So it's finally finished. After 6 seasons of pure bafflement, occasional anger, but undeniable enjoyment, the best television series I've ever had the pleasure to watch has come to an unbelievable, and evidently controversial end.
Since roughly around season 2, Lost has divided people among the people that persevered with it's winding, mystery-filled storyline, and the people who became fed up with it. And finale has divided again the group who stayed loyal to it over the years, into people who thought it was perfect, and people who feel completely cheated by it.
And I can see why, in a way. This season, and indeed the finale, has served very little purpose in actually explaining what the hell has been going on on the island for the past few years. It introduced an alternate time-line that seemed to coincide with last season's detonation of the hydrogen bomb, yet it was turned around in the end to be something completely different; and that something was a purgatory-like life.
This is where, personally, my sympathy ends with the naysayers. Purgatory may seem like a complete cop-out, but for me, nothing fits the entire series better than that. I've seen it thrown around that the last six seasons have been rendered completely inconsequential by this ending, but I think that the exact opposite is true.
Fair enough, towards the end, the show took a hugely spiritual and, dare I say it, religious turn in the last few episodes but once you get past that, the resolution is fantastic. All the original islanders from season 1 were, as we saw through their flashbacks, essentially losers in life, all very flawed, with little to nothing left in life for them. And yet they all end up happily in that church at the end, reunited, ready to move on from life after their respective deaths, whenever they may have been. Why?
This is where the island, and everything that happened on it, fills the gap. Through all their individual actions and sacrifices on the island, they all contributed to keeping evil incarnate (the Smoke Monster/Locke/whoever) on the island and away from the rest of civilisation, and therefore their lives were granted meaning, far more than they could have ever hoped to have achieved had they not ever been to the Island. From the dead bleedin' obvious to the smallest way, all the characters that we saw in the Church scene in the end had found the redemption they were looking for on the island, through the actions and decisions they had all made during their time there.
Which made the last scene all the more tear-inducing. Seeing everyone finally at peace with their lives, happy and ready to move into (what I presume was intended to be) an afterlife, while simultaneously watching Jack die with a smile on his face in the actual time-line, was genuinely the most moving scene I've ever had the pleasure to watch.
People are complaining that no questions were answered whatsoever but that really isn't what the whole thing was about. Sure, just as much as the next Lost viewer, I'd like to know what the hell the deal was with Walt, and why being on the Island causes infertility and birth difficulties, but I think, just like the ending, it's all open to interpretation. This may seem like a cop-out for some, but I think the interpretive ending is the most fitting to a show that has never really given a load away. The mysteries were never really the focus; it was all about these characters making something of themselves.
And this is something that we can all relate to. I realise right about now that I'm sounding hugely fruity about this, but it's true. Seeing all these characters suffering and toiling away on the island, trying to escape, when really it's the only thing that, at the time, is giving their lives any meaning, is a simple yet powerful idea. And the fact that they all realise this at the end has an even bigger impact.
Lost was, is and always will be a spectacular, if flawed, piece of work. I recognise all of its flaws, and I think anyone who has watched it from day one cannot deny them. But for me, and I hope a lot of other Lost fans out there, the finale has tied everything up spectacularly. To people who were searching for answers, I'll say this; when you stayed with the show even after the island disappeared, and when time travel was brought in, did you not think, somewhere along the line, that not every single thing would be answered at all? I'm surprised at the backlash this finale is receiving, considering the people criticising it have been some of the people who have stayed with it through thick and thin. I nearly lost faith in the show when the entire island vanished at the end of the 4th season, but I persevered, and was given something I never expected, but thoroughly enjoyed. I'm shocked people expected logical resolutions to everything after we all accepted that the show went into the supernatural.
