LOST: It Wasn't Purgatory, Season 2, episode 14, One of Them

On-island Events: Ana Lucia leads Sayid to Rousseau, who has returned to the survivors' camp looking for Sayid. She leads them deep into the jungle where a man has been caught in one of Rousseau's net traps. Sayid frees the man, who says he's Henry Gale from Minnesota but when the man tries to flee, Rousseau shoots him with an arrow, injuring him.  "He's one of them," she warns. 

Sayid brings Henry to the hatch, where Locke is sleeping. Henry explains he crash-landed onto the island on an air balloon and that his wife, who was with him, got sick and died. Jack arrives at the hatch and is angry that Sayid and Locke have allowed the man to suffer. While Jack tends to Henry's injury, Sayid suggests Locke change the combination to the weapons room in the hatch, suggesting Jack will not approve of Sayid's methods in obtaining information from Henry. When the men move Henry into the armory, Sayid locks Locke and Jack out.

Sayid questions Henry, who asks Sayid details about himself. Sayid replies only, "My name is Sayid Jarrah and I am a torturer." Henry reveals details about his air balloon, his wife, and his occupation, but Sayid is unsatisfied and becomes upset in remembering Shannon's death. While Sayid beats Henry inside the armory, Jack and Locke fight over pushing the button, which needs immediate attention. Jack prevents Locke from going to the computer and forces him to open the armory door, where he pulls Sayid away from Henry. Locke rushes to the computer and enters the numbers partially as the countdown clock reaches zero. Locke stands frozen as the clock's cells suddenly switch from zeroes to black and red hieroglyphics but enters the complete series quickly, sending the count back to 108. 

Flashbacks: While in the Republican Army in Iraq, Sayid and others are surprised by American troops as they shred and destroy documents. The American officer in command asks for Sayid's help in locating a  missing pilot. Sayid is then made to interrogate his own commanding officer, who refuses to cooperate and encourages Sayid to kill the American soldiers.

Later another American informs Sayid that Tariq, his commanding officer, was responsible for an attack using sarin gas on Sayid's old village where many women and children were killed. The man asks for Sayid's help in retrieving the American pilot, suggesting he can show him methods that will bring results. Sayid eventually tortures Tariq to get the information he seeks, but reveals that the man had been executed.

As Sayid is driven back to be released, the American commander looks at a picture of his daughter, which turns out to be a young Kate Austen. The man who ordered Sayid to interrogate implies that although he will remain in Iraq under Saddam, he may need these recently-acquired torturing skills again someday. Sayid emphatically states he will never torture again.

Greater Meaning: The connection between Sayid and soldier Austen is the second such connection between a member of Kate's family and one of the survivors on the island (the first being Diane Janssen who served Sawyer in a diner in The Long Con). What is going on with these connections, and will they affect Sayid and Sawyer down the road? 

We know that Sayid indeed uses his torturing skills for further war incidences as well as on the island, but bigger than the skills themselves seems to be Sayid's guilt over using them. He insisted he would never torture anyone again, but does. He offers his torturing skills when Sawyer appears to have hidden Shannon's inhaler (back in Confidence Man) but then has intense feelings of regret after having done so. Jack intervened before Sayid was able to seriously injure Henry; what would have happened had he not done that? Sayid has become an important member of the survivors since his early days, a respected leader, strategist, and man of action. Will his guilt over his role as a torturer doom him? 

Further Questions: 

1. What were those hieroglyphics on the clock countdown?

2. Will Sayid continue to torture people?

3. Was Rousseau setting Sayid up?

4. Is Henry who he claims to be? 

5. Is there a situation where Sayid's torturing skills will come in handy? 

It Was the 80s: How to Fix Revenge of the Nerds

So it took me a while to figure out how to write about this film, one I've loved for most of my life. A way which would allow me to celebrate the good parts but also discuss what I consider to be two highly problematic scenes and one missed opportunity. Here's what I came up with:

Revenge of the Nerds, 1984 d. Jeff Kanew 

Written by: Tim Metcalfe, Miguel Tejada-Flores, Steve Zacharias, Jeff Buhai (story)

and Steve Zacharias and Jeff Buhai (screenplay)

Summary: At Adams College, a group of bullied outcasts and misfits resolve to fight back for their peace and self-respect (IMDB). 

