Supporting Actor Showdown: Michael Emerson vs. Terry O'Quinn

It seems that most Lost viewers share a love-hate relationship with the Emmy awards. Everyone commends Emmy voters for their excellent taste in voting the first season of Lost as the Outstanding Drama Series of 2005. Everyone condemns Emmy voters for their poor taste in refusing to nominate Lost for the top prize in season two or three. Exactly how does a drama receive nominations for writing, directing, acting, film editing, and sound, but not earn an overall nomination? Whether openly or not, we all would love to see our favorite show achieve the industry’s highest symbol of critical success. Lost may have been snubbed by the Emmy awards once again, but Lost fans can still take solace in the fact that both Michael Emerson and Terry O’Quinn received recognition for their outstanding work in season three. Neither actor will win, of course, because the voters who watch Lost will split their votes between the two (which is exactly how Shatner wound up beating O’Quinn and Naveen Andrews two years ago).
Nevertheless, the dual nomination of both Emerson and O’Quinn offers another opportunity for Lost fans to reflect and debate over the longest hiatus in the series. It is no accident that Emerson and O’Quinn were voted as the duo with the best on-screen chemistry during season three. Dialogues between the two offer not only a chance for a battle of wills between the characters, but also chance for two highly talented but remarkably different actors to go head-to-head. The rivalry between Ben Linus and John Locke will certainly become even more heated in the coming seasons. Here is my take on which actor deserves recognition as Lost’s finest actor during season three.
Ability to Lead an Episode
Season Three’s The Man Behind The Curtain included the first episode that centered on the Benjamin Linus character. Even so, it does not provide an accurate showcase for Emerson’s ability to carry an episode, because he himself appeared in only a single flashback scene. Nevertheless, audiences loved the episode, and voted it among the top episodes of the third season. Emerson managed to steal the show three separate times at the end of the episode: during the Jacob sequence, the Purge flashback, and shooting Locke into the pit. All three scenes demonstrated the same common strength: Emerson’s ability to create a false sense of security for the audience, and then to disrupt that calm in an instant. The episode certainly left viewers wanting to see more from Michael Emerson, both to learn more about his character and to showcase his talents.
Terry O’Quinn was offered three episodes in which to demonstrate his ability as the leading man, but with more mixed results. Further Instructions sounded like the perfect vehicle for O’Quinn to reestablish himself as one of the show’s leads, but some scenes didn’t quite work and it somehow came up short. Viewers continued to doubt his importance until The Man From Tallahassee restored his reputation. The flashbacks themselves were not amazingly interesting, but O’Quinn still managed to shine in every single scene throughout the episode. O’Quinn also had the most screen time in The Brig, but he was absent for the most crucial scene in the episode, and Josh Holloway stole the show in the minds of many viewers. In my opinion, The Man From Tallahassee includes a stronger lead performance than The Man Behind The Curtain, but O’Quinn’s other episodes are lacking in leadership.
EDGE: Emerson
Ability to Support in an Episode
Perhaps the best compliment you can give about an actor is that they have the ability to bring out the best in their fellow performers. Both Emerson and O’Quinn can generate great chemistry with almost anyone else you throw on screen with them. Emerson appears at his best in scenes that allowed him to push other actors to their limits (Matthew Fox, Josh Holloway, and Elizabeth Mitchell in particular). Even though he excelled against the acting heavyweights, some of his scenes with actors in smaller roles leave much to be desired. In particular, his scenes with Tania Raymonde (Alex) tend to suffer. Maybe it was just me, but it seemed that Emerson never conveyed the sense that Alex was particularly important to Ben compared to any of the other characters. Their interactions make it hard to believe that they have known each other for a significant period of time.
Season three gave Terry O’Quinn several chances to enrich scenes that focused upon other characters. He managed to develop a unique dynamic in response to each of the other actors. Truly in character, Locke’s interactions with Charlie, Eko, Sayid, Kate, Jack, Ben, Sawyer, and Cooper all appear genuinely different. O’Quinn also has the uncanny ability to elevate some of the smaller, quieter scenes to greater heights. In his brief appearance in Left Behind, he plays off of Evangeline Lily perfectly, and allows the scene to emphasize her emotions rather than his. Even in the off-beat episode Expose, O’Quinn was able to transform a short exchange with Rodrigo Santoro into a throwback to season one Locke, and make Paolo’s conflict more believable in the process. O’Quinn seems to demonstrate a better understanding of how to adapt to the other performers, so that his performance helps develop the other characters even while building his own.
EDGE: O’Quinn
Visual Acting
Terry O’Quinn offers one of the most expressive faces you can find anywhere on the small screen. Not only does he have the freedom to manipulate his face in ways unimaginable for most actors, but he also possesses enough creativity to invent new expressions for each episode. The writers seemed to flaunt this luxury by including several scenes for him that involve very few spoken lines. In Further Instructions, O’Quinn opened the season as a mute throughout his sweat-lodge/vision-quest. His silent face still managed to transfix the audience’s attention while he played computer chess in Enter 77, and while he destroyed the submarine without a word. O’Quinn also needed nothing more than his facial expressions to convey the despair of paralysis in two separate episodes (and both reactions were truly distinct). If you needed to choose one actor to carry an emotionally complex scene without relying upon dialogue, then Terry O’Quinn would surely be your man.
It is no coincidence that the two Sawyers both referred to Ben as ‘that bug-eyed bastard.’ The Southern conmen pinned down a pretty accurate description of Emerson’s most common facial expression. No matter what the scene, Emerson usually chooses an intense, open-eyed stare without exercising many muscles in his face. You could examine a bunch of still close-ups from each of his appearances in season three, and it would be difficult to name the right episodes. Perhaps this stylistic difference comes as a result of their different backgrounds (O’Quinn is a longtime TV veteran, while Emerson worked for years as a stage actor). In an interesting twist, though, Emerson’s eyes actually change color in different scenes during the finale. If Emerson has somehow immersed himself so much into his character that he can now emote through his corneas like a mood ring, then this achievement deserves additional consideration. Until we learn otherwise, though, O’Quinn deserves the edge.
BIG EDGE: O’Quinn
Voice Acting
Whenever Emerson speaks, he grabs the audience’s attention with an iron fist. Ben frequently needs to assert control over situations with just the power of his voice. He delivers most of his lines at a steady pace, but he usually knows exactly which words to emphasize and when to increase the tempo. The subtle quiver in his vocal delivery perfectly matches the eerie tone of the island’s mysteries. Emerson can be just as effective speaking from off-screen, or, as we saw in the finale, speaking through a walkie-talkie. Some of the show’s editing choices confirm this strength; we often continue to hear Emerson’s voice even as the camera focuses upon another character’s reaction. Whereas O’Quinn might serve as the true face of Lost, Emerson might represent the true voice of Lost. The parallel argument works here: if you needed one actor to pull off an important scene without relying on many visual close-ups, Michael Emerson would be the best choice.
O’Quinn’s voice acting is excellent in its own right. He could easily serve as a narrator in the vein of Morgan Freeman or Anthony Hopkins. Terry’s voice projects intelligence, knowledge, and wisdom, and his voice can be equally persuasive to the audience. I doubt that O’Quinn would have much difficulty in delivering any of Ben’s lines. Emerson still wins this category, even though O’Quinn possesses one of the strongest auditory presences of the actors on Lost.
EDGE: Emerson
Consistency
