"LOST" RETROSPECT: (2.11) "The Hunting Party"

 

"LOST" RETROSPECT: (2.11) "The Hunting Party"

I may be a bit picky about my tastes in television viewing. But I must admit there have been a few television episodes either dismissed or lambasted by critics and fans alike, but which I have come to like. One of those episodes is the Season Two episode of "LOST" called (2.11) "The Hunting Party".

This eleventh episode from the series' second season picks up not long after the previous episode, (2.10) "The 23rd Psalms" left off. In the previous episode, Michael Dawson believed he had managed to contact his kidnapped son Walt Lloyd, while using the twenty year-old computer inside the DHARMA Swan Station. He also recruited the help of fellow castaway, John Locke, to teach him how to use a rifle. When "The Hunting Party" began, Dr. Jack Shephard found an unconscious Locke on the floor of the station's armory. Before he could do anything, Michael appeared with a gun trained on Jack and in a desperate tone, revealed his intentions to find Walt. Michael forced Jack to remain by Locke's side, before locking both of them inside the armory. When other castaways Kate Austen and James "Sawyer" Ford go to the station to have the latter's bandages changed, they free both Jack and Locke. Jack immediately reaches for a rifle and state his intentions to find Michael and bring him back. Both Locke and Sawyer volunteer to join him. Kate also volunteers, but Jack curtly orders her to remain behind and be ready to punch in the numbers for the station's computer. The three men leave without her. Despite Jack's refusal of her help, Kate recruits Hugo "Hurley" Reyes and Charlie Pace to monitor the station's computer for her, while she heads out into the jungle to join the hunting party.

The episode's flashbacks start with Jack and his father, Dr. Christian Shephard, diagnose a middle-aged Italian man with a spinal tumor named Angelo Busconi. The two Shephard surgeons inform Signor Busconi and his daughter, Gabriela that his tumor is too far gone and that he is not eligible for surgery. However, Signor Busconi and Gabriela insist that they are interested in recruiting Jack's help. They had learned of the miracle he had achieved after performing surgery on his wife, Sarah Shephard, before their marriage. Much to Christian's dismay, Jack agrees to perform the surgery on Signor Busconi. The older surgeon also notices the attraction between Jack and Gabriela. And Jack also continues spending more time at the hospital, either ignoring or evading Sarah's company at home.

Despite the opinions of other "LOST" fans and critics, I have always liked "The Hunting Party". I found the plot regarding the Losties' hunt for Michael very interesting. And believe it or not, I rather enjoyed the flashbacks regarding Jack's attempt to save Angelo Busconi and his troubling marriage to Sarah. But for the likes of me, I have always had difficulty making the connection between the on-island plot and the flashbacks. Exactly what is the connection? Was Jack's difficulties in his relationship with Kate and her attraction to Sawyer a reminder of Sarah's infidelity and the end of his marriage? Was his decision to embark upon a near impossible task - finding Michael and bringing him back - similar to his decision to accept Signor Busconi as a patient? Did I hit the mark regarding the episode's main plot . . . or what? After eight years, I am still confused.

But I still like "The Hunting Party" . . . very much. It is one of my favorite Jack-centric episodes. The hunt for Michael showcased an aspect of Jack's personality that has been problematic - his inability to let go. The problem with Jack was he lacked a real instinct on whether to give up on an impossible task, or to continue it. On one hand, he never realized that Locke was right about letting Michael go. The choice to leave the Losties' camp and go after Walt was up to Michael, not Jack or any of the other castaways. I think Jack took his "live together, die alone" mantra a bit too far in his determination to get Michael back. However, it seemed a pity that he and the other Losties never extended that mantra to Walt. In the case of the flashbacks, I suspect that the Busconis' stroking of Jack's ego led him to accept Angelo Busconi as a patient. Even though the Italian father and daughter were grateful toward Jack's willingness to take a chance on the former, I cannot help but wonder if that was a chance Jack should have ignored.

