Oedipal LOST ... Beatrix Kiddo again as a puppet
This entry is a correction to be made long ago but had left open for vagrancy. Luckily Paula in his commentary to the "Lost ... my only friend the end" has reminded me.
The text in question was written two or three hours after emission live the last chapter that made the channel Cuatro. It introduced an element that I thought was essential to understand the end: when Jack closed his eyes and melted in black, were pictures of the beach with the remains of the plane as they were in the pilot but no signal of life. The symmetry plane of the eye (just the eye, opening and closing, not the rest of the sequence) in addition to drawing from the beach with the remains of the plane and no survivors, would be a very strong support for an interpretation as to indirectly I argue in this post.
series had never shown images beyond the black curtain closed each episode, and if they chose to do so in the final episode was because the images involved were of great transcendence for the story. In this case little mind the old shoe, or dialogue, or anything contained between the plane of the eye opening and closing eye level. Because this falls within the mind of Jack dying. The "reality" series would be reduced to four levels: (a) eye that opens in "the very first stage," (b) subjective shot of the sky and vegetation from the point of view of the eye that opens, (c ) the eye is closed again in "the very first stage," (d) level of the beach with the remains of the plane, quietly and without any indication of life. All others would fall between (a) and (b) but unable to alter it to be developed in another different level of "reality" set by the series. In this reading
structural similarity with the story of Bierce would be surprising. The reality of the story would occupy more space in the narrative, because it would include opening up the trapdoor beneath the feet of hanged. The series would be equivalent to all the vicissitudes that passes from character to escape and get home. And the final shot of the man hanging from the bridge back to the plane of "reality." What if anything happened they told us? If it happened, but in another dimension (you can interpret realistic-key-mental hallucination or fantasy-key opening to a different level of material reality as we know). In this sense it could defend my thesis on the use of Bierce's story as a literary inspiration to close the story in Lost.
Everything seems very well founded, except for two reasons: ALL THE INTERPRETATION IS BASED ON A FALSE PREMISE AND OWN SERIES HAS REJECTED THE ASSIMILATION WITH THE TEXT OF Bierce.
then you might wonder why I wrote the entry. I wrote it because I did not discover the falsehood until I could not see the episode in its original version a few days later, and because I did not remember the game in the series with the story of Bierce until later still (when reviewing some literature on the first season). Now share with you my findings:
THE LOST FALSE
level ends with Jack's eye closed and the abrupt cut to stop the black screen. As each chapter ended. The plane of the beach with the remains and no survivors were not part of the final episode. Why broadcaster issued them? Surely to have background images to pass as he began the gathering after the issuance. According to a friend, these images correspond to a documentary on the filming of the pilot episode which showed the sets. Consequently, my interpretation is based on a false statement on the text.
So important are the images that the director placed before or after the credits? The film is a common practice, and in many cases, the director provides relevant information in these sequences. For example, Tarantino in Kill Bill Vol 1 introduces fundamental sequence before the titles, or in the enigma of the pyramid (aka The Young Sherlock Holmes), in the sequence after the final credits we learn that the rival of the young protagonist the film was Moriarty. Nature "film" of LOST has been highlighted since its inception. So there was no been amazing to use these spaces to introduce key elements for understanding the narrative.
But in this case the sequence does not exist. All the interpretation falls to be supported on a falsehood. FAILURE
During the broadcast of the first and second season, many fans saw the similarity between what happened on the island and Bierce's story "The Bridge on the River Owl." The characters would be seeking redemption, trying to close the conflicts that plague them, and they would in a space "between life and death": the island. ("Purgatory? Collective mental constructs? Hallucination individual? Parallel Dimension "?). Nature would not matter, just mind the role fulfilled in the story and allowing the characters do. But if the similarity with the story was true, then they would be dead last. And possibly it had been throughout the series.
Bierce's story had already served as inspiration for movies and television series. In 1962 a French version won the award for best short film at the Festival de Cannes. The producers twiligh Zone bought it and released on the fifth season of the series. His influence in the movie Jacob's Ladder 1990 also is undeniable. But
LOST producers decided to close this avenue of interpretation. In the chapter "The Long Con" (number 13 of the second season). Locke is looking for answers in a book and give a copy of "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge", but he shakes it and leave it aside. The message is clear: in this book are not the answers you seek.
The proposed interpretation would be based on that input, as well as on a false premise as evidenced in the previous section, a structural similarity to a story that the producers of the series explicitly rejected one of the chapters of the second season .
END ...
If the argument with which it defends a claim (in this case the interpretation of a visual text) is not solid, because false statements used as premises, or that the other party openly rejected, "then there is no reason to accept the truth of the conclusion. Not mean it is totally false. Only with that argument can not be defended. If you propose further separate arguments (which were worth from other unquestioned assumptions), then have to re-discuss the issue.
Is it possible to build these arguments allow us to continue defending the Lost-Bierce connection? It would be an interesting exercise (which I proposed last year a few students) and can generate an interesting debate. But it would be a bold interpretation, is contrary to the closest reading the text. Which would require a more argumentative effort.
For now, I agree with you Paula. As the defended my interpretation must be rejected. If I have time this weekend-which is unlikely, "back to the central question: what global interpretation of the story is right? At that time Paul will take the interpretation as a starting point to begin the discussion. I would like to be encouraged to join it all you've seen the series and are interested to test the overall reading you have done. The
0 comments:
Post a Comment