That said, people are entitled to their opinions, and the writers have said that the ending wouldn't please everyone, a very shrewd prediction indeed. I can see where the haters are coming from (apart from the tools spouting crap like "Oh my god, so the island was just all of them in purgatory", when it was very clearly explained what was real and what was not), but personally, Lost hit heights it has never scaled before with it's final bow.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Head Shops: Proving that legalisation is not the answer
So the country’s brief but fiery obsession with head shops and so-called “legal highs” has finally fizzled out, thanks to the government’s blanket ban on the majority of substances used by these shops.
Now, I know what you’re probably thinking; this is another rant condemning the practice entirely and praising the government to the high heavens for finally putting a stop to all of this. (As someone who has never made use of any of these substances, I’m going to keep this as objective as possible.) But the reality is that this whole drugs situation is much more complicated than merely the black and white of ‘to legalise or not to legalise’.
On paper, when you think about it, the concept of a head shop isn’t an awful idea. It provides safe channels for people who do use drugs to get them legally and legitimately. It almost sounds like an obvious solution to the problem of legalising, but practically, as we have seen, there’s problems abound. A lot of the substances being used in legal highs can be extremely harmful and, more alarmingly, are completely unknown and foreign to doctors. At least with heroin and cocaine, A&E staff know what they’re dealing with, but they’re blind in dealing with some of the drugs coming from head shops.
Another problem is that teenagers experimenting with legal highs are oftentimes unsure of how to take the drug, in terms of quantity etc., because there isn’t as common knowledge out there about them as there would be illegal drugs. Again, it’s the problem of dealing with the unknown.
So, should it be a case then of providing widespread education about these drugs and about drug use in general? This idea doesn’t sit right with me whatsoever. The idea of going around secondary schools and colleges instructing people on how to use drugs if they so wish is an idea I find disturbing, to say the least. That kind of education is bordering on the promotion of drugs, which I think goes beyond all realms of decency.
Then there’s the argument that some form of legal channels have to be put in place to counteract the illegal and thuggish underworld drugs trade. Of course I think this needs to be dealt with in some manner or form but legalising may not be the answer, as we have seen. Several bombings of various head shops around the country, which have been blamed on illegal drug traders, is worrying evidence that the illegal drug practice may not go away, at least not without a fight. Isn’t legalising about ending violence? I’m aware that head shops versus drug barons isn’t a thoroughly accurate indication of what full legalisation would be like (difference in substances being the main difference), but it is a warning nonetheless.
Another argument I’ve heard several times is that the crime rate in the country would be reduced. Of course it would be reduced, because an entire criminal practice would be wiped out. But the social consequences remain the same. If we’re talking full legalisation, it won’t change the life consuming properties of heroin or cocaine addictions. It won’t get the scum off our streets that live their lives for their next hit, not caring who they hurt or what they do to get it. Drug trafficking and illegal dealing would be a thing of the past (if the underworld trade is quashed by legal dealers), but drug related crimes would still remain, and would probably increase due to the hypothetical ease in which people would be able to acquire drugs upon legalisation.
But what about alcohol, I hear the cries? Isn’t alcohol technically a ‘legal high’? Well, yes. And this is where my argument, and I’m sure a lot people’s, falls apart. Don’t we all technically drink to get that buzz (pissed, sloshed, whatever the hell you call it yourself)? Of course there’s social drinkers out there but the reality is that this country’s people, young people in particular, abuse alcohol on a very regular basis, and no one bats an eyelid. Oh, but when hash or some other soft drug is mentioned, that’s a no go. I’m one of those people. I’ll admit that. But I think that’s what we’ve been conditioned to think like. Where along the line did the high afforded by alcohol become completely accepted, celebrated even, while the highs from cannabis remained widely frowned upon?
It’s a hugely complex issue, and I can say with a large degree of conviction that I’m not the only one on the fence over it all. I truly think society would be a poorer place if we legalised drugs, if my prediction that drug use would increase alarmingly does indeed come to pass. I can see some of the benefits that legalisation would bring, but I think for it to be even considered, it would have to be so tightly regulated. Nevertheless, as I’ve hopefully gotten across, there isn’t that much of benefit to society in general to warrant any form of legalisation.