Both the on-island plot and the flashbacks also featured Jack's problematic relationships with the two women in his life. Two episodes ago in (2.09) "What Kate Did", Sawyer unconsciously expressed his love for Kate, while Jack was tending him. This bedside confession conjured feelings of jealousy within Jack, who must have recalled the kiss that Sawyer and Kate had exchanged in the Season One episode, (1.08) "Confidence Man". In "What Kate Did", Kate kissed Jack in a confusing moment and ran off into the jungle in tears. Between her action and Sawyer's confession, I suspect Jack found himself wondering if Kate ever loved him. This so-called "love triangle" must have reminded him of his previous marriage. The problems in Jack's relationship with Sarah proved to be more straightforward. Flashbacks in an earlier Season Two episode called (2.01) "Man of Faith, Man of Science" revealed how Jack and Sarah first met - she was a victim of a car accident that eventually killed Shannon Rutherford's father, and Jack was the surgeon that prevented her from becoming physically disabled. In the Season One episode, (1.20) "Do No Harm", flashbacks revealed that some time after Jack's successful surgery on Sarah, they got married. I never understood why those two had married. Was it gratitude on Sarah's part? Had Jack been caught up in the emotional relief over saving her? Who knows. But the flashbacks in this episode revealed that their marriage had slowly deteriorated to the point that it led to Jack spending most of his time at the hospital . . . and Sarah committing adultery and later, leaving him. Some fans had complained about the quiet manner in which their marriage had ended, despite the erotic moment between Jack and Gabriela Busconi. Actually, I found it very realistic . . . and very common among relationships.

There were other aspects of the episode I found interesting. Locke revealed to Sawyer and television viewers, the latter's real name - James Ford. This revelation proved to be a mild shock, considering that viewers had already learned back in Season One that Sawyer was an alias. This episode also saw the return of the "Bearded Man" aka Tom Friendly, who had kidnapped Walt in (1.24-1.25) "Exodus". Tom and his fellow Others had trapped the hunting party before convincing them (actually through coercion) to return to their camp. Not only did the Losties' encounter with Tom provided another bump in the road for Jack and Kate's relationship; it also reminded viewers that Sawyer blamed Tom for shooting him (one of the members of Tom's party had shot him, when he reached for his gun). For the first time, Sawyer declared his intentions to seek revenge for what happened to him, proving that of all the series' characters, he was a master at combining revenge with murder in order to alleviate his pain. There was one aspect of this episode that I found . . . perplexing. Throughout most of the episode, Locke questioned Jack's decision to go after Michael, spouting free will as an excuse. And yet . . . he had decided to accompany Jack on this expedition, anyway. Locke was also not above enforcing his own will upon others. So, why did he join this hunting party in the first place? Even the state of the Kwons' marriage ended up affected by Jack's hunting party. When Jin learned about Michael's flight into the jungle, he considered joining the hunting party, until Sun stopped him. For the first time, Sun truly got her way since the beginning of the series. In a marvelous scene, she put her foot down and revealed her opposition to Jin's intentions. She also revealed how she had felt about his past controlling behavior toward her. The Kwons' marriage took a new step above the resentments, anger and lies that marred their relationship in the past.

"The Hunting Party" featured some solid performances from cast members such as Terry O'Quinn, Josh Holloway, Evangeline Lilly and Naveen Andrews; and guest stars that included Julie Bowen, Ronald Guttman, Monica Dean and M.C. Gainey. But in my opinion, the best performances came from guest star John Terry, Harold Perrineau, and especially, Matthew Fox. It seemed a pity that Perrineau never received any nominations for his outstanding work. And I find it laughable that Fox had to wait another four seasons before the Hollywood community was even willing to nominate him for his work on "LOST". But if many of us are truly honest with ourselves, acting and production awards are usually based upon popularity contests, not upon any worthy endeavors.

I wish I could say that I consider "The Hunting Party" to be one of the best episodes that aired on "LOST". The narrative written by Elizabeth Saranoff and Christina M. Kim allowed for strong characterizations and some interesting subplots. Unfortunately, I found the connection between the on-island plot and the flashbacks rather weak. Even worse, the episode ended with Jack proposing to Tail Section survivor Ana-Lucia Cortez that they create an army to deal with the Others. And this potential subplot never went anywhere, in the end.

