Friday, September 27, 2013
”MAD MEN”: The Specter of Intolerance
Matthew Weiner’s acclaimed television series, ”MAD MEN”, has addressed many issues that American society had faced in both the past and today. Issues such as class, sexism, religion and race have either reared its ugly heads or have been brushed upon by this series about an advertising agency in the 1960s.
The center of ”MAD MEN” is mainly focused upon advertising executive named Don Draper. But the series also focuses upon his co-workers at the firm he works at – Sterling Cooper – and his family in the suburb of Ossing, New York. But this article is about two of Don’s co-workers – namely a junior copywriter named Paul Kinsey and the firm’s office manager, the red-haired Joan Holloway.
In the series premiere, (1.01) ”Smoke Gets in Your Eyes”, Joan was engaged in the task of introducing the newly hired secretary, Peggy Olsen, around to Sterling Cooper’s other employees. One of the employees happened to be Paul Kinsey, who briefly hinted that he and Joan had a romantic history in the past. This was confirmed several episodes later in (1.12) “Nixon vs. Kennedy”, when Joan and Paul had a bittersweet conversation about their past romance during an election party (Election of 1960) held at the office. Apparently, Joan had ended the romance when Paul revealed too much about their relationship.
Joan and Paul’s relationship – or should I say friendship – took an ugly turn for the worst in Season Two’s (2.01) ”Flight 1”. Although this episode mainly focused upon another Sterling Cooper employee, Pete Campbell, facing his father’s death; it began with a party held by Paul at his apartment in Montclair, New Jersey. Paul’s guests not only included co-workers from Sterling Cooper, but also some of his African-American friends (or neighbors). One of those guests included Paul’s new girlfriend, a black woman named Sheila White. Paul introduced Sheila to Joan as his girlfriend. He also added that Sheila worked as an assistant manager at her local supermarket. Then he briefly dismissed himself to see to another guest. Once Paul left, Joan turned to Sheila and said the following:
”"When Paul and I were together, the last thing I would have taken him for was open-minded."
In one sentence, Joan managed to stake her claim on Paul as a former lover and make a racist comment. Sheila merely responded with a polite compliment about Joan’s purse. She must have eventually told Paul, because within a day or two, Paul angrily confronted Joan on the matter. She merely responded by accusing Paul of using Sheila to look bohemian and”tolerant” to his friends and co-workers. She also managed to conveniently forget that Sheila worked as an assistant manager at the Food Fair and dismissed the latter as a mere check-out clerk. Too angry to respond, Paul stalked away. Later, he got his revenge by stealing Joan’s drivers’ license, making a copy of it and posting that copy on the office bulletin board. He did this to expose her age (which was 31 years).
Paul and Joan did not share any scenes together until the recent episode, (2.10) “The Inheritance”. In this particular episode, Sheila paid a visit to the Sterling Cooper office to meet with Paul for lunch. She also wanted Paul to join her on a voters’ registration trip to Mississippi. Did Joan notice the brief kiss exchanged between Paul and Sheila? Yes. Nor did she look particularly happy about it. This episode exposed Paul’s blowhard attempts to make himself look good in the eyes of others . . . especially in the eyes of Sterling Cooper’s black elevator operator, Hollis and the other members of the entourage he and Sheila accompanied on their trip to Mississippi. But I feel that it also exposed Joan’s own feelings about Paul’s relationship with Sheila . . . again.
Don Draper gave Joan the opportunity to exact revenge upon Paul. In ”Inheritance”, Paul and accounts executive Pete Campbell were ordered to Southern California to recruit future clients in the region’s aerodynamics industry. At the last minute, Don decided he would replace Paul on the trip. He ordered his temporary secretary, namely Joan, to inform Paul in a memorandum that he would be taking the latter’s place on the trip. Instead of informing Paul by memo, she verbally told him in front of the other Sterling Cooper employees, during a baby shower for father-to-be Harry. And publicly humiliated the copywriter, in the process. Joan got her revenge . . . for something she had set in motion, when she insulted Sheila in an earlier episode. Curious.
