Bert Vandecasteele

Blog

  • Ep. 04 – The Substitute

    One of the reasons I like LOST so much, is because you can rest assured that a) a bad episode is still good compared to most other shows and b) a bad episode will always be followed by a great episode. And because I believe that all is eventually right in this world, I am happy to anounce that, after having watched The Substitute, these rules still stand.

    The Episode…

    In the Sideways story, we got a lot of refreshing set-up. At a first glance, it didn’t seem like that exciting a story, but a lot of hints were given to the dramatic changes in Locke’s life if Jughead had exploded. Apparently, something in the explosion caused Locke to not have problems with his father. It’s a thought worth pondering: what could this have been? But, more importantly: how did John end up in the wheelchair, if not by his father’s hand? There’s probably some sort of couse-correcting involved, but what kind… it’s a mystery.

    Locke having a good relationship with his dad caused another thing: he is still together with Helen. I wonder if she’s going to get cancer and die like she apparently did in the main story? Or was that a lie by Widmore to get Locke back on the island? I liked how destiny shoved him away from Jack and back into Ben’s hands. It was clear that for the final season, the writers would want to squeeze the last life out of the wonderful Emerson-O’Quinn duo, but Ben as a high school teacher? …It blew my mind.

    The much more interesting reveal came on the island, however. In 2007, Sawyer willingly allied himself with the Monster, and thus got introduced to not one, but two of the core secrets to the series. Does this mean Sawyer is now a “bad guy”? My guess is that Sawyer will con our Man in Black in the end. It’d be like Sawyer to do that.

    The Questions…

    This episode made me fall in love with the nemesis. Apparently, he’s not just some diety, but was a man in the past, a man with an obviously backstorywound. Who’s the little kid he (and Sawyer) saw? Was it Jacob? Did they try to kill each other to discover the island’s secrets? I’d say the sickness is probably involved somewhere in there, but I can’t put my finger on it just yet.

    In other news, Richard Alpert took an interesting turn aswell. Never before have we seen him this twitchy and in the dark. After Jacob’s “what about you” to Ben and now his supposed betrayal to Richard, I’m starting to wonder which side is dark and which side is light all over again. Is the monster truly a bad guy? Funnily enough, Richard’s mentor role has been taken over by Ilana. She seems to know everything about everything, but isn’t really letting out more than she wants. I can’t wait for more information on her!

    And, going to one of the core answers in this episode: yes, it is destiny that they ended up on the island. They are possible candidates to fill Jacob’s shoes. At the moment, Hurley seems the most logical solution. But let’s ask ourselves: do we really want anyone to fill Jacob’s position? Would that be a satisfying ending?

    The second core answer – which was not in my questions list because I just figured they’d let it be – concerned the numbers. Apparently, the numbers fit right into Jacob’s love of lists: every number corresponds someone. At the moment, only Sawyer, Jack, Sayid, one of the Kwons and Hurley are still contending. Where is Kate? Wasn’t she touched by Jacob in the season five finale aswell?

    Next Week…

    If they keep the season one structure copying up, next week will be all about Jack. I wonder if he’ll meet someone interesting in his Sideways? I can’t imagine his life having changed so much – his dad even disappeared just like he did back in Season One. It’s so tempting to look at the cast list whether Christian is on it, but I promised myself I wouldn’t this season.

    Anyway, looks like we’ll be seeing more of the temple, the place where the action seems to be happening. Sun, Frank, Ilana, Ben and Richard should have arrived there by now. Poor Sun, missing Jin all over again.

    In All…

    This episode rocked my socks off. I felt so amazed looking at Jacob’s messy list and the implications it had. But it truly were the little things that made this so great: the little boy, Locke getting along with his father, Helen, Hurley’s car not getting hit by Locke’s because he is the luckiest guy on earth… There’s just so many details, I could watch it over and over again.

    Favourite Quote: BEN: Alright, I know I sound like a broken record, but how many times do we have to go over this? If you have the last cup of coffee, you remove the filter and throw it away. Fear not. I will make a fresh pot.
    LOCKE: Actually, I was just hoping for some Earl Grey.
    BEN: Tea? Now there’s a gentleman drink. I don’t believe we met. Ben Linus, European History.
    LOCKE: John Locke, Substitute.
    BEN: Well, Welcome.