The Good Things: 

Gilbert (Anthony Edwards), Booger's crass comedy when not aimed toward Lamar or the Omega Mus, Ogre (Donald Gibb) as an effective 45-year-old man-bully, all names of characters in general, the montage sequence of fixing up the yellow house, the loophole into Lambda's provisional chartership, the awkwardness of the party (pre-wonderjoints), the music, the revenge involving liquid heat upon the Alpha Betas, the Greek games, and the winning skit performance

Photo Credit: The New Yorker

The Two Seriously Problematic Things

1. The violation of the women in the Pi House: recording their nudity, sharing it among the group and then stamping Betty Childs' (Julie Montgomery) naked likeness onto the pie plate for the charity fundraiser

2. The manipulation of Betty Childs in the moon room that resulted in her engaging in sexual relations with Lewis to which she did not consent because of the Darth Vader mask hiding his identity. 

Now. These two things were definitely what earned the film's R rating and were probably the parts most teenagers wanted to see, but I think it could have been done with more respect and less violating. For instance, have the panty-raid go off as performed, allow Lewis/Gilbert/Poindexter to surprise the respective women in their underwear or topless, then, done. Haha, naked girls funny, now we go home. No taping. No Betty Childs boob stamp. True, it's still a violation of sorts, no one wants to be seen naked by random creeps who have invaded their living quarters, but in the end, it's more of a "we're horny and curious" kind of violation (as in Porky's) and not a precursor to revenge porn one.

The moon room could still work, but somehow have Betty get the mask off forcing Lewis to plead his case to Betty which would allow her to consent. "If I'm not the best lay in all of Adams College . . . " or something like that. She gets to decide. If she says no, whatever, Lewis tried. He still could go on with the rest of the Tri-Lambs to win the festival and take over the Greek council, maybe even hook up with that brunette with the long side pony and pink prom dress from the party again. If she says yes, keep things the same as they were: Lewis is a sexual legend (presumably at items other than fraternity jack-rabbiting ala Stan Gable), Betty falls in love, and everyone lives happily ever after. 

Allowing Lewis, one of the film's heroes, to successfully rape Betty by deception makes him worse than any of the Alpha Betas. As far as we know (and this is a big assumption, I get it) none of them raped anyone by coercion. Although the existence of that sheep for initiation purposes concerns me . . . 

And I know this wasn't on anyone's radar back in 1984, because consent and women's safety were not even afterthoughts and wouldn't be until DECADES later, but they should have been. Even if the entire theme of the film was about bullying and revenge, the idea that nerds deserve to be treated kindly pretty much loses its power if it only applies to men. Take the differences between Betty Childs and Judy (Michelle Meyrink), Gilbert's love interest. 

Betty is aesthetically pleasing, desirable, and leader of her sorority. She is skilled at: 

1. Bad shoulder dancing at the fated Alpha Beta "fireball" party

2. Recording the minutes at the Greek Council meeting as secretary

3. Singing off-key "Old Mac Donald"

4. Snapping fingers and rocking back and forth while cheering "ooh, ahh, Alpha Beta!" at Greek Games

5. Having high sex drive (Stan claims she's "like a goat" at charity fundrasier)

So to summarize, not smart, not talented, but interesting because she's pretty and sexual. It doesn't take a ton of thought to realize that she's the prize to be won, here. 

Judy, on the other hand is not aesthetically pleasing and is good at nothing. She's kind and empathetic, but that gets her very little, value-wise. Her shortcomings:

1. Having no computer skills despite being clearly in the nerd camp

2. Awkward 

3. Not especially memorable or clever in any way

4. (And this is the one that gets me): BAD AT ACCORDION

Make no mistake, I'm not faulting a beginning musician for being bad at their chosen instrument, I'm upset that Judy, as a character, couldn't have ONE thing she was good at. It was a missed opportunity not letting that happen. She matched the physical aesthetic of all the other nerds, so that wasn't a huge deal, and Gilbert seemed to really be into her, allowing her to become desirable, at least to him. In contrasting Judy with Poindexter (also a terrible instrumentalist), we see his intelligence but never hers. She doesn't even get to be clever ala saving the group by a deep dive into the Lambda's by-laws (Poindexter's win) or helping in any way that involves wit unless you count her idea to bring over the Omega Mus, which really paved the way for hella mean comments and provided the focus of the Alpha Beta/Sisters of Pi Old MacDonald mockery with the pigs. Annoying.