Now, I know what you’re probably thinking; this is another rant condemning the practice entirely and praising the government to the high heavens for finally putting a stop to all of this. (As someone who has never made use of any of these substances, I’m going to keep this as objective as possible.) But the reality is that this whole drugs situation is much more complicated than merely the black and white of ‘to legalise or not to legalise’.
On paper, when you think about it, the concept of a head shop isn’t an awful idea. It provides safe channels for people who do use drugs to get them legally and legitimately. It almost sounds like an obvious solution to the problem of legalising, but practically, as we have seen, there’s problems abound. A lot of the substances being used in legal highs can be extremely harmful and, more alarmingly, are completely unknown and foreign to doctors. At least with heroin and cocaine, A&E staff know what they’re dealing with, but they’re blind in dealing with some of the drugs coming from head shops.
Another problem is that teenagers experimenting with legal highs are oftentimes unsure of how to take the drug, in terms of quantity etc., because there isn’t as common knowledge out there about them as there would be illegal drugs. Again, it’s the problem of dealing with the unknown.
So, should it be a case then of providing widespread education about these drugs and about drug use in general? This idea doesn’t sit right with me whatsoever. The idea of going around secondary schools and colleges instructing people on how to use drugs if they so wish is an idea I find disturbing, to say the least. That kind of education is bordering on the promotion of drugs, which I think goes beyond all realms of decency.
Then there’s the argument that some form of legal channels have to be put in place to counteract the illegal and thuggish underworld drugs trade. Of course I think this needs to be dealt with in some manner or form but legalising may not be the answer, as we have seen. Several bombings of various head shops around the country, which have been blamed on illegal drug traders, is worrying evidence that the illegal drug practice may not go away, at least not without a fight. Isn’t legalising about ending violence? I’m aware that head shops versus drug barons isn’t a thoroughly accurate indication of what full legalisation would be like (difference in substances being the main difference), but it is a warning nonetheless.
Another argument I’ve heard several times is that the crime rate in the country would be reduced. Of course it would be reduced, because an entire criminal practice would be wiped out. But the social consequences remain the same. If we’re talking full legalisation, it won’t change the life consuming properties of heroin or cocaine addictions. It won’t get the scum off our streets that live their lives for their next hit, not caring who they hurt or what they do to get it. Drug trafficking and illegal dealing would be a thing of the past (if the underworld trade is quashed by legal dealers), but drug related crimes would still remain, and would probably increase due to the hypothetical ease in which people would be able to acquire drugs upon legalisation.
But what about alcohol, I hear the cries? Isn’t alcohol technically a ‘legal high’? Well, yes. And this is where my argument, and I’m sure a lot people’s, falls apart. Don’t we all technically drink to get that buzz (pissed, sloshed, whatever the hell you call it yourself)? Of course there’s social drinkers out there but the reality is that this country’s people, young people in particular, abuse alcohol on a very regular basis, and no one bats an eyelid. Oh, but when hash or some other soft drug is mentioned, that’s a no go. I’m one of those people. I’ll admit that. But I think that’s what we’ve been conditioned to think like. Where along the line did the high afforded by alcohol become completely accepted, celebrated even, while the highs from cannabis remained widely frowned upon?
It’s a hugely complex issue, and I can say with a large degree of conviction that I’m not the only one on the fence over it all. I truly think society would be a poorer place if we legalised drugs, if my prediction that drug use would increase alarmingly does indeed come to pass. I can see some of the benefits that legalisation would bring, but I think for it to be even considered, it would have to be so tightly regulated. Nevertheless, as I’ve hopefully gotten across, there isn’t that much of benefit to society in general to warrant any form of legalisation.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Congratulations Liverpool, after a season of mediocrity, you finally celebrate it...