And yet . . . most of the fans of ”MAD MEN” seemed to sympathize with Joan and vilify Paul, in the process. Many of them seemed so intent upon pointing out Paul’s pretentious behavior or claiming that he does not really care for Sheila that they have ended up ignoring Joan’s racism. And there have been those who claim that Joan is not a racist. They insisted that she simply wanted to expose Paul’s poseur attitude. My question is . . . why? Why would Joan even bother? Both the series’ viewers and Joan received a firsthand glimpse of Paul’s pretentiousness back in the Season One episode,(1.12) ”Nixon vs. Kennedy”. In that episode, Paul had Salvatore Romano and Joan performed his one-act play that he had written, during the office party for the 1960 elections. The viewers also received an example of how dark Paul’s poseur streak can be when he expressed jealousy that Ken Cosgrove managed to get a short story published in ”The Atlantic Monthly” in (1.05) “5G”. Why did Joan wait until she met Sheila to point out Paul’s pretentiousness? Why did she not do this earlier? I have asked this question on several occasions. Most fans either ignore my questions or insist that Joan is not a racist . . . while at the same time, continue to deride or make a big deal out of Paul’s pretentiousness.
In a ”Christina Hendricks Interview”, the red-haired actress had expressed dismay over the possibility of Joan being a racist, when she read the script for ”Flight 1”. Series creator Matthew Weiner told her that Joan was not a racist. He added that Joan was simply trying to expose Paul’s pretentiousness over his relationship with Sheila. Like many of the series’ fans, Ms. Hendricks accepted Weiner’s explanation. But after viewing ”Flight 1” and ”The Inheritance”, I can conclude that the writer/producer did a piss poor job of conveying Joan’s intention . . . or he had lied to Christina Hendricks. Right now, I am inclined to believe the latter.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
"WUTHERING HEIGHTS" (1939) Review
Considering the popularity of the Brontë sisters, it is not surprising that there have been considerable movie, stage and television adaptations of their novels. I discovered there have been at least fifteen (15) adaptations of Emily Brontë's 1847 novel, "Wuthering Heights".
I might as well be frank . . . I am not a major fan of the novel. I never have been. I do not dislike it, but I have always preferred the famous novels of the author's two sisters - namely "Jane Eyre" (1847) by Charlotte Brontë and Anne Brontë's 1848 novel, "The Tenant of Wildfell Hall". For some reason, "Wuthering Heights" depresses the hell out of me. I have nothing against works of fiction laced with tragedy. But the heavy barrage of emotional and physical abuse, revenge, and over-the-top passion has always seemed a bit too much for me. Due to my less-than-enthusiastic regard for Ms. Brontë's novel, I have always been reluctant to watch any of the television or movie adaptations, with the exception of one - the 1939 movie produced by Samuel Goldwyn.
Directed by William Wyler, and starring Merle Oberon and Laurence Olivier; "WUTHERING HEIGHTS" told the story of the passionate and doomed love story between one Catherine Earnshaw, the daughter of a Yorkshire landowner and an orphaned Gypsy boy named Heathcliff. The story opens with Mr. Earnshaw introducing Heathcliff to his family - Cathy and her brother, Hindley - at Wuthering Heights. While Cathy immediately befriends Heathcliff, Hindley becomes jealous of his father and sister's high regard of the newcomer. Heathcliff's pleasant life with the Earnshaw family ends when Mr. Earnshaw dies and a resentful Hindley forces him to become one of the family's servants.
Despite Heathcliff's new status within the Earnshaw family, his close relationship with Cathy remains close. Some eight to ten years later, the now adult pair have fallen in love and are meeting secretly on Penniston's Crag. One night, Cathy and Heathcliff are out when they discover the Earnshaws' neighbors, the Lintons, giving a party at the Grange. After climbing the garden wall, Cathy is attacked by a dog. The Lintons take Cathy in to care for her and Heathcliff is ordered to leave the Grange. Cathy becomes close with Edgar Linton and entranced by his wealth and glamour, while Edgar falls in love with her. When Edgar decides to propose marriage to Cathy, his action leads to a major fallout between Cathy and Heathcliff, the latter's departure for United States, his return, jealousy, obsession and in the end, tragedy.