“THE GOOD SHEPHERD” (2006) Review

 

 

“THE GOOD SHEPHERD” (2006) Review

As far as I know, Academy Award winning actor Robert De Niro has directed at least two movies during his long career. One of them was the 1992 movie, “A BRONX’S TALE”, which I have yet to see. The other was the 2006 espionage epic called “THE GOOD SHEPHERD”.

Starring Matt Damon and Angelina Jolie, “THE GOOD SHEPHERD” told the fictionalized story about the birth of the Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.) and counter-intelligence through the eyes of one man named Edward Wilson. Edward, the product of an East Coast aristocratic family and a C.I.A. official, has received an anonymous package during the spring of 1961. The famous C.I.A operation, the Bay of Pigs Invasion of Cuba had just failed. Inside the package is a reel-to-reel tape that reveals two unidentifiable people engaged in sex. Suspecting that the tape might reveal leads to the failure behind the Cuban operation, Edward has the tape investigated. The results lead to a possibility that the operation’s failure may have originated very close to home. During Edward’s investigation of the reel tape and the failure behind the Bay of Pigs, the movie reveals the history of his personal life and his career in both the C.I.A. and the Office of Strategic Services (O.S.S.) during World War II.

Many film critics and historians believe that the Edward Wilson character in “THE GOOD SHEPHERD” is loosely based upon the lives and careers of American intelligence officers, James Jesus Angelton and Richard M. Bissell, Jr.. And there might be some truth in this observation. But if I must be frank, I was never really concerned if the movie was a loose biography of anyone associated with the C.I.A. My concerns mainly focused on whether “THE GOOD SHEPHERD” is a good movie. Mind you, I had a few quibbles with it, but in the end I thought it was an above-average movie that gave moviegoers a peek into the operations of the C.I.A. and this country’s history between 1939 and 1961.

It is a pity that “THE GOOD SHEPHERD” was marred by a handful of prominent flaws. It really had the potential to be a well-made and memorable film. One of the problems I had were most of the characters’ emotional repression. Are we really supposed to believe that nearly every member of the upper-class in the country’s Northeast region are incapable of expressing overt emotion? I am not claiming that the performances were bad. Frankly, I was very impress by the performances featured in the movie. But the idea of nearly every major character – especially those born with a silver spoon – barely speaking above an audible whisper, due to his or her priviledged background, strikes me as more of a cliché than interesting and/or original characterization. I never understood what led Edward to finally realize that the man he believed was the genuine KGB defector Valentin Mironov, was actually a double agent. He should have realized this when the real Mironov had arrived several years earlier. The circumstances that led Edward to seek evidence inside one of the fake defector’s struck me as rather vague and far-reaching on screenwriter Eric Roth’s part. My main problem with “THE GOOD SHEPHERD” was its pacing. It was simply TOO DAMN SLOW. The movie has an interesting story, but De Niro’s snail-like pacing made it difficult for me to maintain my interest in one sitting. Thank goodness for DVDs. I feel that the only way to truly appreciate “THE GOOD SHEPHERD” without falling asleep is to watch a DVD copy in installments.

However, thanks to Eric Roth’s screenplay and Robert De Niro’s direction, “THE GOOD SHEPHERD” offered plenty of scenes and moments to enjoy. The moment of seduction at a Skull and Bones gathering that led Edward into a loveless marriage with Margaret ‘Clover’ Russell struck me as fascinating. It was a moment filled with passion and sex. Yet, the circumstances – namely Margaret’s pregnancy – forced Edward to give up a college love and marry a woman he did not truly love. I also enjoyed how De Niro and Roth used flashbacks to reveal the incidents in Edward’s post-college life and C.I.A. career, while he persisted into his investigation of the mysterious tape in the movie’s present day (1961). I was especially impressed by De Niro’s smooth ability to handle the transition from the present, to the past and back without missing a beat.

There were two scenes really stood out for me. One involved the Agency’s interrogation of the real Soviet defector, Valentin Mironov. I found it brutal, somewhat bloody and rather tragic in a perverse way. The other scene featured a loud and emotional quarrel between Edward and Margaret over the latter’s demand that Edward should convince his son not to join the C.I.A. What made this quarrel interesting is that after twenty years of a quiet and repressive marriage, the two finally revealed their true feelings for each other. But the best aspect of “THE GOOD SHEPHERD” was its depiction of how a decent, yet flawed allowed his work in intelligence and his position of power within the intelligence community warp his character. The higher Edward rose within the ranks of the C.I.A., the more he distanced himself from his family with his lies and secrets, and the more he was willing to corrupt himself in the name of national security . . . even to the extent of disrupting his son’s chance for happiness.