If Judy was allowed to be the nerd version of Betty Childs, she should have been smart and capable. If not an equal in the computer lab, she should have been a WIZARD on that fucking accordion. Having Judy be unimpressive and blah might be closer to reality (there are unimpressive, blah people everywhere), but it just seems skewed, giving female viewers little choice between that blah-ness and Betty Childs' existence as an accessory for men to pass around. Looking at the poster for the film, you wouldn't even know Judy exists because she was not given a placement in it. 

Cameron (Obnoxious and Anonymous) and I chatted about the film about a month ago where these and many other concerns were addressed. We both really enjoy the film overall and I think were pretty surprised at how many different directions our discussion ended up going (I only ranted hard once, about right-wing creativity in light of the Alpha Betas "Mr. Touchdown" homecoming skit). Check the video out, below:

And if you're still yearning for more, check out Ian Crouch's piece for The New Yorker on how Revenge of the Nerds culture played into the Brett Kavanaugh situation, which I absolutely love (that this article exists, not that the topic it examines happened). 

LOST: It Wasn't Purgatory, Season 2, episode 13, The Long Con

On-Island Events: Locke and Jack stock the armory with handguns, where Locke has also hidden the seven remaining Virgin Mary statues. Locke suggests Jack lock up the medications in the armory as well. As Sawyer taunts Charlie for being banished by the group, Jack ransacks Sawyer's tent to take back stolen painkillers. When Kate brings Sawyer a magazine, he requests she read to him. While discussing group happenings, Sawyer lets slip that Jack and Ana Lucia are forming an army.

Hugo attempts to engage Sayid by showing him Bernard's short wave walkie but Sayid insists he's not interested. Jack and Ana Lucia discuss safety among the group members and Sun works at creating a garden. As a rainstorm breaks out, an unseen assailant puts a dark cloth over Sun's head and injures her. Locke and Jack disagree about how to protect the group; Jack wants to employ weaponry but Locke thinks guns are too dangerous. Out in the jungle, Sawyer suggest to Kate that their own people may have attacked Sun. 

Kate confronts Jack about bestowing too much trust upon Ana Lucia. When Sun wakes up and explains how she was attacked, Jin demands a gun from Jack as Sawyer and Kate watch. Kate assumes that Ana Lucia is making a play for the guns in the armory and sends Sawyer to the hatch to warn Locke. Locke agrees that the guns should be moved and asks Sawyer to assist him.

When Jin and Jack arrive at the hatch, Sawyer is present but feigns innocence when the armory's guns are discovered to be missing. Jack confronts Locke on the beach, demanding two guns. As they argue, shots ring out and Sawyer emerges from the shadows. He lectures the group about allowing Locke and Jack to make all the rules and for stealing his stash. Going on to state that guns are the only things that matter now, Sawyer walks off with a rifle, announcing himself the "new sheriff in town."

Kate is angry about being played but suggests Sawyer did what he did because he wants to be hated. When asked why he behaves the way he does, Sawyer responds, "You run, I con. A tiger don't change its stripes." Later that evening, Sayid comes to Hugo with the short wave radio he's modified, and the two listen to orchestral music together on the beach.

Sawyer meets with his partner in crime, who happens to be Charlie. He offers him the heroin statues back, but Charlie doesn't want them. When he asks Sawyer how he came up with the idea to con everyone, Sawyer replies, "I'm not a good person, Charlie. Never did a good thing in my life." 

Flashbacks: Sawyer's attempt to con a romantic interest fails but she asks him to teach her his trade.
Using junk necklaces, Sawyer teaches the woman, who he calls "Dimples," how to run a jewelry scam. Later, Dimples voices unhappiness at doing small jobs and asks Sawyer to show her a "long con." Sawyer says they don't have money for a long con but Dimples, whose real name is Cassidy, offers the six hundred thousand dollars she's been hiding from her divorce settlement.

Sawyer meets with a man in a diner (where Diane Austin is working) and admits he has the money but is hesitant about going through with whatever deal they'd previously worked out. Sawyer eventually returns to Cassidy, very agitated, and admits that he had always known about her divorce money. "You were the long con," he tells her, but no longer. Sawyer insists he won't take her money, tells Cassidy he loves her, and sends her off to a safe place to wait for him. Sawyer ensures she's gone and then makes off with her money anyway. 