Michael Emerson was solid as a rock throughout the third season. From his first scenes with Kate in A Tale of Two Cities to his final scenes in Through The Looking Glass, he truly inhabited the role with one consistent vision. Part of Emerson’s dependability came from the fact that he needed to assert himself during the first twenty episodes that focused on other characters. He needed to make the most of his limited screen time in early episodes, and he maintained the same high standard of quality in nearly all of his scenes. Perhaps the only scene where he seemed out of character was his brief cameo in Expose, although that criticism reflects more upon the writing of that scene than the acting. O’Quinn’s work throughout season three appears much less even by comparison. Although none of his work in Further Instructions was poor, it is hard to pick out any of his scenes from that episode that were truly special. O’Quinn didn’t truly hit his stride until The Man From Tallahassee, and then he carried that momentum through the rest of the season.
EDGE: Emerson
Believability
Both actors face the tremendous challenge of remaining believable to the audience even as some of their motivations remain unknown, and even when they enter more and more improbable situations. Either role could have easily devolved into a caricature and killed the suspension of disbelief. Terry O’Quinn always manages to ground every scene in the realm of understandable human emotions. He can make even the most fantastic occurrences seem realistic through his reactions. Perhaps the best example is O’Quinn’s first appearance in the finale while in the pit. At the end of the scene, O’Quinn cracks a little smile, but somehow remains in character. Smiling during a dramatic scene always involves a risk, but he is perhaps the only actor on the show who knows when to when his character would be laughing on the inside at the absurdity of it all. However, he manages to increase the show’s credibility instead of diminishing it, by providing these fantastic events with a human touch.
The Man Behind The Curtain gave Michael Emerson the opportunity to make his character more believable as a human being and less of a stereotype. I think he achieved mixed results in that category. There are not many major differences in how Emerson emotes from scene to scene. Did anyone believe that Emerson looked truly touched while reminiscing with his birthday present? Did Emerson look like a man who was in the process of killing the father who had hurt him time and again? Did anyone truly understand Ben’s jealousy while he shot Locke? Now, in all of these instances, you could say that he must hide his emotions well as a result of his character’s personality. Even so, I would have liked to see him bring a little more to the table in each of these scenes. He played it safe, and chose not to take any real risks by adding anything to his character that could not be found in the script.
EDGE: O’Quinn
Degree of Difficulty
It is no mystery why many actors often seek out those juicy villain roles. It is usually less difficult to fill the role of a villainous mastermind than a flawed but sympathetic hero. There are thousands of actors who could play Iago, but very few who can make Othello believable. A villain like Ben receives countless opportunities to steal scenes and to make a big impression on the audience. Examples abound of actors who received tremendous accolades in similar roles: Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs, Denzel Washington in Training Day, William B. Davis in The X-Files, Ian McDiarmid in Star Wars, Hugo Weaving in The Matrix, etc. You can impress people more easily if you’re almost always displaying strength. No matter what happens, the writing ensures that a psychologically-manipulative bad guy will usually be the actor that audiences remember first. (On another side note, many Lost theorists out there believe that Ben must have some sort of advanced knowledge of the future. In other words, people think that the character must know the future, because they think that Ben would not be intelligent enough to manipulate people otherwise. Personally, I think that these theories are a slight insult to Emerson’s acting.)
O’Quinn’s role presents a more difficult task, because Locke could have fallen into the background much more easily. Most of John Locke’s scenes are less inherently interesting (less razzle-dazzle) than the Ben Linus role, and O’Quinn has always been up to the task of elevating Locke beyond merely what is written on the script pages. A lesser actor playing the character in all of the three seasons could have been overshadowed easily by the other members of the cast. Essentially, the task of playing Locke in season three required that O’Quinn remain believable even when his actions made little sense, and remain sympathetic even as his character became more selfish.
EDGE: O’Quinn
Most Ridiculous Scene
One of the best measures of an actor is how well they can pull off an imperfectly written scene. O’Quinn and Emerson were asked separately to portray two nearly impossible scenes in Season Three. When the writers chose to introduce Nikki and Paolo, they charged Terry O’Quinn with the task of addressing the new characters by name to the audience for the first time. Using just his own sincerity, he needed to make us believe that he had known these new characters all along. He made a valiant effort, but the lines are still groan-inducing: “First things first, we've got to look out for Mr. Eko, so, Paolo and Nikki, bring towels and water.” Audiences were probably never going to accept Nikki and Paolo after this mishandled introduction. Depending upon whom you believe, Nikki and Paolo may have been written out of the series as a result of this failure.
In The Man Behind The Curtain, though, the writers posed an even greater challenge. They not only asked Emerson to have a conversation with a chair, but also added the stipulation that future seasons would depend upon the audience’s belief in that invisible man. Amazingly, though, Emerson very nearly made the scene work. He does speak and act as if he were actually having a conversation with another person. The viewer’s reaction to the scene follows the same path as Locke’s: “He’s a liar! No wait, he’s crazy! No wait, it’s all real!”. His contributions to the scene hold up on a second viewing, and he never departs from his absolute conviction that Jacob is real. For Emerson’s sake, let’s hope that he won’t need to have too many more conversations with his invisible friend. It really would be too much to ask for him to converse with Jacob on a regular basis, and to develop acting chemistry with a chair.
EDGE: Emerson
The Hypothetical Switch
If you cast the two actors in opposite roles, then who would be more believable as the other character? I believe that Terry O’Quinn would be fairly convincing as the mysterious leader of the Others. The key to playing the master manipulator Benjamin Linus effectively lies in maintaining the psychological upper hand in any conversation. When given the chance, O’Quinn has demonstrated the same impeccable timing and delivery that is necessary to maintain this illusion of control in every situation. O’Quinn can make any lie sound like the truth (such his heartfelt “We’re going to find our friends” speech). It is not difficult to imagine O’Quinn executing those same subtle manipulations of Jack, Locke, Sawyer, Juliet, and others in season three.
It is more difficult to imagine Emerson (or anyone else for that matter) playing the role of John Locke effectively. Although you could make many comparisons between Ben and other villains, John Locke continues to defy any traditional categorization. Locke is a walking mass of contradictions: a paraplegic who became an imposing hunter, a zealot who remains a frequent skeptic, a man of great potential with a track record of failure, and a strong-willed individualist who desperately seeks acceptance. I don’t think that Emerson could project the right combination of forcefulness and vulnerability necessary to portray all of John Locke’s scenes.
EDGE: O’Quinn
Head-to-Head Match-ups
Emerson and O’Quinn faced off directly against each other several times during season three, in The Man From Tallahassee, The Brig, and The Man Behind The Curtain. The dialogue was written so that the characters themselves got to battle back-and-forth, exchanging the upper hand every minute. As a result, it is truly hard to say which actor managed to steal those scenes from the other. Even though Ben might be more skilled at manipulating Locke, O’Quinn is more skilled at manipulating the audience. Locke remains the emotional focus of each of these scenes. At times, Emerson appears as if he is reading speeches from a script, but O’Quinn manages to deliver every word as if he were actually thinking it.
EDGE: O’Quinn
The Final Verdict: O’Quinn
By its nature, Lost is an ensemble drama that relies on the contributions of all of its actors. Michael Emerson and Terry O’Quinn both delivered performances this year that are Emmy-worthy. You can’t really go wrong in supporting either man. Overall, though, I think that Terry O’Quinn’s work is a slightly more remarkable achievement. As always, feel free to disagree with any part of my analysis. I hope that this piece offered an opportunity to evaluate these two actors in greater depth. Let’s hope that Emmy voters can recognize the complexity and beauty of their work rather than settling on a comedic scenery-chewer like Shatner.

