Not only did I miss the paper in Charlie’s hand, I managed to miss the speculation over it too. Ah well, I shall stick to my suspicions over the breakfasts he prepares for Claire in my search for a wrong un in the beach camp.
Quote:
During a talk over coffee some time in the near future, Christian suggests to Claire that euthanasia might be the best route for her mother, because her situation is so seemingly hopeless. Perhaps, he suggests, her guilt for her role in the accident is what is fueling her disagreement with his suggestion, rather than any real Hope that Claire might have for her mother's future.
This is a tough one – there’s a not inconsiderable something to be said for knowing when to give in and call it a day …but I understand the indomitable Indiana Jones spirit too. Thing is; Claire’s mom’s fight is Claire’s mom’s fight – not Claire’s.
Quote:
Some questions about Claire's flashback: Did it shock you to hear Christian Shepherd suggest that Claire (or someone else) euthanise her mother?
No: in that I’m not ethically opposed (the near certain likelihood that this liberty would be abused though, is shocking – but not surprising).
Yes: in that I didn’t expect to hear such a suggestion from an American.
Quote:
Did it shock you or did you know that Christian Shepherd was Claire's father? Do you really think that Claire was responsisble for the car accident?
Nope. I knew already. Or rather had heard the rumours for months and then another rumour that the rumour was confirmed true. Not that I’m saying I believe that of course.
Claire was responsible for the accident only in as much as her mom was for rowing with her whilst the car was being driven (by a young and presumably inexperienced driver – Claire barely looks old enough to be permitted to pierce ears) or the road planners that allowed trucks and cars on the road together or the congestion were.
It was an accident, one of those things, an unforeseeable event (statistics aside), part of some cosmic conspiracy if you like, but I don’t think seatbelt wearing, didn’t get thrown through the windscreen, Claire, was to blame.
Quote:
Desmond tells Claire about his visions of Charlie's impending death. Claire eventually tells Charlie that she knows about Desmond's visions and she'll help him fight this sorry Fate. She hasn't given up Hope on him...
Her ‘buck the system’ stance is unexpected coming from a woman who may believe the position of the planets (does she acknowledge the influence of Pluto I wonder? Unknown until living memory and now downgraded) at the moment of birth – conception being retro-affected presumably as gestations differ – affect a person’s personality and ‘forecast’.
Still have to admire her supportive ‘have a go’ approach. It is too soon to call it quits.
Her attitude appears unchanged since meeting her dad – perhaps she’s afraid of the separation a death inevitably brings. She hoped to beat that with her and Aaron’s baptisms – they’d be able to stay together – and the penalty Charlie had imposed for every one of his sins, was to be refused access to her or to Aaron.
One could read those as acts of punishment as much as Claire’s attempts to protect her baby.
(Anyone hear, by the way, about Limbo being abolished by the Pope? Unbaptised babies are allowed into heaven now, so only Claire need have been baptised.)
Quote:
Did Claire's initial statement of support lead to the Charlie that we saw at the end of Season Three - the one that sacrificed his life to save Claire, Aaron and everyone else?
I don’t know that everybody else figured in Charlie’s thinking; he asked Desmond for reassurance that Claire and the baby would get off the Island – that was all.
Quote:
In other words, is it up to us to decide what paths we take to a destination that's already been pre-determined? Or, rather, is our ultimate destination, or what we do with our lives, something that's up to us? Are our lives built on the Choices we make, good ones and bad ones included?
Sound like it in a nut shell. Our deaths are pre-determined, we WILL die, but how we live is up to us …with the proviso Mr Eko noted so succinctly (but paraphrased here); you gotta play the cards you’re dealt – and give the best game you can.
Quote:
During their travels, Mikhail tells Kate that he arrived on the Island via submarine when he was a young man. When she wonders why he or anyone would stay on the Island all this time, he snobbily says that she wouldn't understand,
Kate runs! There’s no evidence for her being capable of roots down commitment. She may desire what Tom and his wife had, but she ‘doesn’t do taco night’. Not guilty on the charge of snobbery, but suspect in creating a curiosity and a desire to meet the grade that might later be manipulated (and yes John, I am looking at you …DON’T FALL FOR IT!).
Quote:
And yes...this is the episode that Locke pushed Mikhail into the electric fence because, seemingly, of his near-comment that the Locke that Mikhail knew was "para...".
I dispute that (see below); John was for killing Mikhail before the incident it’s suggested prompted it.
Quote:
How did Mikhail know that Locke was paralyzed?
We don’t know he did – well I don’t know he did. Some of you may; but I only heard a prefix.
However; in my head that prefix takes on a life of its own and I do hear things:
The John Locke I knew was parachuting in a thunderstorm and was lost. The John Locke I knew was paraskiing off-piste and killed in an avalanche. The John Locke I knew was Paraguayan. (where it isn’t a prefix at all)
Or the far more likely: The John Locke I knew was paramilitary. My favourite though is:
The John Locke I knew was Paraence (the Para in Brazil) Do you speak Portuguese Mr Locke?