As far as I know, the 1939 film eliminated the second half of Brontë's novel that centered on the generation featuring Heathcliff and Cathy's children. This elimination has led many fans of the novel to dismiss this version as a poor adaptation. Well, to each his own. I have never read Brontë's novel. And this is probably why I have such difficulty in dismissing "WUTHERING HEIGHTS" as unworthy of the novel. The only way I can judge the movie is on its own merits. And quite frankly, I believe it is one of the better costume dramas to be released during Hollywood's Studio Era.
Producer Samuel Goldwyn assigned his top director, William Wyler, to helm the movie. And Wyler did a superb job. Thanks to his direction, "WUTHERING HEIGHTS" turned out to be an atmospheric and well paced movie filled with superb performances by the cast. Wyler utilized the talents of cinematographer Gregg Toland, along with art designers James Basevi and Alexander Toluboff to re-create the novel's setting - the brooding Yorkshire moors with exquisite details.
The movie's most controversial aspect turned out to be Charles MacArthur and Ben Hecht's screenplay. Many present-day critics believe that the two screenwriters took the bite out of Brontë's novel by romanticizing Heathcliff and Cathy's relationship. Literary critic John Sutherland accused Wyler, Hecht and MacArthur of portraying Cathy as a more passive character, willing to accept Heathcliff's abuse. Personally, I cannot help but wonder how he came to this conclusion. My recent viewing of "WUTHERING HEIGHTS" recalls a capricious and manipulative Cathy unable to hold back her scorn of Heathcliff in the face of the Lintons' wealth and glamour; and a Cathy more than determined to prevent Heathcliff and Isabella Linton's marriage. Not once do I recall a passive Cathy willing to accept abuse from Heathcliff.
Other critics of the movie have also accused Wyler and the two screenwriters of robbing Heathcliff the opportunity to seek revenge against Cathy and the Linton family by deleting the second half of the novel. These same critics seemed to have forgotten that a good deal of the movie's second half focused not only on Heathcliff's return to England, but also his efforts to get revenge on both the Earnshaw and Linton families. He did this by acquiring Wuthering Heights from an increasingly dissolute Hindley Earnshaw and more importantly, seeking Isabella Linton's hand for marriage. The latter finally reached its mark as far as Cathy was concerned. The emotional damage from Heathcliff's marriage to Isabella led to Cathy's death and tragedy. The biggest criticism that emerged from "WUTHERING HEIGHTS" was Samuel Goldwyn's decision to set the story in the mid-Victorian era, instead of the novel's late 18th and early 19th centuries setting. It is believed that Goldwyn made this decision either because he preferred this period in costumes or he was simply trying to save a buck by using old Civil War era costumes. Personally, I could not care less. The novel's setting was merely accelerated by five to six decades. And since "WUTHERING HEIGHTS" did not utilize any historical facts in its plot, I see no reason to get upset over the matter.
"WUTHERING HEIGHTS" went into production as a vehicle for actress Merle Oberon, who was a contract player at Goldwyn Studios. When Laurence Olivier, her co-star from 1938's "THE DIVORCE OF LADY X", was cast as Heathcliff, he campaigned for lover Vivian Leigh to replace Oberon as Catherine Earnshaw. Olivier's efforts failed and Oberon kept her job. Many critics believe that Leigh would have done a better job. I refuse to accept or reject that belief. However, I was very impressed by Oberon's performance. She did an excellent job in capturing Cathy's capricious and shallow nature. Although Oberon had a few moments of hammy acting, she was not as guilty as two of her co-stars. I find it rather disappointing that she failed to earn an Academy Award nomination. Her scene with Geraldine Fitzgerald (in which Cathy tries to dampen Isabella's interest in Heathcliff) and the famous soliloquy that ended with Cathy's "I am Heathcliff" declaration should have earned her a nomination.