A Couple of Bandaids, A Bottle of Peroxide

I have chosen to address this topic even though it has generated supreme controversy for some, and has generated extreme boredom for others. I speak, of course, of the infamous Sawyer-Kate-Jack love triangle, one of the recurring plotlines throughout all three seasons. Within my other posts on the Theories section, I have always approached Lost as a work of art that functions not only to entertain but also to enlighten. Our interpretations of, preferences for, and reactions to the drama onscreen reflect our own values. Some readers have even been offended and called me out for extending judgments beyond the show and onto the audience members. I stand by my assertion that Lost does not represent pure entertainment, but instead serves as a looking glass with which we can learn about ourselves and others. The dramatization of moral conflict allows us to explore the depths of human decision making. To me, the show’s love triangle does not carry any intrinsic value on its own, but remains important because it helps reveal our concepts of love and life in general.

As a medium, Internet message boards might not provide the ideal forum for discussing some of the show’s more complex and ambiguous issues such as this one. More often than not, people need to resort to unfair labeling, insults, exaggerations, over-simplifications, and other tactics in order to try to ‘win’ an argument in the space of a short paragraph. A common strategy is to try to phrase your conclusions in absolute terms, in order to overstate both the merits of your case and the flaws of the opposing view. Even in longer works such as recaps, bloggers tend to ignore possible counterarguments and focus upon offering only a one-sided view of complex issues. The adversarial system may work well in courtrooms, but, most often, this cycle tends to make all of us look like obsessed fools here.

Here are a few ground rules for my discussion, and I would recommend that all subsequent posters follow the same. I will not use any phony words (such as ‘Sawkat,’ ‘Jater,’ or ‘shipper’) intended to put a label on any group of people or point of view. I will try not to insult the intelligence, morality, or psychological underpinnings of any particular perspective. I will also not make any appeals regarding the relative quality of the actors and writers, nor will I treat any comments by the producers as evidence. Indeed, the debate in its current form seems rather ill-defined and needs clarification. I will attempt to analyze the discussion in terms of three general questions. First, whom will Kate choose by the end of the series? Second, which man would represent the better choice for Kate? Third, whom does Kate truly love? Each of these questions has three possible answers worth considering: Sawyer, Jack, or neither.


Kate will choose Sawyer at the end of the series.

Although the Pilot episode established Kate’s attachment with Jack, Kate’s relationship with Sawyer has been crafted slowly and steadily over the course of three seasons. The torture/kiss scene in Confidence Man was one of the first attempts to develop Kate’s attraction to Sawyer more deeply, and the revelation of Sawyer’s letter enhanced that depth. The two characters revealed a further connection in Outlaws, in the memorable ‘I Never’ sequence, in which they shared secrets about each other that they might not tell anyone else. Although Sawyer did not depart on his raft trip on good terms with Kate, she was clearly regretful, and Kate made up for it by treating a wounded Sawyer with great care in season two.