There’s a Deus Ex Machine moment then and John is prevented (or spared) from answering lol, but I noticed only today that the sequence P-A-R-A appears in this episode’s title. J
Quote:
Compare Locke pushing Mikhail into the fence and Cooper pushing Ben out the window? What are the similarities in their motives for doing such sickening things?
One was attempted murder, the other a possibly injurious or fatal experiment using a subject who wasn’t a friend. I shudder to think of the fuss had John used an innocent animal when an evil Other was at his disposal.
Coop attempted to kill John and ‘got what he had coming’ (murdered) – Mikhail led the Losties astray about the fence not working and got what he almost had happen to them; fried.
Quote:
And finally, when will Claire and Jack find out that they are related?
Are they? Mommy’s baby’s daddy’s maybe: Christian and Margo’s marriage wasn’t all that, Sam’s not Kate’s dad, Baby Kwon was anybody’s guess for a while…
SOMEWHERE in one of the multiverses, my Kate being Jack’s half-sister through Margo, idea holds water …did I hear someone say ‘sieve’?
Quote:
Hey! Happy New Year, you all, everybody!!!
Hey! so far, so good, ta! Back at you all everybody.
Despite Desmond's continued efforts to stop Charlie from dying, it seems like it was bound to happen. Why? Do you believe in Fate? Do you think that the way that you're going to die is already known somewhere out there in the Cosmos? In other words, is it up to us to decide what paths we take to a destination that's already been pre-determined? Or, rather, is our ultimate destination, or what we do with our lives, something that's up to us? Are our lives built on the Choices we make, good ones and bad ones included?
I don't believe in fate and predestination, but I think the conclusion of S3 has taken choices and free will out of Losts story.
Quote:
Our deaths are pre-determined, we WILL die, but how we live is up to us …
In real life, yes, but I didn't feel like that was the message the writers put across in this particular storyline. Or if it was their message I wasn't convinced by it. We aren't all destined to die in our twenties unless we have health problems. Ironically Charlie did have a serious health problem - heroin addiction - which could have put him in an early grave. But over S1 & 2 he fought and overcame that problem. In S3 he was healthy and recovered. This is when he is told he will die. It makes Charlie's earlier 'choices' to save himself and make a fresh start seem very futile.
In 'Par Avion' Desmond chooses to save Charlie and Charlie chooses to follow Desmond's instructions and avoid death. These are the choices Desmond and Charlie make when they are given a 'free' choice. But by the end of S3 fate takes away their freedom and forces them into their destinies. Fate does this by using visions of Penny, Claire and Aaron as emotional blackmail. When a man's loved ones are used as bargaining chips I don't think it is fair to say he has a free choice. If Charlie had a free choice he would have chosen to live. This is clear from his reaction to surviving his dive.
Alternatively FF Jack wanted to die. Given a free choice Jack would have chosen to jump to his death. But once again fate manipulated the situation with some emotional blackmail that Jack wouldn't resist. The message is clear. Lostees are on a set path. If they try to step away from their path then the universe will whip them back into line. They have no choices. Any choices they make that don't fit fates plan will be course corrected.
Quote:
I don’t know that everybody else figured in Charlie’s thinking; he asked Desmond for reassurance that Claire and the baby would get off the Island – that was all.
Thats because Desmond's vision only featured Claire and Aaron getting on the helicopter. It was presumed by both of them that the helicopters were coming for everyone else too. Charlie says to Bonnie and Greta that the helicopters are gonna come and "rescue all my friends."
Quote:
Claire's support of Charlie was a very sweet moment and it's just too bad that they never were given their due as a couple.
I find Claire's support of Charlie very hollow in retrospect. She tells him "I'm not giving up on you either Charlie. It's gonna be okay. You're gonna be okay. We'll get through this together." The promise of this statement was not fulfilled. After this episode Claire doesn't ever talk to Charlie about his death prophecy again, let alone support him through it, not even when he's heading off on a suicide mission.
Last edited by Captain_Falafel; 01-08-2008 at 12:07 PM.
Despite Desmond's continued efforts to stop Charlie from dying, it seems like it was bound to happen. Why? Do you believe in Fate? Do you think that the way that you're going to die is already known somewhere out there in the Cosmos? In other words, is it up to us to decide what paths we take to a destination that's already been pre-determined? Or, rather, is our ultimate destination, or what we do with our lives, something that's up to us? Are our lives built on the Choices we make, good ones and bad ones included?
