Lost: "Because You Left" Season 5, Ep. 1

Last night I wrote a long and introspective look into the heart of The Dan, one which, I think, was so insightful it would spare me a good year of therapy sessions.

Naturally, I deleted it immediately :)

Instead, at the request of Sarah J I present my thoughts on the season opener of Lost. It is a long standing tradition of mine to review and analyze each episode of the show, but I was forced to DVR last weeks episode and watch it later.

The two of you who care - that would be the before mentioned Sarah J and myself - will have to forgive the delay.

(btw Sarah - register on google and sign up as a 'follower' already. Geesh.)

So, let's start off-island.

Jack's still a recovering, shattered druggie. No change there. But Kate has a lawyer knock on her door and briefly show her what he claims is a court order demanding a blood test to confirm the maternity of her 'son' Aaron. The lawyer will not divulge the name of his client.

Now, to me, this is shady. Shouldn't this guy have approached her through more formal means? Why did Kate immediately buy his story? Even if true, this is the kind of thing that she could drag out in the court system for years. It would have been prudent to attack this head on, even if only prolonging the inevitable. But Kate being Kate, her first instinct was to run for the hills in a haphazard exodus.

So who ordered the test? It could be Ben's group, as it flushed Kate into the open and knocked her off balance, but then why didn't they seize the moment and bring her into the fold? No, my vote remains with Sun, who has now paired up with Charles Widmore and obviously holds a grudge against Kate and Jack for the 'death' of Jin.



[Memo to Sun: yeah, I suppose with some creative thinking you could hold them responsible. But Ben, Widmore, the Others, and, oh, your deceitful adulterous self would hold the most long-range blame for him being there, no?

And for the record: Sun was great for four seasons, but in the bad-girl/vixen role she comes off as so soap-opera it's laughable.

Meanwhile, Sayid has broken Hurley out of the mental hospital. In a wicked and original fight scene Sayid is knocked unconscious by drugs, but not before dispatching two men. Sadly, Hurley is seen with a gun in hand, leading all of greater Los Angeles to believe him a killer.


Hurley retreats to his parent's house and eventually delivers Sayid to Jack's care. Meanwhile Ben shows up to recruit Hurley, but in a burst of independence he runs outside and surrenders to the police to avoid falling into Ben's hands.

Ben is stunned and reports his findings to the White Haired Woman. We know she is connected to Desmond and in this episode is ID'd as a possible mother for Daniel Farraday. She repeats that he has no choice: bring them all back, or the world is doomed.

Who's stalking Hurley and Sayid? It isn't Ben, not unless he set it up only to have it backfire. Widmore? Possibly.

Oh yeah, f you read between the lines it seems John isn't really dead, or if he is it's only in a Spock at the end of Khan temporary way, so I wouldn't be shocked when he shows up again in the 'present day'.

Speaking of time, it appears the island is sliding back and forth in time, or at least the Losties are. They bounce from the time of the Beechcraft crash to the post-hatch era and back again. I found it all rather ho-hum, save for Ethan's attack on John.


Even that was irrelevant, if not for the fact that it later brings Richard into the frame to fix up John, hint at time travel yet to come, and bring in some much needed comic relief.

"What's this?" John said.

"It's a compass John."

"What's it do?" John said presuming it is of vital magical importance.

"It points north John," Richard replies.

[note: there might be more to this than mere flippancy, as Eko referenced North and it's come into play before. Wait and see]

The Losties eventually come under attack by a very hostile group that kills several people and threatens to torture Juliet. Who the hell are they?

* * * * * *

I wanted to devote a separate post to the whole time travel issue, but I''ll just schlump it down here. Daniel's whole argument that the past cannot be altered, that there are 'rules' against this kind of thing . . .well, it's a sci-fi staple and there's a theoretical academic basis for it. My opinion? It's bullsh**.

Saying there are 'rules' in place to prevent a change in events is preposterous. Time is, if you will, a river. It moves forward constantly, although we always have the right-here as a constant, and someday we might very well learn how to ride against the current and revisit old sights. But the river does not care who was at the wheel while you went 'round the bend two days ago, not whether it was Abe or Jessica or the King of Siam, nor does it care if you travelled its length at all. It just is.

Presuming that there are 'rules' inserts the question of an intelligent force - a creator, or at the very least a 'manager' - into the equation; it presumes that what we do is of soooo very vital importance that the universe itself acts in direct opposition to our actions; and it downright locks down any debate on destiny vs. free will, since we can't do diddly squat without direct permission.

Plus, it is a sci-fi staple and I expect more originality from this show.

That's all folks. Til the next episode, adios.