  • Kyatapirâ (Caterpillar – Berlinale 2010)

    I have a confession to make. Because of a mix-up and the fact that we were three sharing one Berlinale pass, I was unable to go to any of the movies I had selected. Thankfully, I was not that fussed about it and got some different tickets. One of them was En ganske snill mann, which I have already reviewed. I had high expectations for that one, but it turned out to be rather bland. The other movie kind of scared me. But, as it turns out, I was pleasantly surprised and traumatized by Caterpillar.

    The way to tell the story

    Caterpillar is a Japanese movie telling the tale of a wife whose man comes home a cripple at the start of the second world war, in 1941. Because he lost his arms, legs and the ability to speak in China, he is considered a Japanese War God and it is up to his wife to take care of this highly honorable person.

    If you think this movie was all about stereotypical misery, you’re clearly mistaken. The first cliche ending gets broken right away: while the opening credits were rolling, I was sure the movie would end with a broken women choking her husband. I was pleasantly surprised to see the movie tackle this in the first five minutes, and then move on.

    By doing this, the story instantly became something else: it’s the story of a strong, Japanese woman in war-times, defending her honor and doubting her home country and war in general. Her crippled husband was just a catalist, a way to tell this story.

    Eat, sleep, something something

    And that’s the nice thing about this movie. It’s not deliberately showing you anything. It just tosses light on certain moments in the couple’s daily life. Through these moments, you are free to construct your own backstory. You are also free not to. It doesn’t matter and the story doesn’t care. It just happens as it goes along.

    It’s also good to see a movie making such good use of sex. One of the backstories revolves around it in its entirety, linking the two characters together (and I mean this not just in the physical sense). Sex goes from lust, to disappointment, to rape, to trauma, to an entire turnaround of the trauma and reversed rape. But once again, the movie doesn’t tell you this. You have to enter inside it and look around for a bit. Go for a walk in it.

    In All…

    I wish I could write like this. I wish I could hide a dramaturgic construct behind an iconic story that is actually just a theme setting for something much larger: a history, a country and a war. I can forgive the movie for taking the educational road (I know how many people died in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the second World War in general, thank you very much). It just doesn’t matter. The rest was just so impressive. There’s at least twenty movies behind this movie. Unbelievable.

  • En ganske snill mann (Berlinale 2010)

    There are some genres I like but have not really acquainted myself with. One of these is the wonderful Black Comedy – when I watched in Bruges, I was blown away by the way the story was executed. And I laughed, I really laughed. It was brilliant! So, in order to get a bit more Bildung, I watched En ganske snill mann at the Berlinale.

    Giving birth on that back seat of your Mercedes

    First things first: I did laugh. The story of an ex-convict trying to pick up his life after twelve years behind bars worked in all it’s absurdity: the women who all figured he must be sex-craved, the new room which was really more like a prison cell than his old one, the people blurting standardized walls of text in order to try and accept him…

    It was genuinely funny. But why am I only at the third paragraph and already out of things to say? Because, even if funny, the movie was kind of forgettable. It was a Norwegian take on in Bruges, even going so far as to including a midget and three crooks. Or is this some sort of black comedy convention I know nothing about?

    In All…

    I reckon that’s the problem: the decent photography and great acting couldn’t save the uninspired script. Surely, you’ll laugh, but in the back of your head you’ll think you’ve all seen it somewhere before. And that’s because you have. On top of that, the better jokes get completely stretched and repeated ad neauseam. Didn’t they know that a joke is only good once?

    Hey, by no means am I saying you should avoid this movie at all costs. You shouldn’t, it’s a pretty fun ride with some excellent photography in there. It’s like a slice of cake. You get at your grandmother’s. Every damn year. Only this time it speaks a different language. Still cake, though.

  • Ep. 03 – What Kate Does

    I don’t know what it was. Did the season premiere raise my expectations so high, or have I really turned into the thing I’ve dreadest most (an annoying fanboy)? It’s just that the last episode didn’t really set off a spark with me – nor most of the people watching it with me. Why?

    The Episode…

    During the first three seasons, the thought of a Kate episode coming up was an instant alarm bell: this episode would be boring as hell, feature Kate running from point A to B, kill some bad guys on the way, and generally be a pain in the ass. Season Four’s episode “Eggtown” brought a change to that: the episode featured an actual story I was interested in! The trend continued in Season Five: saving Ben was an interesting feat – even if it did feature running around and away. Again.