Laurence Olivier made his Hollywood debut in the role of the Gypsy orphan-turned-future owner of Wuthering Heights, Heathcliff. Olivier harbored a low opinion of Hollywood and screen acting in general. But Wyler's exhausting style of directing and tutelage enabled Olivier to drop his penchant for stage theatrics and perform for the camera. Mind you, I do not believe Wyler was not completely successful with Olivier. The actor still managed to display hints of hammy acting in his performance. And he did not seem that successful in his portrayal of a Heathcliff in his late teens or early twenties, in compare to Oberon, who seemed successful in portraying Cathy in that same age group. Regardless, Olivier gave a first-rate performance, and managed to earn the first of his ten Academy Award nominations.
Another performer who earned an Academy Award nomination was Geraldine Fitzgerald, for her performance as Isabella Linton. I cannot deny that she deserved the nomination. Fitzgerald gave a memorable performance as the passionate, naive and outgoing Isabella, who found herself trapped in an emotionally abusive marriage to a man that harbored no love for her. However, I believe that like Olivier, she was guilty of a few moments of histronic acting. I could never accuse David Niven of such a thing. The actor gave a solid performance as the quietly loving, yet privileged Edgar Linton. Flora Robson was superb as the story's narrator and Cathy Earnshaw's maid, Ellen Dean. And both Niven and Robson proved to be the production's backbone by being the only cast members that managed to refrain from any histronic acting altogether. I can also say the same about Hugh Williams' portrayal of the embittered and dissolute Hindley Earnshaw. Donald Crisp, Leo G. Carroll, Cecil Kellaway and Miles Mander also gave fine support.
I realize that "WUTHERING HEIGHTS" will never be a favorite of the fans of Brontë's novel. But as a movie fan, I cannot look down at this production. Thanks to William Wyler's direction, Gregg Toland's photography, solid adaptation by Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur, and superb acting from a cast led by Merle Oberon and Laurence Olivier; it is quite easy to see why it is considered as one of the best examples of Old Hollywood during one of its best years - 1939. I guess I will always be a fan.
Saturday, September 21, 2013
Below is a gallery featuring photos from the new biopic about 1930s aviatrix, Amelia Earhart. Directed by Mira Nair, the movie starred Hilary Swank, Richard Gere, Ewan McGregor and Christopher Eccleston:
"AMELIA" (2009) Photo Gallery
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
UNDERSTANDING "BABYLON FIVE" (4.06) "INTO THE FIRE"
I have seen the Season Four episode, (4.06) "Into the Fire" on numerous occasions, since I first started watching"BABYLON 5" some thirteen years ago.
My opinion of "Into the Fire" had always been somewhat lukewarm in the past. When I first saw it, I assumed it would be another episode that featured a large-scale battle - similar to episodes like (1.13) "Signs and Portents", (3.10) "Severed Dreams" and (4.15) "No Surrender, No Retreat". There were battle sequences featured in "Into the Fire", but to the extent that I would consider it an action-heavy episode.
Sue me. I was young and stupid in those days. I thought a top-notch "BABYLON FIVE" episode should always consist of a large-scale battle. But I finally saw the light. I finally understood what "Into the Fire" was really about. Well, I take that back. I have always understood since I first saw it. But I was so disappointed by the lack of a real battle that I allowed the message to pass over my head.
But not this time. Anticipating to be bored out of my mind, I finally allowed J. Michael Straczynski's message to filter through. I finally understood and accepted the messages about parental or colonial figures letting go and allowing the young - whether they were individuals or nations to grow in their own ways. And in the end, it brought tears to my eyes. Much to my surprise. Thank you Mr. Straczynski for a first-rate television episode. And please accept my apologies for allowing so many years to pass before finally getting the message.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
"THE ILLUSIONIST" (2006) Review
Neil Burger wrote and directed this loose adaptation of Steven Millhauser's story called "Eisenheim the Illusionist". This story about a magician in turn-of-the-century Vienna starred Edward Norton, Jessica Biel, Paul Giamatti and Rufus Sewell.