Greater Meaning: Sawyer's attraction to Kate seems legitimate, but it doesn't seem to be enough to keep him from betraying her. Through his flashbacks with Cassidy we see that he successfully acted the part of a boy in love while doing crimes with his romantic partner, but as viewers, we also were betrayed (as was Cassidy, as were the group on the beach) by believing Sawyer's sweet talk. Sawyer has shown true emotion in the past over his search for Sawyer (senior, to whom his childhood letter was addressed), Walt's being taken from the raft, Kate, whispering that he loved her to Jack during his hallucinations after being shot, and even Jack's feelings regarding Christian after describing their meet at the bar in Sydney, but overall he seems to be more strongly motivated by revenge than love or even lust. Sawyer (senior) romanced his mother and caused her death; the man on the boat stole Walt from Michael and caused the raft to come apart, thwarting Sawyer's exodus; the group violated his privacy and stole his belongings. Perhaps he senses himself becoming attached to Kate, perhaps he felt himself becoming attached to Cassidy, and he continues to manipulate and scheme in order to push the feelings or the possibility of any intimacy aside. His reply to Charlie came with a small amount of regret; his ever-present smirk and surface level self-pride seem to vanish when he admits he's not a good person. Could he become one?

Further Questions: 

1. Does Sawyer want to be hated? 

2. Will Sun find out Charlie is the one who attacked her?

3. What will happen to the guns and the heroin?

4. Is Sawyer in charge now?

5. Will anything happen with the radio?

So This Exists

I don't give very many bad reviews. Back when I was actually paid to review films I remember doing only two that could be considered negative, but I was respectful and made sure to give equal attention to the good things that happened. Then my Tuesday group watched this:

Victims for Victims: The Theresa Saldana Story, 1984. d. Karen Arthur, written by Arthur Heinemann

"The true story of the brutal attack on actress Theresa Saldana by an unbalanced fan. As a result of her ordeal and its aftermath, Saldana becomes involved in the victims' rights movement." (IMDB)

Here's where things get difficult for me. As a humanist-centered film writer, I try to look for the lesson, the theme, the link to humanity at large that might offset a film's other shortcomings. With this, the only real lessons are, don't get stabbed, and don't trust your insurance, I guess. That's not all that appealing for someone who loves film or humanity. I'd rather write when I'm inspired, not bored to tears or at odds with the content.

For instance, I tried like hell to put something together for Revenge of the Nerds a few weeks ago, a film I really like, but because of two violating situations (videotaping the Sisters of Pi, naked, and Lewis tricking Betty Childs into having relations with him in the moon room thinking he's Stan, her boyfriend), I just couldn't talk about it the way I would have done maybe 10 years ago so I skipped it and waited for something else to come along I could get excited about. 

I can't say I'm excited about this film, but I have been thinking about it, so here we are, and here are the shortcomings: 

1. The victim, Theresa Saldana, plays herself. I'm not a practicing mental health professional (yet) but this seems . . . problematic. We learn at some point in the film that she needs cash since her insurance is, surprise, taking forever and placing a lot of limits on what care Theresa can receive, but yeah, NO. If I had to list five of the worst things that ever happened to me and then act them out in front of a camera for money, I'd take a hard pass. And honestly, this film could not have resulted in a huge number of dollars for anyone involved. Exploitation. 

2. Sometimes crimes are just sudden, jarring, and disruptive but not exactly cinematic or even interesting as a film-length story. The stabbing of Theresa Saldana was such a crime. The creep that stabbed her hung around her place for a while, stalking, eventually stabbed her in broad daylight, and got arrested. Theresa's recovery was lengthy and (sorry) boring. Theresa's interactions with her husband and family were lengthy and (sorry) boring. This was the longest 100 minute film I've ever sat through.

3. Questions: why were all the draperies open and doors unlocked? Why so many stuffed animals for a grown woman? Why was Theresa portrayed so child-like?

It might actually be BOTH Louise and Cindy, 
simultaneously!

Those are the main shortcomings. I can't really fault the director, as the film was structurally pretty sound (think of a Dallas episode from around the same early 80s era). The writing can't really be faulted either if they were going for an exact replication of what happened, although someone might have stood up and admitted that it all wasn't all that interesting and I don't know, started making shit up instead, but they obviously played it straight. Bad idea. I read once that Anne Lamott got a memoire she'd written back with the note: "You make the mistake of thinking everything that's ever happened to you is interesting." Given the choice, I would read Anne Lamott's grocery list over sitting through this again, but the sentiment from this editor, whoever it was, is worth keeping in mind. 