    But this episode? I just can’t justify the running anymore. It’s too much. The Kate parts of the episode (including the Sideways, who were more about Claire ) were so downright annoying that I was very disappointed – even for a Kate episode. Thank god two things saved it.

    First off, I liked the fact that one of the main characters of the second season made his return: the sickness. Yes, apparently there is a sickness, and the whole thing wasn’t just a Dharma trick to get the people to stay down the hatch. We also found out – with the usual bit of LOST extrapolation – that it is related to the Monster. Will Sayid be able to conquer it? He’s the one character where the “salvation” question has been the most prodominant. He’s also the character who, in my opinion, kind of needs it the most. Sawyer said it all.

    The second saving moment was – believe it or not – related to Kate, if only slightly. I’m of course talking about Sawyer’s goodbye to Juliet. Man, I really feel for the guy. I like how they’re really building towards his downfall: for that last five seasons, he’s slowly become a better person. Juliet’s death, however, plunged the guy right back into the abyss. I’m excited to see where they take this.

    The Questions…

    Apart from the whole sickness thing (which I didn’t mention in the questions because I considered it answered), this episode was very low on questions. Now we know that Claire is still on the island, and that she’s possibly gone insane – Rousseau style. That raises the questions: was Rousseau sick? Or was she telling the truth, and were her comrades the sick ones? Maybe I’m looking into it too much: she was probably telling the truth.

    Next Week…

    Next week’s episode, the subsitute, will probably feature Locke. I wonder if he’s going to call Jack up? I hope we’ll get a bit more insight on who this mysterious Man in Black (or the Monster) is. On the Sideways of things, I wonder if Locke really went on his Walkabout. And: who, if there was no island and hence no reason for Abaddon to recruit John, told him to go on it in the first place…

    In All…

    There were some interesting things going on in this episodes – some nice reveals. But seriously, if I’ve gotten this far, it means I’m not just in it for the reveals. I’m just not fond of Kate. I guess this is my problem – only my problem seems to be shared with everyone in the room.

    I sometimes wonder: where are the Kate fans? If every episode is written for a different audience, then who are the people they write Kate episodes for?

    Favourite Quote: SAWYER: He’s an Iraqi torturer who shoots kids, he definitely deserves another go around.

  • The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

    Creative problems ask for creative solutions. This must have been clear to Terry Gilliam when he was in the middle of shooting The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus and Heath Ledger died. Gilliam didn’t fret, he just shot down production for a month and looked for a solution – a solution which, in my opinion, makes the movie better than it might have been.

    George, no Barry

    The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus tells an ancient story: the pact with the Devil. Immediately, upon the introduction of this Becketian Devil, a little bell started ringing in my head: this movie was either going to be lame or not end well. You see, a Devil’s pact has a slight disadvantage: you can’t win.

    That doesn’t mean that Parnassus is automatically a dark movie: sure, it has its dark passages, but it doesn’t traumatise – not in the slightest. One could even say it’s quirky, kind of like Alice in Wonderland, we get to cast a look into someone’s mind; a look very similar to a feverish dream. Funnily enough, Parnassus’ mind is exactly what I imagined Terry Gilliams mind to be like.

    No review without Heath

    It would be impossible to talk about this movie without discussing Tony, Heath’s character. It should be no secret that Ledger died in the middle of shooting this film, and that – seeing how much time and money had been sunk into it – the team would have to come up with a solution.

    In my opinion, they did this brilliantly: Ledger, upon entering the imaginarium, is performed by Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell. If you think they shoehorned those actors in just to cover Ledger’s death, rest assured: they are a great addition to the story and even add more depth to it.

    I’ll start by saying this: every metamorphosis is treated like a reveal. This means that we, the audience, are just as surprised to see a different actor as Tony himself. But it’s not just that – it’s made into a vital character point: Parnassus doesn’t know who he is, we don’t know who he is… in fact, he doesn’t even know himself! The character feels like a chameleon – the change in actor just empathizes this.

    In All…

    I’m not saying The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is a stroke of genious. It’s not, it has flaws (the plot is kind of hairy, it’s very entertaining but never tense, …). I’m saying this movie shows how you can find a creative solution to a very unfortunate problem. And just for that, it’s worth going to go and see it.

  • Ep. 01-02 – LA X

    What an incredible trip it’s been – and this is only the beginning of the end. From the moment the episode LA X (a double feature, thank you very much nice people at ABC) started, I was sure it’d not only be a mood setter (like “Because you left”, the fifth season premiere), but a nailbiting, action-packed question answerer. We’re back for the swan song in the final season of LOST.

