Location: 3.12 "Par Avion"

Discussion: Mikhail's accusationsReported This is a featured thread

Showing 10 posts

Posted Anonymously
Mikhail's accusations
Mar 16 2007, 11:12 AM EDT | Post edited: Mar 16 2007, 11:12 AM EDT
When he was explaining why they were "incapable" of understanding him, he called Locke angry, Danielle weak, and Sayid frightened (surprisingly spot on, IMO.). But even after playing it THREE times, I STILL couldn't understand what he called Kate.
It sort of sounded like he said "You're through". Can someone clear this up for me?
-L.A.
Do you find this valuable?    
Keyword tags: None
cedell
cedell
1. RE: Mikhail's accusations
Mar 17 2007, 9:52 AM EDT | Post edited: Mar 17 2007, 9:52 AM EDT
I'm not positive I know where you were unable to hear his words, but I think what your missing is "flawed."
Here is what he says initially: "You are not on the list because you are flawed. Because you are angry... and weak... and frightened." But when he directs his comments towards Kate he says: "...and you Kate Austin, are a complete stranger to me."

I'm not entirely sure why he calls her a stranger though. Either he is mocking her in regards to her on-the-run status, and the fact that no one really knows her personally. Or perhaps the others really couldn't gather this information on her. Not sure.
Do you find this valuable?    

Posted Anonymously
2. RE: Mikhail's accusations
Mar 17 2007, 5:19 PM EDT | Post edited: Mar 17 2007, 5:19 PM EDT
i heard flawed too Do you find this valuable?    

Posted Anonymously
3. RE: Mikhail's accusations
Mar 18 2007, 9:27 AM EDT | Post edited: Mar 18 2007, 9:27 AM EDT
I agree with the original poster; I didn't hear "You're flawed" but something more like "You're through," which makes no sense. But "flawed" makes no sense, either, in the context of what he said to the others: angry, weak and frightened are all "flaws"; its like saying "you're a fruit, you're an apple, you're a banana, and you're an orange." (the surrealism commentary may be interfering with my analogies, sorry.) Do you find this valuable?    

Posted Anonymously
4. RE: Mikhail's accusations
Mar 18 2007, 9:44 AM EDT | Post edited: Mar 18 2007, 9:44 AM EDT
"I agree with the original poster; I didn't hear "You're flawed" but something more like "You're through," which makes no sense. But "flawed" makes no sense, either, in the context of what he said to the others: angry, weak and frightened are all "flaws"; its like saying "you're a fruit, you're an apple, you're a banana, and you're an orange." (the surrealism commentary may be interfering with my analogies, sorry.)"
Maybe he said Kate was flawed because she has everything wrong about her. Example, she is angry, a murder, scared (of commitment), she lies, and other things.
Do you find this valuable?    
cedell
cedell
5. RE: Mikhail's accusations
Mar 18 2007, 7:26 PM EDT | Post edited: Mar 18 2007, 7:26 PM EDT
Mikhail wasn't directing the term "flawed" at Kate. He was directing it at the entire group of people that weren't on the list. He then proceeds to give examples of those flaws somehow considered unworthy. 1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    

Posted Anonymously
6. RE: Mikhail's accusations
Mar 19 2007, 12:40 PM EDT | Post edited: Mar 19 2007, 12:40 PM EDT
"Mikhail wasn't directing the term "flawed" at Kate. He was directing it at the entire group of people that weren't on the list. He then proceeds to give examples of those flaws somehow considered unworthy."
Possible, but think about it- We know Locke has anger problems, Danielle accepts, even declares her weakness by avoiding all signs of trouble. She knows she's too weak to win against the Others, so she avoids them. Sayid, despite being a former torturer, is scared. He's a very emotional man, and fear does play a big part in his life, whether or not he's willing to admit it.

And when Mikhail said each term, he looked towards the person that exhibited that attribute. He said the first (be it "Flawed" or something else) facing Kate, the second facing Locke, etc. So while they might all have applied to everyone, it implied that he was revealing each one's personal flaw.

Maybe Kate's just so far gone he couldn't use just one flaw. She has sort of de-evolved since coming to the Island. Since Shannon died she's slowly taking over as the screaming, crying, damsel in distress instead of the female hunter she once was.

Come to think of it, "flawed" is a good term. With her father she was always striving for perfection. So to be told she isn't perfect is enough. She doesn't need to know the particulars.

Thanks for your help, folks. This is an interesting discussion!

-L.A.
Do you find this valuable?    
cedell
cedell
7. RE: Mikhail's accusations
Mar 20 2007, 4:13 PM EDT | Post edited: Mar 20 2007, 4:13 PM EDT
Oh, I agree with you that he was directing those attributes/flaws at the Losties surrounding him. I'm just saying the term "flawed" was used as a generalization when commenting why they weren't on the list. After making that generalization he then proceeded to comment on those flaws, directing each character's particular weakness. Mikhail doesn't give Kate a characteristic on why she wasn't on the list, other than saying that she was a stranger to him. But that might have been a tongue-in-cheek remark. Sorry, I thought that was clear in my original post. Do you find this valuable?    

Posted Anonymously
8. RE: Mikhail's accusations
Mar 23 2007, 2:14 AM EDT | Post edited: Mar 23 2007, 2:14 AM EDT
I'm quite certain that the "complete stranger" -part was just sarcasm. I mean, he wasn't supposed to know their names, or was he?

I, however, think that "flawed" was pointed towards Kate, because after flawed, angry, weak and frightened, Sayid interrupts him and then he continues with sarcastic remarks of not knowing them.

-Mikko
Do you find this valuable?    

Posted Anonymously
9. RE: Mikhail's accusations
Mar 25 2007, 12:20 AM EDT | Post edited: Mar 25 2007, 12:20 AM EDT
I don't see why he would refer to Danielle at all. She's been there 16 years, whether the Others want her is surely irrelevant by now, she probably doesn't even register on Jacobs list. And the gesture he makes towards her is the most ambiguous of the 4. It makes sense to me that Sayid is more weak than frightened. I think this scene is a little phoned in, honestly. What I want to know is what he really meant by the whole "knowing you" thing. Do you think we'll see a flashback where Mikhail and Locke meet? I bet we will. Do you find this valuable?