"LOST" RETROSPECT: (2.09) "What Kate Did"

"LOST" RETROSPECT: (2.09) "What Kate Did"

Kate Austen has to be one of the most divisive characters on the ABC series, "LOST". The character has generated some very extreme reactions from the show's fans. The latter have either loved her or hated her. I had harbored a good deal of dislike toward Kate, myself for a long period. However, my dislike stemmed from the writers' handling of her character and a good number of the fans' attitude toward the mistakes and crimes she had committed. A good example of this attitude could be found in the general reaction to the Season Two episode called (2.09) "What Kate Did".

This episode followed up on the disastrous first meeting between the remaining Tail Section survivors and the Fuselage survivors in episodes (2.06) "Abandoned" and (2.08) "Collision". Ana-Lucia Cortez and her fellow Tailies finally made it to the Fuselage camp, but with tragedy in their wake. Ana-Lucia had accidentally shot and killed Shannon Rutherford, after mistaking the younger woman for the Others, following the disappearance of stewardess Cindy Chandler. James "Sawyer" Ford; who had been badly wounded by one of the Others in the Season One finale, (1.24) "Exodus, Part II", while trying to prevent ten year-old Walt Lloyd from being kidnapped; finally received decent medical attention from leader Dr. Jack Shephard. There was a good deal of marital reconciliations that occurred. Rose Nadler finally reconciled with her husband, Tail Section survivor Bernard Nadler, in the previous episode. And the series' favorite South Korean couple, Jin and Sun Kwon, celebrated their reconciliation after four days with . . . well, with sex.

Everything seemed to be going well with everyone . . . except for fugitive and Fuselage survivor Kate Austen. While gathering fruit from a tree, she spots a black horse in the jungle. Later, while feeding the semi-conscious Sawyer with the fruit, he grabs her by the neck and demands to know why she killed him. The black horse and Sawyer's attack leads Kate to speculate on whether the former had been possessed by the spirit of her dead stepfather, Wayne Janssen. Three years earlier, Kate had discovered that her stepfather was actually her real father. Due to Wayne's physical abuse of her mother Diane and alcoholism, Kate harbors hatred of him. But the realization that he is her biological father leads her to murder him via an explosion of the Janssen house and commit insurance fraud in order to provide for her mother. Although U.S. Marshal Edward Mars manages to capture her before she could purchase a bus ticket to Tallahassee, Kate eventually escapes and spends the next three years as a fugitive from justice. The episode's subplot revolved around the DHARMA film reel discovered by John Locke in a previous episode. While showing the film clip to Michael Dawson and Mr. Eko inside the DHARMA hatch (aka the Swan Station), the latter reveals a small reel of film he had found several days ago inside the empty DHARMA Arrow Station.

Most "LOST" fans tend to regard any episode Kate-centric episode with wary eyes. If I must be honest, most of the episodes featuring Kate Austen as a main character tend to range from mediocre to piss poor. However, there are at least two or possibly three that have struck me as above-average. And "What Kate Did" happens to be one of them. Mind you, it had a few flaws. The episode never really hinted what led Kate to start thinking of her father in the first place. Was the island responsible for Sawyer being possessed by the spirit of Wayne Janssen? Did a badly wounded Sawyer, who reminded Kate of her father, brought back the memories of Wayne's murder? Inquiring minds . . . well, my inquiring mind would like to know. And why was U.S. Federal Marshal Edward Mars the one to arrest Kate at the bus station? Would she have to successfully flee across a state line before being hunted by a U.S. Marshal? Judging from the comments in many reviews for the episode, I noticed that many fans and critics were intrigued by the subplot featuring the DHARMA 16mm film. I was not. I was not intrigued when I first saw "What Kate Did". And five years later, I still remain bored. I was bored by Locke's drama queen antics in revealing the film to Michael and Mr. Eko in the first place. I was bored by Eko's little biblical story about King Judah. Looking back, I realize this subplot was basically another addition to the mystery about the Swan Station, which was revealed in late Season Five. But I do not care, because I found this subplot's presentation rather dull. Only one aspect of this subplot struck me as interesting - namely Michael's tinkering with the hatch's computer, and the possibility that he may have contacted his kidnapped son at the end of the episode.