    The Episode…

    As per tradition, the season opener dropped us right into the action, confusing the hell out of us. At first, seeing Jack on the plane kind of disappointed me – after all, you know who you’re watching and when you’re watching, but as soon as he went into the bathroom (right after the crash didn’t happen) and spotted blood on his neck, I was sold. But the real shocker only came afterwards, when we were literally thrown out the window, into the water and witnessed what happened to the island: the bomb blew up in 1977, sinking the island and killing everyone. So it worked!

    Or did it? Apparently, in some other timeline – or, actually, in the right timeline (meaning the one we’ve been following for five seasons), the explosion didn’t work. Apparently, the bomb’s explosion didn’t sink the island but used the electromagnetism in such a way that it tossed our survivors back to 2007. I guess this is the Schrodinger’s cat principle, only with a deep underground shaft as a box and a hydrogen bomb as a cat. Time cannot decide whether the bomb prevented or caused the incident. Obviously, this is faux science, but if you’ve been swallowing this stuff for five seasons like I have, you learn to let go and just roll with it.

    It has to be said that, without the shadow of a doubt, the faux-2004 story was the more interesting one throughout the episode. The first hour was riddled with copies of Season 1, only slightly changed to make it feel irritable. Most notable amongst these moments was the introduction of Desmond, whom noone seemed to have seen other than Jack. Interesting.

    On the other hand, the happenings on the island were much more of an introduction than a continuation of the story: Jacob is dead, there is Smokey Locke, we’ve reached the insides of the Temple (not entirely convinced about this yet, by the way: sure, they used to be pirates, but I’m not too fond of the Asian guy), they revived Sayid (duh)… It all felt a bit like set-up. Except for one thing: our black guy is the monster.

    The Questions…

    Looking at the questions, I’m amazed at how many were addressed in some way. My favourite one is the obvious nudge towards Desmond’s story: apparently, Henry Ian Cusik is a credited cast member for this episode. That’s pretty interesting, considering he had less lines than Boone or any other former cast member (safe for Claire). Does that mean Eloise will have been right all along, and Desmonds trip is not over yet? Oh please, let it be so!

    What happened after Juliet banged the bomb is still a bit of a mystery. There are two timelines, but how will this play out in the end? Is one line real and one fake? What is this building towards? I’d be pretty disappointed if fifty percent of the season turns out to be fake, but I’m sure they have something interesting up their sleeve.

    And hurrah: the faux timeline means that Locke is still alive and well (even if paralysed) somewhere! I’m very excited about the idea of Locke and Jack becoming the best of friends, I hope they pursue this idea further. On the island, in 2007, however, Locke is really and truly dead. His place has been taken by… someone, who happens to have the power to change into a smoke monster. Interesting! This is hinting towards an explanation I’d been hoping to get for ages now: how Locke “looked into the eyes of the island” and “the beautiful thing he saw there”. Was this our black man playing a trick on Locke?

    Finally, on a less interesting note: yes, Richard was one of the passengers aboard the Black Rock. A slave, apparently. I hope we get a flashback about this; I’d love to see Richard in that time period and how it came to be that he stopped aging. But if we never see this, I can live with it aswell; the crumbs we’ve been getting suffice.

    Next week…

    Next week’s episode is titled “What Kate Does”, an obvious nudge towards the Season Two episode titles “What Kate Did”. Did she do something different in the Faux 2004? And why? I’m not too fond of Kate episodes, but seeing her get in the cab with Claire was an interesting idea. That means we will see Claire again – certainly off the island, but maybe in the 2007 timeline as well.

    I’m also very intrigued by this “Lennon” character, mostly because he’s performed by John Hawkes, an actor I love very much. Most people seem to know him from Deadwood, but I immediately recognized him as “the guy who put his hand on fire” in Me and You and Everyone we know by Miranda July. This role’s completely different than that movie, though. So I vote: less Asian guy next week, and more Lennon!

    In All…

    It’s great to have LOST back for one last time. I’ll be glad when it’s over, but I love it when new things get introduced: they always do it so graciously, in typical LOST style – even if the things they introduce are always very, very different. I mean, with the introduction of the “faux LA X” (a false flashback or a flash sideways, we don’t know yet), I think we’ve seen all possible narrative ways of playing with time now, right?