The movie’s plot focused upon the romance that had first formed between the magician Eisenheim (Norton) and his childhood friend, the socially superior Sophie, Duchess von Teschen (Biel) – a romance that ends up threatening the political plans of Crown Prince Leopold of Austria-Hungary (Sewell) and Chief Inspector Uhl’s position with the Vienna police and his role as the Crown Prince’s henchman. "THE ILLUSIONIST" began in the middle of the story – with Chief Inspector Uhl revealing Eisenheim ‘s background and childhood friendship with Sophie. The movie continued with the events that led to the Crown Prince’s interest in the magician – Eisenheim’s arrival in Vienna, his reunion with Sophie during a performance and a special performance by the magician for the Crown Prince and his entourage, in which Eisenheim embarrasses the prince for a brief moment.
Sophie appears at Eisenheim’s quarters to warn him about his actions at the royal palace. The two end up declaring their feelings for one another by making love. After Sophie reveals Crown Prince’s Leopold’s reasons for proposing marriage – he needs her Hungarian family connections to build a power base strong enough to usurp his father from the Imperial throne – both come to the conclusion that Leopold would never let her go. Even if they decide to make a run for it, the prince would hunt them down and kill them. Realizing this, Eisenheim decides to unfold plans that would allow Sophie to escape from Leopold’s clutches and guarantee the couple’s future safety and happiness.
I have never read Millhauser’s story about Eisenheim. But I must admit that I became enamored of Burger’s cinematic adaptation since the first time I saw it. The story possessed many elements that made it entertaining and unique for me. One, it had plenty of romance, due to the romance between Eisenheim and Sophie; along with the love triangle between the two and Crown Prince Leopold. It had intrigue from the plot centered around the Crown Prince’s efforts to rid Eisenheim as a rival for not only Sophie’s affections, but those of the Austrian people. It had mystery thanks to Eisenheim’s mind-blowing magic, Chief Inspector Uhl’s attempts to expose it, and the tragic events that dominate the film’s latter half. And Crown Prince Leopold’s plans to dethrone his father, along with his competition with Eisenheim for the Viennese public’s affections gave the movie a political tone. It simply had everything and Burger managed to combine it all with a superb script.
The cast of "THE ILLUSIONIST" contributed to the movie’s superior quality, as well. Edward Norton was superb as the magician Eisenheim. Despite being the movie’s main character, he did a great job in conveying the character’s many personality facets – including his love for Sophie (which makes this role one of Norton’s most romantic), and his contempt toward both Crown Prince Leopold and Chief Inspector Ulh Even more importantly, Norton managed to convey some of these emotional aspects of Eisenheim’s personality, while retaining the man’s enigmatic nature. Jessica Biel literally glowed as Sophie, Duchess von Teschen. Frankly, I believe the character might be one of her best roles. Biel had portrayed Sophie more than just an elegant and charming woman from the Austro-Hungarian ruling class. She revealed Sophie’s inner sadness from her earlier disrupted relationship with Eisenheim and fear of facing a lifetime with the odious Crown Prince. Speaking of which . . . kudos to Rufus Sewell for portraying one of the most complex screen villains in recent years. Sewell’s Leopold was not simply a one-note villain who sneered at everyone he deemed inferior to himself. The actor portrayed the prince as an ambitious and emotional man who desired respect and even love from the public and those close to him. Yet, despite this desire, he seemed incapable of returning such feelings to others, especially Sophie, due to his arrogance and vindictive nature. But if you had asked me which performance in"THE ILLUSIONIST" really impressed me, I would have to say Paul Giamatti as Chief Inspector Walter Uhl. Giamatti either had the bad or good luck – it depends upon one’s point of view – to portray the most complex character in the movie. This is a man torn between his curiosity over Einheim’s talent as a magician, his ambition to be more than just a policeman, and his sense of justice and outrage toward the tragic event revealed in the second half. Giamatti’s Chief Inspector Ulh is a man literally torn apart over toward whom he should direct his loyalty. And the actor did a superb job in portraying every nuance in the character. In my opinion, he managed to dominate the film without being its main star.