(Unless I'm mistaken about why Charlie was in Australia to board 815)
The only reason Charlie was in Australia was to reunite with his former junkie brother who had relocated to Australia for treatment. Had Liam never succombed to drugs in the first place, he may never have ended up in Australia, and Charlie never would have gone there to find him, never would have boarded flight 815, never would have crashed, and never would have pushed the button. So, it's because of these poor choices that he and his brother made that he ultimately ended up swimming down to the Looking Glass and saving everyone. Had he never embarked on his drug addicted path of destruction, would he have still ended up on the Island? Would fate have seen too it? Would the Universe have course corrected itself in this case? I guess what I'm considering is that perhaps the Island chose Charlie b/c of his flaws. Maybe the Island afforded him an opportunity for redemption that he would not have had otherwise. Maybe if Charlie had not been flawed, he would not have been the right one for the job.
I rewatched this last night, and spotted an interesting little tidbit:
Patchy to Locke: But you, John Locke, I have a memory of you, from long ago. But the John Locke I knew was para...
He gets cut off, but I kept thinking whether they were alluding to Locke's TT as early as S3? To hear Patchy say he'd met Locke a time ago...
Also, it seemed he was about to say 'paralyzed' when he stopped speaking. Locke wasn't paralyzed on the island, so would Patchy have traveled to the mainland to check him out and keep an eye on him at some point, on Richard's behalf?
Do you guys think we'll get a resolution to that moment? I know it isn't huge, but it niggles. Besides, I'd like to know that Patchy (the miraculous resurrector) is really, truly dead.
I rewatched this last night, and spotted an interesting little tidbit:
Patchy to Locke: But you, John Locke, I have a memory of you, from long ago. But the John Locke I knew was para...
He gets cut off, but I kept thinking whether they were alluding to Locke's TT as early as S3? To hear Patchy say he'd met Locke a time ago...
Also, it seemed he was about to say 'paralyzed' when he stopped speaking. Locke wasn't paralyzed on the island, so would Patchy have traveled to the mainland to check him out and keep an eye on him at some point, on Richard's behalf?
Do you guys think we'll get a resolution to that moment? I know it isn't huge, but it niggles. Besides, I'd like to know that Patchy (the miraculous resurrector) is really, truly dead.
I don't think Patchy had met Locke through time travel. At least of what we have seen. I believe that he was referring to Locke as being paralyzed because of the information he gathered for all the survivors as soon as 815 crashed on the island.
I don't think Patchy had met Locke through time travel. At least of what we have seen. I believe that he was referring to Locke as being paralyzed because of the information he gathered for all the survivors as soon as 815 crashed on the island.
I just rewatched and agree with that. . . .I think the only Lostie that knew that Locke had been paralyzed is Walt when Locke told him a "secret" in S1, and Locke wanted to keep it that way by pushing Patchy through the sonic fence. (However, Patchy and the other Others may have known about Locke time traveling through Richard, since if WHH holds true, future Locke would have already met Richard in the 1950's. . . I think. . . brain hurts)
I enjoyed this episode. I'd like to respond about Charlie. I don't believe it was Charlie's FATE to die. I think Eloise lied to Desmond about the whole course correction thing. Desmond just harped on Charlie so much about "you hafta die brotha" that Charlie believed it. But, I think that Claire telling Charlie that their going to get through this "together" is significant. And I'm hoping Season 6 will bring Charlie, Claire and Aaron back together again.
I just rewatched and agree with that. . . .I think the only Lostie that knew that Locke had been paralyzed is Walt when Locke told him a "secret" in S1, and Locke wanted to keep it that way by pushing Patchy through the sonic fence. (However, Patchy and the other Others may have known about Locke time traveling through Richard, since if WHH holds true, future Locke would have already met Richard in the 1950's. . . I think. . . brain hurts)
Right!! Richard met Locke in 1950s but he didn't know he was paralyzed. So Patsy got the intel from information he gathered after the crash.
I liked this episode a lot more this go-around, probably because I picked up some connections I missed the first time.
The first thing that jumped out at me were the connections between Charlie and Carol Littleton. The following is from a post I made earlier today, spoiler-fonted for size (and because I'm too lazy to type it again )...
Spoiler:
I just re-watched Par Avion, and it occurred to me that Carol Littleton may be the perfect example of someone who is "dead, but also here". The episode opened with Claire awakening after an automobile accident and climbing through the shattered windshield to get to her severely injured mother. The scene then cut to the island, where Claire woke up to breakfast on the beach, courtesy of Charlie. Is there a parallel between Charlie, who eventually chose to accept his course-corrected death, and Carol, who managed to escape death against all odds?