    In this way, the show has increasingly become a series about narration; about how to pursue a concept so far that it becomes an idea of its own. Maybe that’s why, despite the obvious flaws the show has, I like it so much?

    Favourite Quote: JACK: Nothing’s irreversible.

  • Where the wild things are

    where the wild things areHow does one go about making a movie based on a picture book fifteen pages long? Obviously, to fill ninety minutes, you’d have to add stuff here and there. But that raises a new question: how do you make sure your additions stay true to the source novel – if it’s really that short? Apparently, Spike Jonze, who ironically has Kaufman’s exquisite “Adaptation” on his name, found an answer.

    We’ll eat you up, we love you so

    There is so much to say about Where the Wild things are, but I’ll start by saying this: this movie is a perfect example of how book to movie conversions should be done. Writers are focusing on the dramatic aspects of their source materials too much, causing them to be too plot-driven. Books are gargantuan masses unable to make it to movies, so you basically have to choose what you want in there. What if the mistake writers have been making – and typing this, as a scriptwriter, will shock me – is that they have been trying to tell too much story?

    Maybe we ought to consider making less plot-driven conversions, and focus more on what we felt when we first read the book. For me, this is something The Lord of the Rings does aswell – but it’s even more apparent in Where the wild things are. Mind you: the story essentially stays the same. Max, acting like a wild thing, has a falling out with his mother and then sails away to a far away land where wild things live. He proclaims himself the king of wild things and then… they play.

    Pedagogical Island

    The movie is the same: it’s a movie about children’s games. In its most bare form, the movie is nothing more than that: there’s wild games (the igloo, the dust clod battle), there’s construction games (building the fortress), there’s just your general wildthingery (jumping on top of each other) and there’s the central game, the one that is inherent to the story: roleplaying. Because, of course, you’re watching a game Max is playing, a game in which Wild Things exist.

    Where the movie truly shines, is those very Wild Things . None of the Wild Things have a name or an identity in the book; in the movie they have been fleshed out into living, breathing, well-rounded creatures, who act like children, play wild games all day… but someday have to grow up.

    So what do you expect? Exactly: a typical story in which there are Good Wild Things and Bad Wild Things. Fortunately, this is not the case. It’s (a lot) better. The only conflict in this movie, is a conflict of age. And once I realized that, I suddenly realized something: I was Max. I was a kid once, I played Wild Games, I broke stuff and my mother would get mad at me… but most importantly: I had an older sister. I know what it felt like having a sister outgrow oneself and see her move on to different things. Not being able to play games with her anymore, because it just didn’t work.

    It’s almost Freudian. Being the combination of an education scientist and a scriptwriter, I can go on for hours and hours on the symbolism of this film – like the fact that it’s set on a pedagogical island. But that wouldn’t do it justice, because I felt something much deeper, something I had forgotten: what it felt like to see your best friends grow up around you. It meant losing them for ever. I felt the betrayal Max (who performed a brilliant, brilliant part) felt, I understood why he had to destroy Claires room.

    In All…

    And, with that destruction, I also had to understand why he had to leave. And I understood even more why leaving made me so deeply sad: because Max would one day be me once more, but a different me: the me I am today. No more play, no more games. He won’t (and can’t) go back there, the place where the Wild Things are is gone forever.

    It’s something we all experienced. Spike Jonze, should you ever read this: is this what you hoped to achieve? Or am I really insane?

  • Ep 00. – The day the island went boom: predictions for LOST Season 6

    So where were we?

    When we left our Losties, there were two groups roaming around on the island, without the possibility of them meeting. The reason? One of them was in the present, whereas the other was in 1977. Big shocker!

    Poor Ben. He just doesn’t see he’s being conned. He doesn’t see the forest for the trees, but to be quite frank: neither did I. I did not see it coming that John Locke was actually not John Locke, but Jacob’s nemesis, looking for a loop hole in order to kill him. It’s interesting, because not only did it raise a thousand questions about John Locke, more than that: it shifted millions of questions about Jacob to this new, mysterious “man in black”. Obviously, of both cliff hangers, this was the most shocking and daring one. It’ll probably also be the one they build upon for the series’ final moments – just my two cents.

    On the other, 1977 did most definitely have the tear-jerking, short term shock effect: in the final moments of the fifth season, Juliet – alone and slowly dying – detonated Jughead. This will obviously be the first question leading up to the sixth season: what happened when she did? Did she create a new timeline? Or restore the original 2004? Will Oceanic 815 land in Los Angeles? Time will tell!