Surprisingly, it was the main plot regarding Kate's backstory about the murder of her father that proved to be the episode's backbone. Many fans had assumed that Kate had been forced to commit a crime on behalf of a loved one or framed for a major crime. As it turned out, Kate committed murder with malice aforethought and a good deal of personal insecurity. I believe she best revealed her reason for killing her father in the following infamous soliloquy:

"Can you hear me? Sawyer? -- Wayne? [Sawyer stirs.] I'm probably crazy and this doesn't matter, but maybe you're in there somehow. But you asked me a question. 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.".

The sad thing is that many fans - especially female fans - refused to accept Kate's confession as the truth. Many began to speculate that "dear" Daddy Wayne not only physically abuse his wife, Kate's mother, but also sexually molested Kate when she was a child. Kate's soliloquy and the rest of the series never verified this. But many preferred to believe this theory than accept the fact that Kate had never been molested by her father. When the molestation theory failed to pan out, many decided that Kate had killed her father in order to protect Diane from further abuse. This theory became very popular after the Season Three episode, (3.15) "Left Behind" aired. Kate used this excuse to lie to her mother, but Diane exposed her in the end. Nowadays, it is popular to deride Kate Austen as a badly written character. In a way, I agree . . . but for reasons that had nothing to do with Kate's act of murder. Many had used the reason behind Kate's murder of her father as a reason why she was badly written. Apparently, an act of cold-blooded murder by a television series' leading female character is a no-no with fans. Sexism, even when exposed in the form of feminist sensibilities, reared its ugly head.

I have to give kudos to screenwriters Steven Maeda and Craig Wright for not exposing Kate's motive for murdering her father. They revealed the actual murder at the beginning of the episode and spent the remainder slowly unveiling not only Kate's family history, but also her motive. I found this narrative structure very clever. I was also impressed by how Maeda and Wright utilized another subplot about the aftereffects of Shannon's death into the main story. It seemed that Kate's murder of her father failed to wipe out her own personal insecurities. One particular scene in "What Kate Did" makes it apparently clear that Kate had yet to overcome those insecurities. When Jack confronted her for leaving behind the seriously injured and unconscious Sawyer on the hatch's floor, Kate responded in a vehement manner:

"Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm sorry that I am not as perfect as you! I'm sorry that I'm not as good!"

Fans are aware that Jack had suffered from his own insecurities due to some advice handed to him by his father. But listening to those words come out of Kate's mouth made wonder if part of her problems with Jack stemmed from this belief that he was some kind of figure of perfection. And if Sawyer reminded her of Wayne, why would she become emotionally attached to him, as well? Is it because she suspected that deep down, she shared a good number of character traits with her despised father? I have always felt so. Perhaps it was easier for Kate to bond with someone who strongly reminded her of Wayne, and through familial extension, herself. Who knows?

If there is one thing I cannot deny, "What Kate Did" featured some first-rate acting. Despite my annoyance at the subplot featuring the DHARMA film, it was easy for me to see that Terry O'Quinn, Harold Perrineau and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje gave fine performances. Naveen Andrews continued his superb portrayal of a grief stricken Sayid Jarrah. The episode featured solid, yet minonr performances from cast members like Daniel Dae Kim, Yunjin Kim, Josh Holloway, Jorge Garcia, Emilie de Ravin, Michelle Rodriguez, Cynthia Watros, L. Scott Caldwell, Sam Anderson and especially Dominic Monaghan. I certainly cannot complain about the performances from the episode's guest stars. Beth Broderick, Lindsey Ginter and James Horan gave first-rate performances as Kate's mother, step-father and father respectively. I was especially impressed with each actor/actress' individual scenes with Evangeline Lilly. Fredric Lane continued his colorful performance as Kate's nemesis, U.S. Marshal Edward Mars. However, there were moments I found his performance a little too theatrical.