Season three, though, really pushed the relationship between Kate and Sawyer to great heights. The two lovers suffered a trying ordeal while imprisoned at the Hydra station, which brought their emotions out to the surface from underneath. While Pickett was beating Sawyer in front of her cage, Kate stated that she loved Sawyer. Kate later escaped into Sawyer’s cage and made love to him in the episode I Do. After some time apart following their escape, the couple once again reunited back on the beach with another sex scene in the episode Catch-22. The strong possibility exists that Sawyer, with his island-enhanced sperm count, may have impregnated Kate during one of these encounters, which should deepen the union between them. Sawyer shows that he loves Kate and needs her, and she would not want to hurt him in the future. She also seems to have helped Sawyer’s maturation throughout the series, while Jack has regressed to his lowest point by the events of the flash forward (at which point she is clearly not with Jack). Unlike her dealings with Jack, Kate has also already demonstrated that she and Sawyer can function as lovers. Regardless of what happens, a lot of different developments would need to occur in order to deconstruct Kate’s relationship with Sawyer, and, most likely, it would leave James Ford’s already fragile psyche in ruins.

Kate will choose Jack at the end of the series.

Kate and Jack have shared a special bond since the very first episode of the series. It is no coincidence that both the show’s first extended dialogue scene and the conclusion of the third season involved emotional discussions between Jack and Kate. Even at the end of season two, just before the Others put bags over their heads, Kate chose to focus her final gaze upon Jack’s face, and not Sawyer’s. It might be foolish to assume that the love triangle has already been decided even though three more seasons worth of character development remain. Kate may have kissed and slept with Sawyer before Jack, but the last man with to make love to her is more important than the first. Lost always excels at moving against viewer expectations, and Kate’s physical relationship with Sawyer might just be an obstacle on the long road toward uniting with Jack before the finale.

Even though the accepted interpretation of the episode I Do implies that Kate chose to be with Sawyer, there is more to the situation than meets the eye. In reality, Kate was not in the position to make any kind of free choice. She was the subject of Ben’s manipulation, and she ended up doing exactly what Ben wanted her to do. All that you need to do to force two animals to breed is to pair them together in cages with no other mating options available. Quite probably, Kate would have wound up sleeping with Jack if the situations were reversed. After all, it was Ben’s choice (not Kate’s) to group her with Sawyer and to keep Jack in isolation. Ben managed to break Kate’s will, just as he had broken down Jack and Sawyer previously. The decision was also made at a time of extreme emotional distress, with Sawyer facing the threat of execution. Sawyer himself pointed out that Kate probably only had sex with him because she thought he was a dead man.

Once the duo escaped from the Hydra, her passion for Sawyer certainly seemed to diminish, culminating when Kate abandoned Sawyer to rescue Jack. Even events of the later episode Catch-22 confirm that Kate would choose to be with Jack rather than Sawyer. With all three characters released from their imprisonment by the Others, Kate seizes the opportunity to try to rekindle some sparks with Jack. Only after Jack rebuffs her flirtatious advances does Kate take up Sawyer on the offer that she had rejected earlier. During the sex scene itself, Sawyer notices that Kate is crying, and she tells him to shut up. These actions indicate that Jack has always been, and may continue to be, Kate’s first choice of a romantic partner.

Kate will choose neither Sawyer nor Jack at the end of the series.

Ultimately, it does not make much sense to assume that Kate must choose to end up with either Sawyer or Jack by the end of season six. A strong possibility remains that one or all of these three central characters might die before the show ends. Even if all three players remain alive, Kate still is free to choose whomever she wants or no one at all. At the end of season three, it seems that both relationships are in trouble, as both Sawyer and Jack struggle to deal with their own personal demons. Even though Sawyer and Jack might represent her top choices on the island, she might feel differently after returning to the mainland. Her cryptic comments in the flash-forward (“He’s gonna be wondering where I am.”) indicate a relationship with male that may or may not be Sawyer.


Sawyer would represent the better choice for Kate.

First and foremost, Sawyer offers a strong sexual chemistry with Kate. Beyond pure sex, though, Sawyer provides a high level of physical intimacy in other situations, such as Libby’s death in Three Minutes. Like Han Solo, Sawyer offers the “You like me because I’m a scoundrel” appeal that attracts many women. Any time that she is with Sawyer, Kate gets to feel needed, and also gets to feel as if she if doing a good deed by changing him for the better. His past relationships with women had been defined by money, but the island has made money worthless and thus given him the chance to develop a nonmaterial quality. As far as we know, Sawyer has never fully committed himself to a woman, and so his relationship with Kate includes a degree of novelty that adds excitement to every turn. As fellow Outlaws, Kate and Sawyer share some common background, and he understands her past perhaps better than anyone. For the most part, he treats her as an equal partner, and rarely tells her what to do. He approves of Kate just as she is, and he does not demand any change or improvement on her part. One could argue that Kate is indeed the dominant partner in this relationship, as Sawyer has more needs to fill than Kate.

Jack’s relationship with Kate has not always been a very fun experience for either partner. As Jack began to make decisions and give orders to other survivors, he also started to tell Kate what to do. Most notably, he secretly overturned the dynamite decision that they had made as a group in Exodus, and he tried to forbid her from joining The Hunting Party (which ended badly). Beyond merely making decisions for her, Jack’s frustrations often develop into violent rage towards all others, including Kate. Jack revealed a streak of drunken, physical brutality with his aggressive treatment of Achara in Thailand. At least one woman in Jack’s past, his ex-wife Sarah, decided that she could not live with his controlling nature. Upon learning of Sarah’s infidelity, Jack also became obsessed with finding the identity of her new lover, and manifested his paranoia by stalking his wife and his father. In addition to this dark side of his personality, Jack also suffers from a poor bedside manner, and his frequently cold demeanor offers little comfort to Kate and others. By the events of the flash forward, Jack descends into a suicidal state characterized by alcohol, painkillers, and self-pity. He seems doomed to live an unhappy existence, in which, even when he succeeds, he still fails. And, as Christian Shephard noted, when Jack fails, he “just doesn’t have what it takes”.