“THE GOOD SHEPHERD” must be one of the few large-scale movie productions, whose photography and production designs failed to give the impression of an epic. I found Robert Richardson’s photography rather limited, despite the numerous settings featured in the plot. So much of the movie’s scenes featured an interior setting. Yet, even most of the exterior scenes seemed to reflect a limited view. In the end, it was up to the movie’s 167 minute running time and 22 years time span that gave “THE GOOD SHEPHERD” an epic feel to it.

Robert De Niro and the casting team did a pretty good job in their selection of the cast. The only one I had a problem with was actor Lee Pace, who portrayed a fictionalized version of C.I.A. director Richard Helms named . . . Richard Hayes. I have always viewed Pace as an outstanding actor, but he spent most of his scenes smirking on the sidelines or making slightly insidious comments to the Edward Wilson character. I believe Roth’s screenplay had failed to give substance to his role. But there were plenty of other good supporting performances. I was especially impressed by Oleg Shtefanko’s subtle, yet insidious portryal of Edward’s KGB counterpart, Stas Siyanko aka Ulysses. Director Robert De Niro, John Sessions, Alec Baldwin, William Hurt, Billy Crudup, Joe Pesci and Tammy Blanchard all gave solid performances. Eddie Redmayne held his own with both Matt Damon and Angelina Jolie as the Wilsons’ intimidated and resentful son, Edward Wilson, Jr. Michael Gambon was his usual competent self as an MI-6 spymaster named Dr. Fredricks. Gambon was also lucky to give one of the best lines in the movie.

At least three performances impressed me. John Tuturro was very memorable as Edward’s tough and ruthless deputy, Ray Brocco. For once, De Niro’s insistence upon minimilist acting worked very well in Tuturro’s favor. The actor did an excellent job in portraying Brocco’s aggression with a very subtle performance, producing an interesting contrast in the character’s personality. I realize that Angelina Jolie had won her Oscar for “GIRL, INTERRUPTED”, a movie that had been released at least seven years before “THE GOOD SHEPHERD”. But I sincerely believe that her portryal of Edward’s long suffering wife, Margaret, was the first role in which she truly impressed me. She tossed away her usual habits and little tricks in order to give a very mature and subtle performance as a woman slowly sinking under the weight of a loveless and repressive marriage. And I believe that Jolie has not looked back, since. The task of carrying the 167-minute film fell upon the shoulders of Matt Damon and as usual, he was more than up to the job. And while there were times when his performance seemed a bit too subtle, I cannot deny that he did a superb job of developing the Edward Wilson character from a priviledge, yet inexperienced college student to a mature and emotionally repressed man who was willing to live with the negative aspects of his profession.

I do not believe that “THE GOOD SHEPHERD” will ever be considered as a great film. It has a small number of flaws, but those flaws were not as minor as they should have been – especially the slow pacing that threatened to put me to sleep. But I cannot deny it is damn good movie, thanks to Robert De Niro’s direction, Eric Roth’s screenplay and a talented cast led by Matt Damon. Fourteen years have passed since its release. It seems a pity that De Niro has not directed a movie since.

 

"IRON MAN 3" (2013) Photo Gallery

 

Below is a gallery featuring photos from "IRON MAN 3", the third entry to Marvel's IRON MAN movie franchise. Directed by Shane West, the movie starred Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark aka Iron Man:




"IRON MAN 3" (2013) Photo Gallery

"Consequences of Lust"

 

"CONSEQUENCES OF LUST"

All of Jane Austen's completed novels were first published during the Regency decade between 1810 and 1819, leaving present-day fans to celebrate the 200th anniversaries of each novel during this decade (2010-2019). Among those novels are "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE", now celebrating its bicentennial anniversary and "MANSFIELD PARK", which will be doing the same next year. 

"PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" told the story of five daughters of an English landowner named Mr. Bennet, whose wife is desperate to find husbands for them all. The novel was written from the viewpoint of Mr. Bennet's second daughter, Elizabeth; and she becomes engaged in a stormy relationship with a very wealthy landowner named Fitzwilliam Darcy. Elizabeth and her sisters face a major social setback when the youngest sibling, Lydia Bennet, foolishly runs off with a militia officer named George Wickham during a visit to Brighton. Wickham turns out to be the son of the Darcy family's late estate steward.

Published in a year after "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE", "MANSFIELD PARK" told the story of a young English girl named Fanny Price, who is sent to live with her wealthy relations at an estate called Mansfield Park. During her first ten years with the Bertram family, Fanny falls in love with her kind cousin, Edmund. Not long after her eighteenth birthday, the Bertram family become acquainted with a brother-and-sister pair named Henry and Mary Crawford. Edmund ends up falling in love with Mary, while Henry flirts with Edmund's two sisters - Maria and Julia. Eventually, Henry falls for Fanny. But due to her love for Edmund, she rejects his offers of marriage. And Henry responds by running off with one of Fanny's cousins - namely the newly married Maria Bertram Rushworth - with devastating consequences. 

The Lydia Bennet/George Wickham relationship and the Maria Bertram Rushworth/Henry Crawford relationship shared many similiarities. Both featured feelings of lust between the romantic pairs. However in Maria's case, I suspect she may have felt some love for Henry. The so-called "elopements" in both novels threatened to drag the families concerned into scandal. And the men in both relationships possessed reputations for skillful seduction and a penchant for mindless flirtations. But there are differences. 

Lydia Bennet was an unmarried girl of sixteen years old. Maria Bertram Rushworth was a married young woman in her early twenties during her disasterous affair with Henry Crawford. Two, George Wickham possessed an inability for genuine love and a mercenary's heart for money. Henry Crawford, despite his flaws, displayed a capability for genuine love; and possessed enough money to not even care about marrying an heiress. Thanks to Fitzwilliam Darcy's own feelings for Elizabeth Bennet; he searched for the missing Lydia and Wickham, paid off the latter's debts and arranged for the pair's wedding and Wickham's commission into another regiment. The Bennet family expressed relief over Lydia's marriage and Elizabeth expressed gratitude toward Mr. Darcy for solving their family problem.

Matters turned out differently over the Maria Rushworth/Henry Crawford affair. Determined to save the reputations of her family and the Bertrams, Mary Crawford suggested a similar vein of action to the Bertram family. She suggested that her brother Henry marry Maria, following the latter's divorce from Mr. Rushworth. Mary's plans never had a chance, due to Henry's refusal to marry Maria. Even worse, Edmund Bertram expressed outrage over Mary's plans and broke their engagement before marrying Fanny. And Sir Thomas punished Maria by forcing her to live in seclusion with her Aunt Norris.

I must admit that I found Austen's different methods in dealing with the fates of Lydia and Maria rather mind boggling. Did she ever realize that she had contradicted herself when she gave Maria Rushworth a harsher fate than Lydia Wickham? Mind you, Lydia's fate did not strike me as a bed of roses. She found herself married to a man who was a wastrel that did not love her. But as Austen hinted in the conclusion of "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE", Lydia and Wickham always had Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy to help them out of a financial jam. For some reason, Austen decided that Maria would face an uglier fate - banishment from Mansfield Park and her family and forced to live in seclusion with Aunt Norris. Austen also decided to punish Mary for suggestion the same thing that Mr. Darcy carried out in "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE".

Why? Why did Austen give a harsher fate for not only Maria Rushworth, but also Mary Crawford? Did she feel regret for not being harsh enough with Lydia? And what about Mr. Darcy? Why did he receive the gratitude for something that Mary Crawford was punished for suggesting? Because he was the protagonist's love interest? Did Austen expect her readers to change their views of Mr. Darcy's intervention, when she allowed Mary to not only fail in "MANSFIELD PARK" and be punished in the process? Or did Austen have another message in mind? Is it possible that Maria and Mary's cruel fates were some kind of an indictment against the Bertram family's claim of moral righteousness? Personally, I have no idea.