    The Ten Questions

    Just like every year, I’ve got some questions I hope to see resolved in the next season. And, because this is LOST’s supposed final season, I have pulled out all the stops and tried to find the most pressing mysteries still surrounding the island and its characters.

  • Who is the „Man in Black“?

    • This is most definitely one of the biggest questions in the season five finale. He got introduced as such a threat, that by the end of the episode, when it was clear that he was inside John Locke’s body, his identity became one of the central pieces of the island’s mythology.

    My Guess: This guy reaches into the core of the show and was already hinted at in the Pilot episode by Locke himself: Backgammon. One side is white. One side is black. Wonder if the black guy is automatically the bad one? Interesting that I’m asking the “good-or-bad-guy” questions in a show that, thus far, had none of these. I’m excited to see where they take this!

  • What happened when Juliet blew up the bomb?

    • As already said, this will be the first question asked going into the sixth season. It’s the reason there’s no promotional stills for the first episodes, and why shooting (and almost even casting) is kept a secret.

    My Guess: I would personally lean towards an alternate universe theory. Something along the lines of: at first we make the audience believe that they truly did change the future, but there will a catch. Something will off and destiny will lead them back to the island. Even if their flight landed in LA.

  • What is Richard Alperts secret?

    • Richard Alpert is slowly starting to reveal his true form. Everything is still an enigma though: why doesn’t he age? Where did he come from? What is he doing there, exactly?

    My Guess: It’s gotten pretty clear that Richard is one of the Black Rock’s survivors. Jacob gave him the gift of not aging, in order to get something back from him. Protection? Advice? The questions about the Black Rock might not be at the centre of attention, but I do hope we get a solution anyway.

  • What is the smoke monster?

    • Every time we see the monster, we find out something more about it. So far, we’ve found out it’s a security system, protecting a temple, being able to take the form of the deceased, showing people their biggest moments of redemptive need. And if you’re not sorry for your sins… you die.

    My Guess: it’s almost a religious object. I think it’s one of the those things that will remain partially unsolved. I mean: how do you explain that Egyptians created a column of flying smoke in order to make an aggressive confession chair and not lose your credibility as a writer?

  • Does John Locke still exist somewhere, somehow?

    • One of the nasty after effects of the season five finale was the fact that John Locke is – we think – dead. This is weird: I’ve invested so much into his character and I liked him so much, but now I’m at a loss: am I supposed to be happy because Terry O’Quinn is still there, or am I supposed to be sad because I won’t see Locke again?

    My Guess: As Locke is such an important character to the show’s mythology, there’s going to be a catch. At the very least, we will see John Locke again. They kind of owe us that, no?

  • Will we find out whether Desmond or Walt are truly special?

    • When I was first finished with season five, I was really disappointed that Desmond had such a small role. Now, apparently, he hasn’t even been contracted as a member of the cast anymore. Yes, Desmond’s romantic story arc is over, but his mythological arc not so much: why is he special? The same question could be asked for Walt: is he really special?

    My Guess: I hope to see Desmond again. I think we will – I hope that will clear everything up (even if I doubt it). With Walt, I actually have trouble thinking of a moment where it was decided that he was actually special. The bird could have been a coincidence, the “him showing up in places he wasn’t supposed to” was really the smoke monster… Very, very doubtful.

  • Who are Adam and Eve?

    • When we saw Rose and Bernard in 1977, we knew is was going to be them. But now, as history’s been changed, is the answer really Rose and Bernard?

    My Guess: It’s really Rose and Bernard.

  • What’s up with Ilana? What about Frank?

    • It’s the same question every year: “What is up with the new cast members?” This year, the biggest enigma is obviously Ilana: who is she? How did she come to meet Jacob? Why was she severely burned and in need of healing? And Frank: how did the 22nd of September, 2004, come to pass for him? Why was he supposed to be flying Oceanic 815, but didn’t?

    My Guess: Frank used to be an alcoholic, so I guess that’ll be in there. I truly doubt we’ll see the long expected Frank Flashback, though. Ilana is a different nut to crack: her flashback will be of vital importance in order to understand the story. What it is though, I really could not imagine.

  • Is it destiny that they ended up on the island?

    • This is a question that has been asked since season one. Yes, I know, it has been made clear that they crashed there because Desmond didn’t push the button in the Swan, but still: why has destiny always been bringing them back to the island? What is destiny? What are they there for?

