever written on cinema) posits that the camera consciousness re-orients viewer consciousness and forces a rupture in pre-conceived structures like linear time and relational positioning. This isn't about fooling people, it's about pure creation: "And if from the point of view of the human eye, montage is undoubtedly a construction, from the point of view of another eye, it ceases to be one; it is the purest vision of a non-human eye, of an eye which would be in things."

As for your second point, it's not as simple as distinguishing between stuff that relies on past developments and stuff that doesn't. Of course caring about characters requires time and history. But how is that characters can even have a history? They have histories because they move through space and alter their dispositions by 'overhearing themselves', which drives change through desire (toward a limit). They desire each other and develop tastes and distastes toward themselves.

But to honor whatever reality we pay for in 'getting to know' these characters, we should in turn desire the desiring-machines to continue desiring. This means confounding expectations (ours and theirs), not meeting them. It means not writing characters to fulfill some telos or the Hegelian Idea of what a good character should be. It means, paradoxically, doing the impossible: having people that fold back upon themselves only, that create the way we all create as we move through a world.



I liked the show CHEERS alot.

BIG LOVE pretty good to.

Yeppers.......
Posted Image






#188 ZachTavlin

ZachTavlin

    Double A

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,230 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 May 2010 - 10:06 AM

I liked the show CHEERS alot.

BIG LOVE pretty good to.

Yeppers.......

I started out with (what I thought was) a rather exoteric take on the finale, but you misinterpreted it. So you have only yourself to blame.
Posted Image

#189 Nigel'sStillConfused

Nigel'sStillConfused

    Double A

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,367 posts

Posted 25 May 2010 - 10:46 AM

I started out with (what I thought was) a rather exoteric take on the finale, but you misinterpreted it. So you have only yourself to blame.



There's also a lot of fun shows on FOOD NETWORK and TRAVEL CHANNEL. "Chopped" and "Man vs Food" are particular faves.
Posted Image






#190 ZachTavlin

ZachTavlin

    Double A

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,230 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 May 2010 - 10:52 AM

There's also a lot of fun shows on FOOD NETWORK and TRAVEL CHANNEL. "Chopped" and "Man vs Food" are particular faves.

Posted Image

"The shame of being a man - is there any better reason to watch television?"
Posted Image

#191 Nigel'sStillConfused

Nigel'sStillConfused

    Double A

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,367 posts

Posted 25 May 2010 - 12:25 PM

Here is one snarky but well written piece that slammed the finale. Don't agree with all of it but it makes some decent points, I think.

http://scottalanmend...turns.html#more


Posted Image






#192 DW

DW

    Double A

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,472 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Marlton, NJ/Boston, MA

Posted 26 May 2010 - 10:42 AM

http://www.collegehu...m/video:1936291

LOL
#1 All-Time Profile Viewed Member.

#193 goldglv17

goldglv17

    Admin Team

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,296 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bridgewater, NJ
  • Interests:For legal reasons I can not answer this on a public forum.

Posted 26 May 2010 - 12:00 PM

http://www.collegehu...m/video:1936291

LOL



Hahaha some of those are hilarious.
:(



I still have no idea what's going on....


#194 goldglv17

goldglv17

    Admin Team

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,296 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bridgewater, NJ
  • Interests:For legal reasons I can not answer this on a public forum.

Posted 26 May 2010 - 06:05 PM

How it should have ended:

Posted Image
:(



I still have no idea what's going on....


#195 Nigel'sStillConfused

Nigel'sStillConfused

    Double A

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,367 posts

Posted 26 May 2010 - 06:41 PM

http://www.collegehu...m/video:1936291

LOL



That. All that.
Posted Image






#196 goldglv17

goldglv17

    Admin Team

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,296 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bridgewater, NJ
  • Interests:For legal reasons I can not answer this on a public forum.

Posted 08 August 2010 - 06:02 PM

The "Lost" footage hit the internet today! 12 glorious minutes, enjoy!

Here
:(



I still have no idea what's going on....


#197 metzol

metzol

    Mod Team

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,604 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Orange, NJ
  • Interests:Beer, Baseball, Bratwurst

Posted 01 September 2010 - 09:22 AM

Watched the last episode last night after a furious week long viewing session with the wife. I don't have much to add. Actually after reading Zach and Nigel's exchanges, I'm a bit intimdated.

But, the dvd had some cool extra features in which the writers and producers explain their motivations for the final season.

There was also a mini-episode in which Ben answers a couple of questions for two Darma warehouse workers who have been labeling boxes for the island for twenty years despite the fact that Darma was defunct. Anyway, Ben explains that the polar bears are simply Darma experiments to see how they live in a place with all that electrmagnetism.

Then Ben picks up Walter (or is it Michael? Whoever the black kid is who owned Vincent the dog.) at the same mental hospital that Hugo was in. He recruits him to work at the island for him and his boss, Hugo, who's is waiting in the back seat of the green hippie van.

The end.
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image


#198 metzol

metzol

    Mod Team

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,604 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Orange, NJ
  • Interests:Beer, Baseball, Bratwurst

Posted 01 September 2010 - 09:23 AM

And yeah, I liked the show, shmaltz and all. I wasn't trying to find the meaning of life. I just like to be entertained when watching network television and they did a good job.
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image


#199 DW

DW

    Double A

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,472 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Marlton, NJ/Boston, MA

Posted 01 September 2010 - 12:13 PM

Michael Emerson's apparently been approached to replace Steve Carell on The Office... :unsure:
#1 All-Time Profile Viewed Member.

#200 metzol

metzol

    Mod Team

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,604 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Orange, NJ
  • Interests:Beer, Baseball, Bratwurst

Posted 01 September 2010 - 01:29 PM

Michael Emerson's apparently been approached to replace Steve Carell on The Office... :unsure:

He has shown some comedic ability. I think he'd be excellent.
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users