Jack would represent the better choice for Kate.

Even as a child, Jack has always been willing to put himself at risk to help others. While Sawyer was bust stashing away alcohol, tobacco, and firearms, Dr. Jack was at work saving lives. From his first moments on the island, Jack has acted to ensure the safety of all of the crash survivors. Kate first found him in a moment of weakness, though, unable to stitch up his own wound. He helped assuage Kate’s fears and arouse a spirit of self-confidence in her. After Kate expressed worries that she would run away from pressure situations, Jack reassured her, “I don’t think that’s true. You’re not running now.” Early in season one, Jack also offered forgiveness for Kate’s past, by promising that he would only judge her based on her actions on the island. Jack saw something special in Kate that she did not even yet believe herself. In a sense, Jack was the one who offered Kate a fresh start, but it was Sawyer who reminded her of who she used to be. Jack feels extremely protective of all of the survivors, but towards Kate in particular. He risked his life many times to save her, most dramatically at the end of I Do. Furthermore, Jack remains an extremely committed man in general. He takes fidelity so seriously, that he confessed to his wife that he had shared a kiss with another woman immediately after. In terms of a relationship, Jack provides for Kate a loyal protector, but he also inspires the confidence that she could improve herself and overcome her fears.

Sawyer still embodies some serious character flaws that should not be ignored by any woman. His track record of romantic relationships does not inspire much confidence. Just like the conman Anthony Cooper who supplied his alias, Sawyer uses his charms and deception to manipulate women into giving up what he wants. Sawyer’s primary skill was his ability to use sex as a weapon to steal money (and, by his own admission, he has also used money to pay for sex). Sawyer abandoned Cassidy, perhaps the love of his life, pregnant and alone after stealing her savings. On the island, Sawyer continued his selfish pattern of stealing to keep everything of value for himself. He initially made unwanted sexual advances to both Kate and Shannon, attempting to exploit his material advantages in exchange for sex. In conversations with Kate, he frequently tries to diminish the contributions of others in her eyes, and to bring everyone down to the same base level. In the episode Walkabout, Sayid saved Kate from a possible violation by the physically dominant Sawyer, and Ana-Lucia later submitted herself willingly in a similar situation in Two For The Road. His selection of female nicknames reduces women to physical characteristics (Dimples, Freckles, Sticks), but his nickname for Ana-Lucia (B*tch) reveals even stronger misogyny. His Long Con to acquire the guns put Sun and others at great risk, and he used Kate herself as an unwitting pawn in that game. On top of everything, Sawyer has also murdered at least two people in cold-blood and killed another in the heat of passion. Let’s not forget the reality that the name she knows, Sawyer itself, is not even his real name, but a symbol of his false identity. Kate might be fooling herself if she believes that she can actually reform Sawyer’s nihilistic, egocentric, hedonistic lifestyle for good.

Neither Sawyer nor Jack would represent the better choice for Kate.

There are a few different ways to interpret this claim. The first way is to judge that the two men are equally good in merit. The next way is to judge that both Sawyer and Jack are equally bad news and Kate should avoid romantic entanglements with either of them. Perhaps their flaws are too significant, and either relationship would harm her in the long run. Another way is to judge that Kate is not a good match for either male. Too often, Kate runs away from her problems, and her indecisiveness has played one man off the other. Perhaps Kate needs to work on herself before she can engage in any type of loving relationship with another.


Kate truly loves Sawyer.

Unlike with Jack, Kate actually has expressed her love for Sawyer verbally. Kate later claimed that she did so only to stop Pickett from beating him, but that statement was also made in the heat of the moment. Sawyer later asked her whether she loved him, and she responded by kissing him. Even though Kate hesitates to verbalize or even to understand her own emotions, perhaps her actions in this case speak louder than her words. Kate did everything that she could to protect Sawyer’s life. She did make love with Sawyer in two different situations, and after each time she showed smiles of contentment. She experiences no major feelings of inferiority around Sawyer, as he makes her feel like his equal (if not his superior). She goes to Sawyer when she feels the need for an emotional connection, and he satisfies those needs. When they argue, Kate and Sawyer usually tend to arrive at some sort of closure or reconciliation of the issues. They now have a proven track record and are firmly established as lovers. It is difficult to envision Sawyer finding a separate love interest, or even any separate route to redemption, outside of his relationship with Kate. Further, there is probably nothing that she could do that would cause Sawyer to reject her. Sawyer gives her life a purpose, even without the need to change herself. All of these reasons make it very believable that Kate holds true love for Sawyer.

Kate truly loves Jack.

The argument for why Kate loves Jack is more complex. The episode What Kate Did explores Kate’s psychology in depth. Kate’s life includes a pattern of running away from all of the ‘good men’ in her life before Jack: her childhood sweetheart Tom Brennan, her one-time husband Kevin, and her father Sgt. Sam Austen. She tells Jack, “I'm sorry that I am not as perfect as you. I'm sorry that I'm not as good.” She kisses Jack, but then the same feelings creep into her mind while looking into his eyes seconds later, and so she runs away. Later on in the episode, she reveals that Sawyer reminds her not of any of these men, but of her deceased father Wayne, whom she murdered. Using Sawyer as Wayne’s stand-in, she explains.

KATE: You asked me why I -- why I did it. It wasn't because you drove my father away, or the way you looked at me, or because you beat her. It's because I hated that you were a part of me -- that I would never be good. That I would never have anything good. And every time that I look at Sawyer -- every time I feel something for him -- I see you, Wayne. It makes me sick.