After realizing I couldn't just turn this off (it was suggested but we decided to hold fast) I went through all my phone games, stalked the crazy Qs on FB I keep tabs on, and then spent some time wondering what other films I've either left or turned off, unfinished. I remember three: Pearl Harbor (in theater), The Last Samurai (in theater), and WW84 just a few months ago at home. I eventually came around and watched Pearl Harbor again on a dare, I think, and wrote about it with a little more empathy (as much empathy as one can rightly muster for a Michael Bay film) but the latter two were so aggressively bad I will not be coming around. 

I can't in good faith say this was aggressively bad, as it was someone's lived experience, but it is aggressively BLAH. The highlight of the experience for me was insisting to my two Zoom watch mates that certain characters were either Louise Fletcher or Cindy Williams (SHIRLEY, from Laverne &). Like, repeatedly insisting to the point where they would both yell at me every time I brought it up.

Anyway, the film is available in its entirety on YouTube, if you want to give it a try. I do not recommend you do this. Watch Wandavision or Dark instead.

Murder By Numbers

ONE

Blood Rage 1987. d. John Grissmer

Written by: Bruce Rubin (as Richard Lamden)

Starring: Louise Lasser, Mark Soper, Julie Gordon

Summary: "As kids, Todd is institutionalized for a murder whilst his twin goes free. 10 years later, on Thanksgiving, Todd escapes and a killing spree begins in his neighborhood." IMDB

This was chosen, I'm pretty sure on a dare, by one of the people in my horror/murder/true crime group last week. It is not a good film but at least it's memorable. Mostly we focused on how outlandish it all was: premise weak, actors' deliveries all extremely reactionary and overblown, fashion choices of the mother out of place even in 1987, and William Fuller (Bubba Flavel's Klansman pal from Porky's 2) as stepdad "Brad," but it was still fun. All in all, it was one of the more adult slasher films I've seen, adult not as in mature in any way but in a disturbingly high body count, many f-words, and prolonged sexual situations with widespread nudity kind of way. This is something I probably would have really enjoyed back in college, not sober. Put it up there with Fun House. 

TWO

Copycat 1995. d. John Amiel

Written by: Ann Biderman, David Madsen

Starring: Sigourney Weaver, Holly Hunter, Dermot Mulroney

Summary: "An agoraphobic psychologist and a female detective must work together to take down a serial killer who copies serial killers from the past." IMDB

I love this film. It's a very good story with a well-chosen cast, and it's just clever. The first time I watched this back in stadium apartments at UMD in 1996 I couldn't get over how genius it all was. I think I took the tape from the football players' place and watched again the next day by myself, that's how into it I was. 

Watching again now the pacing impressed me. It takes a fair amount of time to even officially establish that these are serial killer murders (for the cops, we as the audience have special insight into the killer's stalking and computer stuff, so we know), and then it takes a few attempts for Hudson (Weaver) to agree to work with the cops, so it's all the more satisfying when they finally get together and start figuring it all out. And what a thrilling system to figure out! He's not just a copycat, he's a by-the-book, as-delivered-in-the- lecture, perfectionist copycat! He does it better than the real guys did! Wow. Worth discussing: were Peter's motivations as a copycat serial killer broad (these previous killers have provided me with the focus I need in my disturbed life and I will go above and beyond their respective examples) or was he just obsessed with Daryl Lee Cullum and figured this would get his attention? Props either way, I guess.

Hudson's SFO apartment is gorgeous, everyone is very attractive, and hey, Police: Murder By Numbers! Hunter's MJ was a little irritating, but she was meant to be, I think, Hudson even addresses it ("does she do this often, this wide-eyed little girl routine?") and it works. I really enjoyed her out-of-fucks-to-give response at the end. We always knew she could handle more than just a brachial nerve shot anyway. Best line of the film: "Looks like I cured your agoraphobia, Helen!"

THREE 

Midsommar 2019. d. Ari Aster

Written by: Ari Aster

Starring: Florence Pugh, Jack Reynor, Vilhelm Blomgren

Summary: "A couple travels to Scandinavia to visit a rural hometown's fabled Swedish mid-summer festival. What begins as an idyllic retreat quickly devolves into an increasingly violent and bizarre competition at the hands of a pagan cult." IMDB

I had to watch this twice. Mostly because I just needed to make sure I was getting what I thought I got the first time, but then I needed two specific answers. 1. Exactly how much time was spent on the opening situation with Dani's family (12 minutes) and 2. What was with that person with the facial deformities, and did I miss something about this person's role? This was never really answered with any satisfaction, although many pieces have been written about this character's link to eugenics, white supremacy, and mysticism. I'm still confused by it; I'm leaving it at that.