There comes a point in every football season where some aspect of the goings-on disgusts me. Whether that's due to blatant diving or inexplicable refereeing decisions, there's always one that sticks in my mind (Pedro Mendes' overhead kick against Man Utd years ago, anyone?) but this season something quite different has taken the biscuit.
Rivalries between clubs, and in particular clubs' fans, tend to run quite deep no matter what footballing climate you look at, and this is perfectly acceptable as long as it doesn't deteriorate into physical violence or serious abuse of players or other fans. But when this rivalry begins to tamper with the dignity of the game, it is going far over the line.
When Liverpool fans began to celebrate their 2-0 loss to Chelsea on Saturday, that's when I feel the line was crossed. The Kop were celebrating what should be an almost inevitable Premier League crown for Carlo Ancelloti's men, at the expense of their arch-rivals Manchester United.
But celebrating when their own team has lost? When there was still some hope of clinching 4th spot from under the noses of Manchester City and Tottenham? When there was still a chance to gain some modest achievement in a season defined by humiliating and humbling failure?
I think the behaviour of the fans is absolutely disgraceful. I did not see the game, but imagine the climate within that stadium had Liverpool been in the lead? What then? Would the Kop begin to boo their own players if they got on the front foot, with only one thing in mind; anything but United?
John Aldridge even admitted in a column the morning before the game that, if he had a 90th minute penalty to draw level with Chelsea in this particular fixture, he'd blast it over the bar on purpose.
Barely understandable from fans, but from a player? It really is shocking stuff.
Again, I did not see the game, but Gerrard's awful backpass to set up Drogba has even been called into question, as to whether there was intent to set up a goal or not. If this is the case, then this match was truly a blight on the game of football. Even more shocking, again, considering that 4th place was still a possibility. Why would a player of Gerrard's calibre and professionalism put petty rivalry over possible success? It beggars belief.
The Kop truly showed themselves to be an absolutely despicable set of fans.
Oh, and another thing:
Why, John Higgins, why? Don't profess your innocence and fear when you're in full swing suggesting getting another mortgage on your Spanish villa to cover up the payments...
Rivalries between clubs, and in particular clubs' fans, tend to run quite deep no matter what footballing climate you look at, and this is perfectly acceptable as long as it doesn't deteriorate into physical violence or serious abuse of players or other fans. But when this rivalry begins to tamper with the dignity of the game, it is going far over the line.
When Liverpool fans began to celebrate their 2-0 loss to Chelsea on Saturday, that's when I feel the line was crossed. The Kop were celebrating what should be an almost inevitable Premier League crown for Carlo Ancelloti's men, at the expense of their arch-rivals Manchester United.
But celebrating when their own team has lost? When there was still some hope of clinching 4th spot from under the noses of Manchester City and Tottenham? When there was still a chance to gain some modest achievement in a season defined by humiliating and humbling failure?
I think the behaviour of the fans is absolutely disgraceful. I did not see the game, but imagine the climate within that stadium had Liverpool been in the lead? What then? Would the Kop begin to boo their own players if they got on the front foot, with only one thing in mind; anything but United?
John Aldridge even admitted in a column the morning before the game that, if he had a 90th minute penalty to draw level with Chelsea in this particular fixture, he'd blast it over the bar on purpose.
Barely understandable from fans, but from a player? It really is shocking stuff.
Again, I did not see the game, but Gerrard's awful backpass to set up Drogba has even been called into question, as to whether there was intent to set up a goal or not. If this is the case, then this match was truly a blight on the game of football. Even more shocking, again, considering that 4th place was still a possibility. Why would a player of Gerrard's calibre and professionalism put petty rivalry over possible success? It beggars belief.
The Kop truly showed themselves to be an absolutely despicable set of fans.
Oh, and another thing:
Why, John Higgins, why? Don't profess your innocence and fear when you're in full swing suggesting getting another mortgage on your Spanish villa to cover up the payments...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