In essence, it appears that Kate would prefer to be with a traditionally good man, but she does not see herself as worthy of such a life. She abandoned her husband to escape the possibility of having a child and settling down to a routine. Many people presume that Jack and Kate will never be equals, but that presumption works as a double-edged sword. In order to be in a relationship with Jack, she would need to improve herself, to evolve into a better person than she was before the island. She would need to improve her self image, to be able to look him in the eye without feeling inferior. On the island, in Tabula Rasa, Jack presented her an opportunity for rebirth. Interestingly, the island left her nowhere to run (except to Sawyer). Falling in love with Jack involves challenge and risk for Kate, but quite possibly the greater reward. Neither Kate nor Jack seems to be emotionally mature enough yet to be in a healthy relationship with each other, but they will have plenty of time to develop.

Kate truly loves neither Sawyer nor Jack.

Even though this debate has been going on for the past three years, the characters themselves have only known each other on the island for a few months. This period of time hardly seems long enough in which to develop true love for anyone. Kate’s inability to make a definitive choice may reflect the reality that she has not fallen in love with either man. Both Sawyer and Jack have told Kate “I love you,” but she responded to neither declaration with words.

Feel free to disagree with any parts of my analysis. However, I hope that we can agree on a few main points. (1) Evidence from the show indicates that Kate could end up choosing Sawyer, Jack, or neither by the end of the series. We cannot predict any option with certainty. (2) As love interests, Sawyer and Jack possess both a different combination of virtues and vices. A person’s individual preference for either choice rests upon how highly one values their positive qualities, and how forgiving (or optimistic) one feels toward their flaws. (3) Kate possesses very strong, but very different feelings for both Sawyer and Jack. A person’s answer to the question of whom she truly loves rests upon their very own conception of what true love really is.

Although the first question is fairly straightforward and will receive an unambiguous answer, our answers to the next two questions rely upon our own value systems. A person’s response to either question reveals less about the objective reality of the show and more about themselves as an audience member. What makes one person a better choice than another? What exactly do we define as true love? These questions apply not only to the drama but to life in general. Unlike Kate, though, most of us will have more than three seasons in which to decide these answers for ourselves.

Good Men vs. Great Men

Episode 3.19, The Brig, has generated some of the most interesting reactions of any episode in the entire series. On the front page of this very website, we can read four fantastic recaps of The Brig, all of which have some unique insight into the deeper significance of the episode. Jeff Jensen’s recaps are humorous and always a joy to read; among other parts, I particularly enjoyed the Willy Wonka analogy, which suggests that the island is presenting a series of Survivor-like tests in which one last man will be left standing. Vozzek69 continued his series of dedicated, thorough recaps, with a particular focus on the ongoing head games between Locke and Ben. J.Wood once again illuminated many important references from literature, history, and philosophy and proposed a particularly provocative question: Why should a man be honest in the dark? This question seems to hold special significance on the island itself, which recalled Ben/Henry’s cryptic comments in season two: “God doesn’t know … God can’t see this place”. Fishbiscuit decided to write from a character-focused perspective to analyze the fantastic work of Josh Holloway and Terry O’Quinn. Fishbiscuit’s recap also brings into view an important philosophical theme that has been gaining steam for a while, Neitzsche’s ubermensch construct. I would like to credit the writers, directors, and actors for generating a viewing experience that is so rich and layered that it sparks such creative minds towards other works of art.

I, for one, would also like to point out that the most thought-provoking element of season three has been the moral conflict that Locke and Sawyer dramatized in the Brig. On message boards throughout the Internet, people constantly obsess about conspiracy theories, purgatory theories, alternate universe theories, manifestation theories, smoke monster theories, etc. Those same viewers, ostensibly clamoring for answers, still react with unexpected delight to an episode like The Brig, without even being able to articulate exactly why. The Lost creators may have pulled off one of the most successful long cons of all. Within this sordid mess of science fiction red herrings, they managed to keep the audience’s attention long enough to convey one of the most poignant character dramas ever filmed. We watched Locke and Sawyer struggle with the most important question since the beginning of mankind: What does it mean to be human? Damon Lindelof once commented that Charlie was asking the wrong question in the Pilot episode; instead of asking “Where are we?”, he should have been asking, “Who are we?”.

The idea of the Nietzschean superman has been building underneath the surface for some time throughout the series, and now Ben’s nearly-explicit references have finally forced it to center stage. Nearly all of the male characters are struggling with the same conflict: would they prefer to become a great man or a good man? I propose to use this lens to analyze each of the island’s male inhabitants. Looking at each character, we see a complete spectrum of different responses to this question. To some degree, this analysis should help to illuminate some of the overall direction of the series. In particular, this thought experiment holds some striking implications for the next three episodes.

Hurley
Morality has never really been a question in the mind of Hugo Reyes. His childlike innocence and Catholic upbringing already provided him with all of the answers. He would respond that, of course it is more important to be a good man than a great man. Hurley’s main motivation, as always, is to protect the people about which he cares. He adheres to a set of strict moral rules that he would never even consider violating. He was willing to hand away his entire fortune if only it could end the curse and protect the people around him. In the season two finale, he discovers that Michael killed Libby, destroying perhaps his only chance at finding love and happiness. He once watched his best friend steal his girlfriend, but never retaliated against either. The concept of vengeance does not even register within Hurley’s heart, only sadness. When the series concludes, we may ultimately whether Hurley’s rigid moral stances make him a fool or the wisest man of all.

Boone
Boone’s character remains underdeveloped and literally short-lived, but we still see echoes of this same theme in his past. Boone’s system of morality operates similarly to Hurley’s code. Boone desperately wanted to be a good man, and the plane crash onto the island gave him that opportunity. From the first scenes until his death scene, we see Boone doing everything that he can to try to help everyone else in the group. Boone was never lacking in the will to be a good person, but he was always lacking in ability. He suffered a string of failed attempts at heroism (resuscitating Rose, saving a drowning woman, pursuing Charlie in the jungle, climbing to the beechcraft radio) until he ultimately suffered a meaningless death. Young Boone’s life reveals an important lesson: some men lack the ability to be either a good man or a great man. Perhaps Boone was never a man at all, but merely a boy.