Although this is purely speculative, the subsequent scenes may suggest that Charlie and Carol represent two ends of the spectrum of the "living dead". Aware of the dire consequences should Charlie join Claire in her bird catching expedition, Desmond interrupted their picnic with a strong sugggestion for Charlie ("Of all the things you could choose to do today, hunting with me might be your best option'). Likewise, Christian paid an unwanted visit to Claire after the car accident, letting her know that "now might be the time to look at other alternatives...other ways to relieve her (Carol's) pain". In each case, I'm guessing that the one doing the suggesting was aware that death/fate had been temporarily put on hold. Christian admitted as much when he told Claire "your mother is alive, but she's not really living". It's interesting, though, that Christian's response was to recommend euthanasia, as opposed to Desmond's active defiance of Charlie's 'fate'.
Charlie eventually 'gave up the ghost' and accepted his own fate, when given the opportunity to look beyond himself and be of service to his friends. But what about Carol Littleton? Was she given a similar opportunity? As we were shown following young Ben's encounter with Sayid's bullet, sometimes one's fate may rest in the hands of another. Christian certainly seemed clear that, at that moment, Carol's fate rested upon Claire's decision. And he urged her, like Charlie, to step outside of herself and look at the big picture ("Do not keep your mother alive for the wrong reasons. Now there is hope, and there is guilt...and, believe me, I know the difference").
On the surface, the efforts of Desmond and Christian seem diametrically opposed. On one hand, life apparently preserved at all costs, and on the other, a recommendation that hope be dashed. But what if our perspective is limited? If my hunch is correct, then death, on the island, may represent not only loss, but opportunity. Given the few things we know about the nature of Jacob and his nemesis, Charlie's death seems to reek of 'progress'. Perhaps Desmond somehow knew that, given the proper opportunity, Charlie would choose to use his death to mark himself as one of Jacob's (since it only ends once, might as well have it mean something, right?).
Carol's miraculous recovery, on the other hand, had one net result, as far as I can tell...the eventual fulfillment of Malkin's worst nightmare, that Aaron would be separated from Claire and raised by another. But wait a minute, you say, Carol Littleton's not an Other. I'm not so sure, actually. So far we've only seen one place capable of bringing someone back from certain death...the Temple. What if Carol was somehow transported to the island under direct orders from the MiB, and given her life back, as well as an opportunity to be with her long lost grandson? Like Ben, she would not remember the details. And the price for this recovery would have been, simply, servitude. Just sayin' .
Claire's version of the accident differed from that of the truck driver, who told the officer that Claire had hit him. I wonder whether there was some island involvement here, similar to Edmund Burke's unfortunate encounter with the bus, or the 'accidents' involving Michael and Emily Locke.
Rousseau, when explaining to Kate why she hadn't asked any questions about Alex, asked her to "imagine sixteen years from now, you're told he's (Jack's) still alive, but in your heart, you know that he wouldn't remember you, he wouldn't know you, he wouldn't even know that you ever cared about him...". Did Kate see a glimpse of her own future in Danielle, should Jack's reset succeed?
In response to Mikhail's comment that the sub's underwater beacon was out of commission, Kate asked him why anyone would want to come back to the island. His response, IMO, tells us all we need to know about the Others...
Quote:
MIKHAIL: You are not capable of understanding, because you are not on the list...The man who brought me here, who brought all of my people here, he is a magnificent man...You are not on the list because you are flawed, because you are angry, and weak and frightened.
Although it is Jacob who has apparently summoned all the visitors to the island, the MiB may have found a way to infiltrate Jacob's 'tribe', injecting his own version of destruction, corruption and fighting in the process. In a post-9/11 world, I'm guessing that TPTB may be sending a message to us regarding blind faith and false gods.
This time around, it struck me that Locke pushed Patchy into the sonic fence so that his cover would not be blown ("the John Locke I knew was paral-..."). Why was it so important that his 'healing' be kept under wraps? My guess is that the answer to this question may be similar to that of the 'rhetorical' question Desmond asked Claire in the preceding scene ("Why wouldn't I want you to catch the birds?"). I'm thinking that the MiB doesn't really want John to think about this question at all, lest he shine too bright a light on his own 'island fixation'.
The image of migrating birds vs. trapped birds is interesting. Although Carole Littleton was 'trapped' in a comatose body, Claire turned on the "tele" to reveal birds in flight. And in the episode's final scene, Kate first looked up to see Claire's flock leaving the island, then over to the barracks, where Jack was voluntarily playing catch with his captors.
And to address the whole 'Charlie palmed the note' question, my take is that it was either a production error, or that it represents two different iterations. After all, the shot where we saw the note in Charlie's palm was followed directly by Claire's release of the gull, with note attached.
ETA: For those keeping track of visual discrepancies, there were at least two of them within the same scene (the scene where pregnant Claire visited her mother in the nursing facility). The first was a large red chair which could be seen beneath the television when Claire first entered the room, but was nowhere to be found when the room was shown from a different angle. The second was the placement of several items on Carol's bedside table (including...drumroll, please...what appeared to be a picture of Carol sitting underneath a large palm tree on a beach).
)...
and
and 