I enjoyed this film a lot, it was disturbing and smart. This isn't something that can be "mastered;" like many thinking films out there I think each viewer is set up to have a unique experience based on whatever personally resonates. For me, the horror was incidental, the theme of empathy was what moved and underscored everything that happened on screen. That said, the music and composition of shots in the natural environments were amazing. The fact that this was all taking place in a midnight sun setting made it all the more creepy and offputting.

Dani is empathetic. Is shown from the film's first scene to have concern for her parents (calls them to check in after sister's scary email) as well as her bipolar and obviously upset sister who is suffering from a concerning episode. Dani seeks reassurance from Christian, immediately senses he's disengaging, and then chides herself for making him uncomfortable. Dani is intelligent (tons of books in her place) and self-aware (constantly adjusting and adapting her behavior and expectations), and although not yet completely able to see through all of Christian's antics--his friends' conversation exposes the fact that he is ambivalent about Dani, lies outright about his plans to go to Sweden, then makes up a ruse about inviting her along which fails, since she ends up going---she clearly senses something is off in their relationship. She is a feeling person.

Pelle is empathetic with specific knowledge and insight. Does not join the other two friends in criticizing Christian's relationship with Dani, expresses sadness and apologies to Dani over her family's deaths (stating outright that he has experienced the same loss), and not only remembers her birthday in Sweden but drew a portrait of her for a gift. Pelle is both a feeling person and a knowing person. Was he sent on his summer-season "pilgrimage" to examine this empathy in contrast to how young adults in America mature? Was he excited to bring Dani along because he knew how she'd be received? 

The Boys are not empathetic: Josh seems very dedicated to his study, an interested anthropologist, the knowledge expert of the group but short on emotional connection to people. Christian is an unreliable partner and a wishy-washy academic. Was he destined for something unpleasant because he was a marginal human being? Maybe. The bear he eventually . . . became was caged when they first got there. There were obviously plans for the bear within the tradition of the festivities, but out of all of them, Christian seems the least likely to put up a fight or even commit to a position about anything. Maybe the village knew how this would play out. He feels little (Dani states she's never seen him cry) and knows little (he is directionless in his thesis studies and basically copies Josh). Only Mark is lower, beginning as simply callous and annoying but emerging as the ugly, insensitive American cliche once in Sweden. 

The empathy at work: the village senses Dani's empathy and embraces her because she's like them. She receives from the village the support and acknowledgment (exemplified in the mirroring of her reactions in pain after seeing Christian's sexual ceremony) she needed from Christian but never received. The act of the ho-ha breaths the villagers all take could be the literal taking in of the group's humanity and sharing it as one. Funny how Dani unknowingly does the breath when she blows out the birthday candle on Christian's too-little-too-late cake. 

Bottom line? I think they were always going to kill whatever outsiders came to the celebration, but that Dani was special and got asked to stay. 

LOST: It Wasn't Purgatory, Season Two, Episode 12, Fire + Water

On-Island Events: Charlie dreams of the piano he received as a childhood Christmas present and then hears a baby crying as the piano drifts into the ocean. He becomes concerned about Claire and Aaron but then becomes jealous as he sees Locke interacting with them both on the beach. Charlie attempts to talk to Claire, asks her about Locke, but then agrees to give her space and leaves. 

Charlie practices guitar on the beach and again hears a baby crying. He swims out to Aaron's cradle, floating in the ocean but when he brings Aaron back to the beach he sees a vision of his mother and Claire, who chant together that Charlie must save the baby. Hugo jolts Charlie awake and he realizes it's the middle of the night and that he's taken Aaron out of his cradle. Claire slaps Charlie when he tries to explain his dream. Later Charlie tries to convince Locke to take his side; Locke advises him trust is a difficult thing to win back.