The two best performances in the episode came from Matthew Fox and especially, Evangeline Lilly. Fox, was excellent, as always. I was especially impressed how he conveyed both Jack's love for Kate and his frustration with her occasionally flaky behavior. Also, he and Lilly had a great kissing scene. I find this surprising, considering that when Season Two first aired, I never considered them as a really potential on-screen couple. However, Lilly proved to be the real surprise in this episode. I believe this is the first time she really proved her potential to be an excellent actress. She managed to convey the various emotions that Kate felt throughout the episode without resorting to mechanical acting tricks she utilized during the series' first season.

I had a few complaints about "What Kate Did". As I had earlier pointed out, one of them was the dull subplot featuring the DHARMA training film clip. My real disappointment with the episode happened off-screen and in the future. I feel that producers Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse did a piss poor and half-ass job in effectively developing and drawing the plot regarding Kate's crime to a close. Despite these disappointment, I cannot deny that "What Kate Did" was a well-written episode that did an excellent job in exploring Kate's personal demons and the crime that led to her becoming a fugitive, thanks to Steven Maeda and Craig Wright's screenplay. Their work was helped not only by solid direction from Paul Edwards, but also excellent performances from a cast led by Evangeline Lilly and Matthew Fox.

"IRONCLADS" (1991) Photo Gallery

Below are images from "IRONCLADS", the 1991 made-for-television movie about the Battle of Hampton Roads during the U.S. Civil War. Directed by Delbert Mann, the movie starred Virginia Masden, Reed Diamond and Alex Hyde-White:


"IRONCLADS" (1991) Photo Gallery

"WORLD WAR Z" (2013) Review

“WORLD WAR Z” (2013) Review

I might as well state it outright. I am not a fan of horror movies. Actually, I hate them. I had once considered ignoring “THE MUMMY”, Stephen Sommer’s 1999 remake of an old Boris Karloff film, until my sister convinced me that it was more of an adventure flick than a horror film. But my dislike of horror films remained intact when I first learned of the new Brad Pitt movie, “WORLD WAR Z”. 

Barely based upon Max Brooks’ 2006 novel, “WORLD WAR Z” is an apocalyptic tale about a former a former United Nations investigator who must travel the world to find a way to stop a zombie-like pandemic. The movie starts in Philadelphia, where Gerry Lane and his family are stuck in heavy traffic in Philadelphia, while they listen to a radio report of a rabies outbreak that has spread all over the world. Following a series of explosions, the Lanes are attacked by zombies. Those bitten are transformed into zombies after 12 seconds. While the attacks continue, the Lanes narrowly escape to an apartment complex and seek refuge with another family to wait for extraction by a helicopter sent by Gerry’s former UN colleague, the Deputy Secretary-General Thierry Umutoni. After a brief struggle in which Gerry is almost infected, the family reaches the helicopter and is taken to a U.S. Navy vessel off the coast of New York City. There, a team of analysts and military personnel analyze the zombie virus outbreak. A virologist name Dr. Andrew Fassbach suggests that they need to find the origin of the zombie plague in order for a vaccine to be developed. Because of his expertise as a former UN investigator, Gerry is tasked – actually blackmailed by a high-ranking Naval officer – with helping Dr. Fassback to find the source of the zombie virus.

Considering my initial declaration of my dislike toward horror films, one would probably speculate on why I went to see “WORLD WAR Z” in the first place. Like 1999’s “THE MUMMY”, the movie seemed more like an adventure film than a horror flick – especially since the plot required a worldwide apocalypse and a great deal of traveling for the main character. And if I must brutally honest, cast members such as Brad Pitt, James Badge Dale and Matthew Fox were the deciding factor. I could never envision any of them in a typical horror film and assumed there must be more to “WORLD WAR Z”than a bunch of shuffling zombies in a darkened room. To my utter relief, my assumptions proved to be right.

Max Brooks’ novel focused upon a collection of individual accounts about a zombie pandemic and war that had just ended after a decade. The producers; writers J. Michael Straczynski and Michael Carnahan; and screenwriters Carnahan, Drew Goddard and Damon Lindelof decided that Brooks’ story structure would not sustain a viable movie. Instead, they changed the story’s structure to make it more action oriented tale that centered around a main character. Aside from a few quibbles about the plot, I had no problems with this decision. “WORLD WAR Z” still proved to be an exciting and rather frightening tale that provided plenty of family drama, action and a great deal of traveling. In one way, “WORLD WAR Z” reminded me of Steven Soderbergh’s 2011 film, “CONTAGION” – but with some horror and traveling thrown into it.