I really do not have much to say about the film’s production values. Granted, production designer Ondrej Nekvasil; along with costume designer Ngila Dickson, and art directors Stefan Kovacik and Vlasta Svoboda, did an admirable job of re-creating turn-of-the-century Vienna on the screen. And yet . . . aside from Dickson’s elegant costumes, I found the movie’s Viennese setting to be slightly colorless. And empty. The setting lacked the color of that particular period shown in other movies like 1969’s "THE ASSASSINATION BUREAU, LTD" and 1976’s "THE SEVEN PERCENT SOLUTION".
Despite my complaint against the film’s colorless production designs, I have to give kudos to Neil Burger for writing a rich adaptation of Millhauser’s story. He also did an excellent job of conveying his vision of the story through his direction of the crew and a cast of talented actors that included Norton, Biel, Sewell and Giamatti. "THE ILLUSIONST"is a beautiful and mysterious love story filled with magic and political intrigue. After five years, I still find it enjoyable to watch.
Sunday, September 8, 2013
Below are images from the new ITV television series, "DOWNTON ABBEY". Created and written by Oscar-winning actor/writer, Julian Fellowes, the series stars Hugh Bonneville, Elizabeth McGovern, Dan Stevens, Brendan Coyle and Maggie Smith:
"DOWNTON ABBEY" (2010) Season One Photo Gallery
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
I first wrote this article following the airing of the "LOST" Season Five episode called (5.11) "Whatever Happened, Happened":
"LOST" RETROSPECT: (5.11) "Whatever Happened, Happened" (Or . . . The Emergence of Saint Kate)
While looking back at some of the articles I have written about "LOST" and its characters, I discovered that I have written at least five articles that were either about the character, Kate Austen or in which she featured heavily. One would think that she is such a compelling character. But I do not think so. I suspect that my problem with Kate is that she is one of the most badly written characters on this show and in the history of television . . . and she is the female lead. And I find that disturbing. My dislike of the character went up a notch after I had watched the Season Five Kate-centric episode called (5.11) "Whatever Happened, Happened"
"Whatever Happened, Happened" was a badly written episode, set during the Dharma Initiative period of 1977. It really was. I felt as if I had watched the emergence of a character called "Saint Kate", instead of an interesting episode about the reasons behind a woman's choices. But there were no reasons given for Kate's sudden desire to save a young Ben Linus' life. Instead, the episode had her in a state of frantic over Ben's condition that did not make any sense. Even worse, the episode went too far and had her donate blood to him in a heavily contrived attempt to make her seem selfless and worthy to the fans.
First, I want to focus on the situation regarding young Ben's shooting. Why did the series' lead, Dr. Jack Shephard, refuse to save Ben? Was his reason the same as Sayid's? Because Ben grew up to be the manipulative and murderous man who gave them so much trouble during the fall of 2004? How did Jack suddenly become anti-Ben, again? I read a piece on this episode on WIKIPEDIA, which claimed that Jack was to blame for creating the adult monster, Ben Linus. I find this hard to accept. It seemed as if they are trying to absolve Sayid Jarrah for shooting the fourteen year-old Ben in the previous episode, (5.10) "He's Our You". And that did not work for me.
Speaking of Sayid's crime, it seems that Ben will no longer have any memories of it, following Richard Alpert's treatment inside the island's temple. If this was the case, what in the hell was the point of Sayid shooting Ben in the first place? What were the writers trying to achieve? Was the shooting nothing more than a contrived event to make Kate lovable to the fans again? Was it a plot line to explain how Ben became so murderous? Hell, they could have done that and allowed Ben to retain his memories of the shooting. This whole "erasing Ben's memories of Sayid's crime" made no sense to me. What was the purpose of it? To explain how Ben "lost his innocence"? Ben was already on that road by living under an abusive father.