Jin
Two opposite father figures dominate Jin’s past in Korea. Mr. Kwon is perhaps the purest example of a good man in all of Lost. As a simple fisherman, he only demands from the earth exactly what he needs to survive. In a selfless act, he takes on Jin as his son, who may not be his biological child, merely because no one else would take care of the baby. Mr. Paik, on the other hand, represents a great and powerful man. Paik cares most about the honor and reputation of his business empire, which also carries his family name. He has no qualms about getting blood on his hands, particularly as retribution against anyone who might bring shame to his great name. In Korea, Jin chose to shun his father’s entire existence and attempted to work his way up to become a great man like Mr. Paik. However, Jin found that he would not sacrifice his moral virtue for the promise of greatness. With the freedom that the island provides, Jin ultimately develops into a more evolved version of Mr. Kwon, a simple and honest fisherman with a loving wife who completes him.

Charlie
Off the island, we know that Charlie once took a stab at greatness. He was pressured by his mother and brother, both of whom wished to exploit his musical gifts for their own benefit. His father, on the other hand, encouraged him to become a simple butcher rather than to chase someone else’s dream. For a brief period of time, Charlie did become a bloody rock god, but the lifestyle was incompatible with his desires. From his first flashback scene, we see him in confession trying to return to the right path, but the promise of greatness is too seductive. In a cruel reversal, his brother Liam manages to reform his life as a good man, while leaving Charlie’s life in ruins. The island offers Charlie a chance at redemption through his relationship with Claire and Aaron (and a role model in Jin). Charlie specifically expresses his desire to be a good, respectable family man, but we still watch him fall and stumble throughout the series. The lesson is clear: once you have chosen greatness, the path back to becoming a good man can be long and arduous.

Desmond
Desmond’s extraordinary flashback scenes in season three’s Flashes Before Your Eyes make the most direct reference to the moral choice between being a good man and a great man. In Desmond’s job interview, master of the universe Charles Widmore declares, to devastating effect, that Desmond Hume does not have the capacity to ever achieve greatness. Immediately after his interview, Penelope Widmore reveals that she loves Desmond precisely because he is a good man. From Penny’s perspective, finding a man as good as Desmond is a more extraordinary feat than finding a man as great as her father. Desmond, however, chooses to embark upon a quest to earn the father’s respect rather than the daughter’s love. He joins the military in a failed attempt to achieve greatness (perhaps hoping to become the next General McCutcheon), and them signs up for a race around the world for the same reason. On the island, Desmond’s good nature continues to prevent him from sacrificing Charlie, even as Charlie’s death offers the promise of rescue. Desmond remains unable to reconcile his desire for greatness with his penchant for doing the right thing. Whatever eventual reason we learn for his dishonorable discharge, I expect that his actions resulted from a choice between moral goodness and military greatness.

Michael
In Michael’s past life, he tried his utmost to be a good man and a good father. Way back in the season one episode Special, Michael made an unequivocal choice to sacrifice any chance at greatness in order to become a good father. Michael was once a talented, promising artist, but the experience of fatherhood changed his priorities. He sacrificed whatever potential career he could have led as an artist and instead took on jobs in construction so that he could support his son. Even though Michael and Desmond made opposite choices in the same situation, neither man achieves his goal. In a cruel twist of fate, though, his beloved Susan then rejects the noble Michael in favor of her boss, a more powerful and successful man. Michael continues to suffer from the fallout of those events on the island, as his son Walt remains unable to understand what Michael sacrificed. After losing Walt again, though, Michael commits murder and thus sacrifices his soul. Michael once gave up a chance at greatness in order to be with Walt, and later gave up his moral goodness to be with Walt once again. I hope that we have not heard the last from Michael, but that the writers give him a chance to redeem at least one part of his destroyed soul.

Mr. Eko
In The 23rd Psalm, we learn that Mr. Eko was once a Nigerian warlord so ruthless that men whispered that he was born without a soul. Earlier still, of course, Eko was once a virtuous young Catholic boy, until circumstance forced him to sacrifice his soul to save his brother’s life. Mr. Eko’s decision to kill as a child mirrors Michael’s decision to commit murder on the island. Eko felt an insurmountable duty to protect his younger brother Yemi at all costs. The young Eko realized that he could save his brother’s life, but only at the cost of his own soul. His actions show that had the capacity to be a great leader, but he felt no real desire to be a man of greatness. Even though he lived as a powerful warlord, he did so halfheartedly and always desired a return to the right path. Only after his brother’s death did Eko reclaim his soul and achieve his destiny as a priest and a good man. After Eko’s death, we see the two brothers reunited, restored to their original innocence as children on the soccer field.

Sayid
Flashbacks for this Iraqi soldier mention that Sayid Jarrah was born the son of a great military hero. In his earliest scenes, Sayid seems earnest in his desire to follow in his father’s footsteps. Perhaps working for a different cause other than the authoritarian Iraqi military, Sayid could have fulfilled his promise as a great military hero. However, an order to torture his childhood love Nadia puts Sayid’s loyalties to the ultimate test. Kelvin Inman put it best: Sayid possesses loyalty, but never unquestioning loyalty. Sayid discovers that he cannot continue on his path if it means violating the most purely good part of his world. However, his choice back to the good path came too late. Sayid had already committed such atrocities as a torturer that his psyche will forever be tainted. The conflicts on the island have urged Sayid again and again to use his torture skills for the greater good. In Enter 77, Sayid’s refusal to murder Mikhail might be an indication that he will correct his past ways permanently.