There were certain action scenes that I found particularly exciting and are particular favorites of mine. Two of these scenes feature escape – namely the Lanes’ rescue by a team of Navy SEALs from a New Jersey apartment building rooftop and Gerry’s escape from Tel Aviv with an Israeli soldier named Segen. I found two scenes – the Lanes’ search for sanctuary at the New Jersey apartment building; and Lane and Segen’s attempt to get their hands on a pathogen for a cure at a World Heath’s Organization (W.H.O.) in Wales – particularly spine-tingling. Almost nerve wracking. But the movie also featured a few excellent dramatic scenes. Among my favorites include Umutoni and Captain Mullenaro’s successful attempt to convince Lane to search for the zombie virus’ origins; Lane’s good-byes to his wife Karin and their daughter; Lane and Army Captain Speke’s conversation with a former CIA operative, who led the former to Israel; and Lane’s initial meeting with a grieving WHO medical researcher.

Although I enjoyed “WORLD WAR Z”, I must admit that I had a few problems with some of plot. I was annoyed that either the screenwriters or director Marc Forster failed to do a proper setup of the story’s main narrative – namely the zombie virus. The movie featured a montage of news reports during the opening credits and a few television and radio reports before the Lane family found themselves overwhelmed by the zombie outbreak on the streets of Philadelphia – some five to ten minutes after the movie began. I was also disappointed that the movie’s plot dropped Lane’s search for the zombie pandemic’s origins and instead solely focused on finding a cure during the last 30 to 40 minutes. So, although the W.H.O. managed to develop a vaccine to prevent the rest of the world’s population from getting infected, the movie ended with no knowledge of the pandemic’s origins. Just a outbreak of military hostilities against the zombies. I found all of this somewhat unsatisfying.

However, I did not find the performances unsatisfying. Once again, Brad Pitt proved that he could be a satisfying action hero and dramatic actor all rolled into one, thanks to his first-rate performance as former U.N. investigator, Gerry Lane. Mireille Enos’ portrayal of Lane’s wife Karin struck me as perfectly poignant and emotional, as she struggled to keep her family together during Gerry’s absence. I have never heard of Fana Mokoena before this movie. But I must admit that I found his performance as the compassionate, yet professional U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Thierry Umutoni very impressive. I hope that “WORLD WAR Z” will make Daniella Kertesz a star. I was very impressed by her performance as Lane’s Israeli companion, “Segen”.

“WORLD WAR Z” also featured some excellent performances from cast members who made brief appearances. One of them came from David Andrews, who gave an intense portrayal of the U.S. Navy captain that convinced Lane to search for the zombie pandemic’s origins. David Morse was equally intense and rather humorous as a traitorous ex-CIA agent, who provided Lane with information that led the latter to Israel. James Badge Dale, who seemed to be having a banner year in 2013, was even more witty as U.S. Army Ranger Captain Speke, who was in charge of a base in South Korea. Ludi Boeken gave a solid performance as a Mossad official responsible for preparing Israel’s pre-emptive defences. Peter Capaldi’s performance as a W.H.O. researcher also struck me as very solid and at times, rather witty. Matthew Fox reminded me just how very effect he could be in action films in his very brief role as a U.S. Navy SEAL officer who saves the Lanes from a zombie attack on the rooftop of the New Jersey apartment building. But the one cameo appearance that really impressed me came from Pierfrancesco Favino, who gave a poignant and intense performance as a W.H.O. researcher, who reminded Lane that the latter was not the only one who suffered from separation family members.

Yes, I had a few problems with the plot for “WORLD WAR Z”. I wish the screenwriters had put more detail in the zombie pandemic’s setup. And I was disappointed that the search for the pandemic’s origins had been dropped. But overall, I enjoyed “WORLD WAR Z” very much, despite it being a movie about zombies. Overall, Marc Forster did an excellent job as the movie’s director. And he was ably supported by fine performances from a skillful cast led by Brad Pitt. But do not expect me to become a fan of zombie stories in films and television in the future.