But you know what? Despite Sayid shooting him, Jack's refusal to save him or Richard's memory-wiping cure, the one person who is mainly responsible for Ben's moral downfall . . . was Ben. Other people have come from traumatic backgrounds and managed to make decent lives for themselves. Ben does not have any real excuse. Sayid has to deal with his crime of shooting an innocent boy, himself. Jack has to deal with his refusal to treat that boy. But they are not mainly responsible for Ben's crimes. Ben is.
When I heard that Kate might finally confess about the lie surrounding Aaron Littleton, the son of fellow castaway, Claire Littleton. I thought she would end up confessing to former lover James "Sawyer" Ford, Dr. Juliet Burke and the other castaways. Instead, she confessed to Sawyer's old girlfriend, Cassidy Phillips. That was disappointing. And up to that point, Sawyer did not know about the lie surrounding Aaron. Nor did he know that Kate had no intention of returning to the island to save his life. And she still had the murder of her father, Wayne Jensen, hanging over her head.
Regarding Kate's decision to return to the island, she told Cassidy that her intention was to find Claire and get her back home to Aaron. How? Mind you, Kate succeeded in the end. But only by pure dumb luck. Was Kate really that stupid at the time? Surely she must have realized that there was no way to achieve this at the time of her return to the island. She did not know about the runway that Frank Lapidus had used to land Ajira Flight 316. Locke had destroyed the Dharma submarine back in Season 3. And Kate knew about the destruction of the freighter in Season Four. To this day, I still wonder how she planned to send Claire back to Aaron? Or had she simply been talking out of her ass?
You know, ever since (4.04) "Eggtown", Kate's story arc has been badly handled by the writers. It started with that ludicrous attempt by her to get information from Miles about her status as a fugitive. Then it developed into the storyline surrounding her custody of Aaron that went no where. The only thing that the Aaron storyline achieved was a temporary estragement between her and Jack. It was revealed in (5.04) "The Little Prince" that she had decided to claim Aaron as her own, because she was traumatized over losing Sawyer. And yet . . . "Eggtown" made it clear that she was willing to use Aaron to re-start a romance with Jack. If Aaron represented as a substitute for the loss of Sawyer, why did she have a photograph of both Aaron and Jack on her mantlepiece in Los Angeles? Was this a symbol of her continuing desire for both Jack and Sawyer? Or what? And the story line surrounding her return to the island . . . contrived and badly written. After refusing to return to the island for Sawyer's sake, she visited his ex-girlfriend, confessed the Aaron kidnapping and vowed to return to the island in order to find Claire Littleton and send the Australian woman back to her son and mother . . . without knowing how to achieve this little act. The only thing Kate did right was hand Aaron over to Carole Littleton. And I saw that coming a mile away. Once Kate returned to Los Angeles, she uses Jack for comfort sex and later rejects him after boarding Ajira Flight 316.
Following all that, the producers dumped the badly written "Whatever Happened, Happened" episode on the viewers in order to make Kate favorable to the viewers again. They had her acting like a frantic Florence Nightengale over a kid she hardly knew. I understand if she was perturbed over young Ben's situation, like the others (sans Jack). But the writers . . . took it too far with Kate's frantic desire to save him, which included her donating blood to him. And they even used this episode to blame Jack for Ben's slide into darkness. I guess that the show's writers and producers' attempt to redeem Kate in the eyes of the viewers worked. The viewers eagerly lapped up this shit. But Lindehof and Cuse achieved this at a heavy price. In the end, all they did was sacrifice any semblance of artistic achievement for bad characterization and mediocre writing.
There is a little post-script to all of this. In the late Season Six episode, (6.13) The Last Recruit" finally admitted to Claire that she had been wrong to keep Aaron from his grandmother for nearly three years. At that moment, my dislike of Kate Austen finally evaporated.