    My Guess: As a writer, this would be one of the hardest questions to answer without going overboard on the mythology or corny writing. I’m guessing there is a form of destiny, they do have a connection to the island. Why or what, though…

  • Will they, in the end, get off the island?

    • Even if the show’s premise isn’t really about getting off the island anymore, I do wonder: how will they end this thing? What will be the final image? How will they pull it off and what should we be waiting for with said ending?

    My Guess: for some reason, I keep picturing Aaron and Yi Jeon in my mind, walking over the island, which is completely burned down. But that’d be silly and it’s the reason why I don’t write this show. Also, I don’t live in LA.

    See you after the first episode!

  • Watchmen (Alan Moore)

    Watchmen comic, I am sorry. I am really, really, really, sorry. In my Watchmen movie review, I was really nasty to you. Said you were another generic comic about people doning spandex. I didn’t see, I just didn’t see: I didn’t see your literary genious, your premise to end all spandex wearing super hero comics for ever. Will you ever forgive me?

    The story should be known by now, but I can quote how it all started: “Last night, a comedian died.” It’s the first domino in a series of ever more (psychologically) gruesome sequences leading to a stunning (but very confusing) conclusion. It’s the typical voice of the eighties: the world sucks and we can’t do anything about it.

    It’s interesting that I didn’t see this in the movie, which is definitely one of the better comic-to-silver-screen translations out there. I guess it’s got something to do with the use of literature, the story inside the story. Watchmen uses a lot of alternative ways of storytelling and tells a lot of things all at once, something a movie just can’t do without ending up garbled. So the deeper, poetic meaning gets lost.

    There are so many things I could write about Watchmen, but as they would all amount to fanboyish talk about the comic’s coolest moments (Doc Manhattan on Mars being the cream of the crop), I’ll just shut up and tell you all to read it.

  • His Dark Materials (3): The Amber Spyglass (Philip Pullman)

    Well, it took me a while, but I’m finally through. Whew. His Dark Materials concludes its trilogy in the Amber Spyglass, and it shows: this book is about double the size of The Subtle Knife, part two of the trilogy, and about five times as many things seem to happen. Which is not necessarily a good thing.

    Authority’s End

    The third book doesn’t really try to hide it anymore, and swiftly fills us in on what’s actually going on: the Authority – aka God – is an old dictator sitting atop a huge mountain, trapping the dead in the underworld. And this has to stop. And that has to be done by Lyra and Will. And so on, and so on. Other than Lyra and Will, there’s also the story of Mrs. Coulter, that of Lord Asriel, the one with Serafina Pekkala, the other concerning Mary Malone and then some more spread around here and there.

    That’s quite the story – even if you’ve got nearly five hundred pages to tell it in. The storylines jump all over the place, but they still come together more or less at the end. It’s a miracle how Pullman even came close to pulling this feat off: I was under the impression that he made most of it up while he went along (except for the whole “death of God” thing), but he still did have an ending in mind.

    The end of the end

    The ending – and by that, I mean the last twentysomething pages of the book – is easily the best part about it: it’s bittersweet; I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything more bittersweet than this. And, to be honest, it’s just about the only part in the Amber Spyglass that comes even close to the brilliance of the Golden Compass. It’s too much of everything, there’s too many things going on, so I don’t know whom to care about still.

    So I end up caring for no one.

    It’s a shame, because the characters are beautiful. Mary Malone is a dear – it’s just that I had her a nibble of her for breakfast and then was stuffed the rest of her down my throat in the end. It doesn’t work that way. Father Gomez seemed like an interesting character, but I guess looking inside the oven made the cake look a lot bigger than the crumb it was. I never really got to know anyone, except for Will, Lyra, Mrs. Coulter and Lord Asriel. And even then: the bombastic effort at which the latter two flung their storyline at me was way too plot-oriented. If only there had been a bit of a breather now and again.

    In all…

    Sooner or later, you’ll have to admit it: there’s a lot of stuff lacking in the Amber Spyglass. The story’s all over the place, there’s too many characters around to even remember all of their names… and then, when it comes down to it: the end of the authority is pretty much an empty shell, an anticlimax.

    I’m trying to find out where it went wrong. Should Pullman have toned down his story, so that he could make it into a more coherent whole? Or did he simply need more time to tell it? To be honest, I think Pullman started losing focus on what was important partway through The Subtle Knife. Maybe he just needed to have planned it all a bit better?