Next Charlie approaches Eko, who is marking trees for his church. Charlie accuses Eko of telling Locke about his saved Virgin Mary statues; Eko assures him he said nothing but asks Charlie about his dreams. Eko considers the fact that Charlie's dreams have meaning, sending Charlie back to Claire, raving about baptism, as Locke observes from afar. When Charlie breaks away to check on the hidden statues, Locke catches him fondling two baggies of heroin and seizes all the drugs telling him he's "given up the right to be believed." 

When a fire breaks out slightly inland from the beach, most of the camp goes to fight the blaze leaving Claire and Aaron alone in their tent. Charlie sneaks up, takes Aaron from his cradle, and begins carrying him out to sea. Claire, Eko, and Locke plead with Charlie to return Aaron to his mother and he finally hands the baby back; Locke responds by knocking Charlie down with several punches. As Eko examines the burned area, Claire asks him to baptize Aaron; Eko agrees to baptize Aaron and Claire, together. Locke secures the statues in the hatch's weapons closet and Charlie sits by a fire, alone on the beach.

Flashbacks: Charlie visits Liam's new daughter, Megan, in the hospital, and covers for Liam's absence. When he finds Liam passed out after a heroin fix, Charlie berates Liam for his irresponsibilities and implores him to clean himself up for his daughter. 

The members of Drive Shaft perform for a diaper commercial but Liam, still under the influence of heroin, can't handle the choreography and loses the gig for the group. After Liam is kicked out of his house, he comes to Charlie and the two harmonize together at the piano and plan for the future.

Charlie returns to his apartment to find his piano gone and Liam packing a suitcase. Liam admits to having sold the piano in order to move his family to Sydney, Australia to get treatment. 

Greater Meaning: Locke tells Claire that Charlie feels like he must save Aaron because he's been unable to save himself. Charlie's methods of going about this "saving" seem skewed at best, and reckless at worst; whether this is due to his own unawareness of how he comes off in these actions or the strangeness of the actions themselves, we can't know exactly what the point of it all really is. Who on earth thinks taking  a baby away from its mother is the right move? Especially after the trauma Claire has suffered both while pregnant and shortly after giving birth?

Charlie has fought (and beat) heroin addiction, but still kept the Mary statues full of drugs. During his addiction, Charlie engaged in dangerous, manipulative behavior but always seemed to respect the role that music and family played in his life, which were both symbolically linked to the piano his mother gave him for Christmas. The fact that Charlie has now associated Aaron with the piano is significant; despite Claire having banished him, Charlie still cares for her and Aaron, but if Locke is correct, Charlie's desire to save Aaron comes from either seeing himself in Aaron or seeing himself as a father figure in Aaron's life. If Charlie only wanted to save himself through baptism, it seems less likely that he would react with such jealousy at Locke's ability to "father" Aaron. Charlie's bizarre obsession seems more to do with controlling Claire and less to do with being a savior. In contrasting this with how Jack and Locke "save" others, Charlie's desires to help and the actions he takes come off as ineffective, desperate, and immature. Charlie's religious leanings do not elevate him or guide him as a gifted savior, if anything, they seem to be leading him further astray from doing the right thing. 

Further Questions: 

1. Did Charlie ever get his piano back?

2. Will Claire ever forgive Charlie?

3. Is there something sinister in Charlie's obsession with Claire and Aaron?

4. Will Charlie start using drugs again?

5. Are Claire and Aaron still in danger?

It Was the 80s: St. Elmo's Fire

Once upon a time, I was an undergraduate in a graduate-level film class at the U of M. One of the projects in the class involved the grad students going out and filming the concepts we were learning about and then bringing back the footage to then "mentor" the undergrads with. One of the grads (who already considered himself MIGHTILY above us all) took this very seriously and used his footage as an opportunity to lecture us for over an hour. The footage was nothing special, something a child could have pointed a camera at and shot, a bunch of buildings in downtown St. Paul in the middle of winter strung together at random. We watched, unimpressed. Next, he showed us the same images a second time but against a soundtrack of some big band jazz song, asking us to pay special attention to how the experience was different this time around. We watched, still unimpressed. I did not share my reaction with the class (because I'm not mean) but if I had, it would have been: Uninteresting, basic images and then uninteresting, basic images set to music. Got it. The music didn't really stand for anything, it wasn't being used ironically, but the images and the music together definitely made for a better viewing experience. If anything it was a way for this person to appear to know what he was doing. TL,DR: music is a powerful tool in filmmaking.