Sawyer
James Ford suffered such a traumatic childhood that he was never given much of a chance to develop as either a good man or as a great man. We can look at his life much in the same way as Mr. Eko’s life. Both characters were thrust alone into horrible, violent circumstances at a young age, and then proceeded to lead a life of considerable evil. James’ self-image was so tarnished by his father’s murder-suicide that he chose total nihilism. As Sawyer, he refused to even accept the possibility of either achieving anything good or great in his life, and also denied their existence in others. At the end of The Long Con, Sawyer outwardly tells Charlie that he’s “not a good person” and that he has never done a good deed in his entire life. Looking more deeply, though, we find that Sawyer projects an outward posture of nihilism only as a defense mechanism to protect himself from being hurt again. We have seen Sawyer commit selfless actions on occasion, and we also know that he secretly gave away a fortune to his biological daughter. With the original Sawyer now dead, perhaps the younger Sawyer will perish as well. Let us hope that his soul has not been damaged so much that he cannot resume his life as James Ford that was interrupted as a small child. Mr. Eko found peace on the island, but James might lack Eko’s courage.

Locke
The old John Locke before the island was no doubt a good man, as honest and selfless as Hurley or Mr. Kwon. Despite being abandoned and unloved, Locke had no difficulty in developing a sense of morality. However, this same innocence carried with it a major problem. As the undercover police officer Eddie once told him, his psychological profile made him susceptible to coercion. This underlying weakness, the desire to be loved by family members, cost Locke his kidney, his spine, his surrogate family, and his chance for happiness with Helen. The most crucial event in John’s life, however, occurred when his father pushed him out of an eighth floor window, leaving him paralyzed.
In the aftermath of his paralysis, John found new meaning to his life that did not require the love of others. He decided that it was his destiny to complete an aboriginal walkabout even without the ability to walk, to become a great man like Norman Croucher. Locke managed to achieve that destiny in a roundabout way, only after his plane crashed on the island and repaired his spine. For a while, Locke continued to pursue his old ways, as he looked for ways to assist Walt, Charlie, Boone, and Claire. After Boone’s death, though, he stopped looking to others and started to fulfill his destiny on the island. As a final gesture of his rebirth on the island, Locke moved beyond good and evil when he conned Sawyer into eliminating Cooper. In his own words, Locke has moved on to his own journey now. This action put the final nail in the coffin for the old Locke, a good man limited by his own insecurities, and the island Locke, a great man of limitless potential.

Jack
Like many of the other father figures, Dr. Christian Shephard represents another great man who could never be called a good man. Christian was never afraid to make the tough choices that might hurt people’s feelings or end people’s lives, as long as he could serve the greater good. He was a sometimes cruel father, but nonetheless raised his son Jack to become a great man as well. Jack managed to surpass his father’s expectations, however, to become a much better man than Christian ever was. Whereas Christian saw a choice to be made between morality and excellence, Jack decided that he could become a great man without sacrificing his soul. In order to follow that path, Jack needed to make a different sacrifice, however, by forgoing all of his relationships (his father, his wife, etc.). Jack is still the most important character on Lost, because he is the only one stubborn enough to continue to pursue greatness without abandoning good and evil. In an almost Kantian sense, he will obey his own moral code even while surrendering his own happiness.
Jack Shephard was once the moral center of the show, but he has since moved to the background of season three. Many viewers have responded angrily against Jack’s latest character developments. Quite frankly, Stranger in a Strange Land flat out sucked, and Juliet seemingly has been keeping Jack’s balls locked up ever since. Stranger in a Strange Land exemplified exactly the type of bad writing that Lost had thus far managed to avoid; the flashbacks simply told us that Jack was “a great leader” who “walks among us but is not one of us”. None of Jack’s behavior in the episode backed up Achara’s bold proclamation. Bad writing merely tells the audience about the characters in words, while good writing shows their audience through actions (For further illustration of this phenomena compare Empire Strikes Back against Attack of the Clones.). However, I still have faith in both the writers’ talent and in Matthew Fox’s acting ability. As recently as Enter 77, people were making similar complaints about Locke’s character, but he has returned better than ever. Quite simply, the show would not dedicate the two-hour season finale to Jack flashbacks unless there was a great tale to be told. Locke foiled Jack’s most recent plan, but I’m sure the good doctor has another one brewing. The show has boasted about Jack’s greatness, but Through the Looking Glass will finally be the time to demonstrate that greatness.

Ben
To borrow J. Wood’s terminology, Benjamin Linus represents a mirror-twin of Hurley. While Hurley has committed himself fully to being a good man, Ben has committed himself fully to being a great man. The name Ben itself (with the connotation of good, like Ben Kenobi) is as painfully ironic as his famous declaration to Michael that, “we’re the good guys”. A long time ago, Ben decided to move beyond good and evil in order to achieve a greater purpose. Lies, deceit, torture, enslavement, and murder are all fair game in his playbook as long as he meets the desired end. Most people are eagerly anticipating The Man behind the Curtain in hopes that it will provide answers to the island’s mysteries. However, I, for one, hope that something different comes from Ben’s flashbacks. Specifically, I want to learn how and why Ben arrived at his current Machiavellian ubermensch state. I can accept Ben as a static character only up to a certain threshold. Like any other of the characters, mentioned here, good men and great men alike are not born, but they must be created through a struggle.

Is it better to be a good man or a great man? Two years from now, the eventual outcome of the will to power conflicts on the island will reveal which side of the question the artists prefer (if any). In the meantime, this spectrum of characters also serves as a scale to judge the audience member. When a fan lists Hurley, Charlie, Jin, and Desmond among their favorite male characters, one can assume that the person values moral goodness most highly. When a viewer lists Locke and Ben among their favorites, we can judge that the person would prefer to be great rather than good. This conflict rests at the very core of human morality, and it represents a decision that every man must make in his life. Neither path is very easy, and neither destination can be assured. Every man’s struggle with this question ultimately defines his own humanity.

May 7, 2007