(Warning: This post contains a brief quote of the dialogue from the sneak peek, and a discussion of the scene.)
In this scene from 6×14, Jack and Flocke are disagreeing with each other. Watching it, I got a feeling of deja vu, because we’ve become so used to seeing similar scenes of Jack and (real) Locke disagreeing about similar issues. But this time there’s a twist:
The twist is that Jack and (F)locke have reversed positions. In “There’s No Place Like Home,” the Season 4 finale, it was Jack who wanted to leave, and (real) Locke who urged him to stay::
(REAL) LOCKE: But you’re not supposed to go home.
JACK (shouting:) And what am I supposed to do? (A little calmer:) Oh, I think I remember. What was it that you said on the way out to the hatch — that crashing here was our destiny.
LOCKE: You know, Jack. You know that you’re here for a reason. You know it. And if you leave this place, that knowledge is gonna eat you alive from the inside out until you decide to come back.
(You can see the video of that scene here: Jack and Locke outside the Orchid, or read the transcript.)
(Real) Locke of course, had been right. Jack had to come back. But now Flocke is trying to get Jack to leave:
Jack: (Referring to Sawyer’s group:) They’re not my people. And I’m not leaving the Island.
Flocke: Well, Jack, I’m hoping you’ll still change your mind about that.
Is it possible that both (real) Locke and Flocke were/are right? That Jack had to come back when he did, but now it is time for him to leave?
I also wonder why Jack is turning his back on Sawyer, Kate, and the rest of the group. Is he that miffed about his argument with Sawyer on the boat? I wouldn’t expect someone who has anointed himself the Bearer of Destiny, as Jack seems to have done, to be so petty. So maybe it’s something else.
Then again, this is Jack, so maybe he really is being that petty.
One other thing — Terry O’Quinn’s performance continues to amaze. Compare him in the 6×14 sneak peek to the way he was in the Season 4 finale. Flocke and (real) Locke are distinctly different in their expressions, and their manner, and in the type of energy they project. Yet, in some ways, they are similar, as if they were not really two totally separate people. Somehow, O’Quinn manages to convey the differences and the similarities at the same time — something which can’t be easy.