Does this have anything to do with St. Elmo's Fire? A little. Obviously Joel Schumacher is leagues more knowledgeable than the grad student in my story (who has since become a professor). Adding arbitrary music won't save a project from its own badness, but adding good music and positioning it at just the right moments can make a film come off as skilled and memorable and can do a lot of heavy emotional lifting where the script may fall short. 

St. Elmo's Fire, 1985. d. Joel Schumacher 

starring: Demi Moore, Rob Lowe, Andrew McCarthy, Emilio Estevez, Ally Sheedy, Judd Nelson, Mare Winningham

Summary: "A group of friends, just out of college, struggle with adulthood." IMDB

This story embodies perfectly what my childhood idea of post-college life would be like. As I was a nine-year-old child living in a rural midwestern town when it came out, I didn't know much, but I knew I wanted to be like these cats. Bar-hopping with the same group of friends, quirky apartments, a group CHANT, you know, those kinds of things. I learned of the film from seeing trailers on television and from John Parr's music video for "Man in Motion" on MTV but I was not yet allowed to see R rated films in the theater, so I lived for the little glimpses from these. Imagine my joy when a friend of my mother's (at some posh lake house we were at the next summer) had St. Elmo's Fire on VHS! At ten, I thought I'd died and gone to heaven (read: Rob Lowe 80s aesthetic) but more than that, I still thought these people were cool as hell. Also, I wanted to learn that piano theme terribly. It wasn't at all realistic, I later learned, but as a cultural piece of white people in the 80s and a story about friendship, it still holds up. I still listen to the soundtrack, regularly, regrettably missing is the fated let's-rock-in-conversational-tone-bar-piece, "One Love," performed by Billy Hixx and The New Breed,** but it still slaps, as the kids say.

The film opens with the crew walking away from a frat house building in graduation caps and gowns and quickly transitions to the aftermath of a car accident in an emergency room. As the group of friends is SO close-knit and still BFFS even after graduating college we see that when one of their own gets injured, they drop what they're doing to be with her in her time of need. This also serves as exposition to who everyone is, what they do, and how they're linked to each other:

Wendy (Winningham): the injured. Frumpy, virginal, rich parents (loves Billy)

Billy (Lowe): drunk companion of Wendy, cause of accident. Plays saxophone, hyper-sexual

Jules (Moore): hot pink evening gown and stole. Eccentric, glamorous, wild

Kirby (Estevez): in waiter's uniform. Stays to flirt with doctor, romantic and hopeful

Kevin (McCarthy): trench coat and camo pants. Pessimistic writer who throws out random deep thoughts (secretly in love with Leslie)

Leslie (Sheedy): sensible businesswoman. Responsible, shows empathy (lives with Alec)

Alec (Nelson): young political strategist. Type A, bossy, former democrat, now a republican (lives with Leslie)

After Wendy is discharged from the hospital, lamenting the state of her car, they all go to St. Elmo's Bar to drink more (as one does in the aftermath of a drunk driving accident). On goes the story, showing us bits of the characters' professional lives and more of their relationships with each other. A party, thrown by Kirby at the fancy estate of his employer, serves as an explosive turning point where many of the group's dramatic issues (Alec's infidelities, Kevin's love for Leslie, Kirby's A-level stalking prowess, and the beginnings of Jules's downfall in a thwarted confession to Billy) are revealed, and suddenly, things aren't so sunny anymore. Post-college adulthood is, to use Billy's preferred phrasing, more "out of hand" than any of them anticipated. 

Technically, the film is solid. The fall scenery, the collegiate settings (meant to portray Georgetown but actually shot on the University of Maryland's campus), and the huge height-of-the-80s apartments are all appealing throughout. The casting is perfect, everyone is attractive, and the pacing of the story, pretty fast-paced, moves along well with every character's unique struggles and interactions with others. The music elevates the experience, no matter where it's used. Even the seemingly throwaway conversation Alec and Leslie have over which albums she's allowed to take when she moves out drives the point that this era, this music, even the music choices of the characters (or their musical abilities)---all are very meaningful. In my opinion, you cannot have a discussion of this film and its place within 80s culture without honoring these music choices.

Hungry for more? Cameron of Obnoxious and Anonymous (@ObnoxandAnony) and I sat down for a nice long chat about St. Elmo's fire yesterday. Let us know what you think about it! 

**The song, as well as the clip from the film of Billy performing it (LET'S ROCK) is showcased beautifully over on UncleTNuc! You can find it HERE