Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group

[IcedOver]

This is the crux of the matter. This was the mystery, this was the story, what better story would one need to explore and resolve. And they blew it. On a very fine bottle of Bordeau and special agent Tammy Preston. On Chip and Tina and Billy, on that NYC box that has not been seen since who knows when, on face removing reptilians, on that girl with an armpit rash, on Red and his Sparkle. There can be no other story, this was it, and it's gone. Almost.

I think you're right about the box (a wasted opportunity), but all the other little absurd moments are what I was starting to enjoy about the show, including the armpit rash. It was a sense of playfulness from Lynch, and you could feel that he and his cast had fun doing that sort of stuff. However, this show is going to be judged on how it resolves itself, and if they totally blew it with a "Lost"-derivative type of ending (as the final moment of Part 16 might, but hopefully doesn't, point to), the entire show will go down as a complete failure to me despite having a lot that I liked. They've got to balance making these episodes plot heavy, and resolving those main plots, without trying to "explain" the little absurdities.

[Mr. Reindeer]

(incredibly thoughtful, well-written analysis snipped)

Terrific post, like many of your posts on this thread...and I'm sorry to drag the thread OT, but I love the discourse that happens here. I disagree you with on a few points, one being that Eraserhead plays like the work of an inexperienced filmmaker. Yes, it undeniably breaks a ton of conventions, and that may well be partially because DKL was young and inexperienced (although the conscious reuse of many of Eraserhead's more unusual choices in terms of pacing, dialogue delivery, &c. by a 70-year-old DKL in TP:TR makes this a dubious conclusion IMO). But from beginning to end it strikes me as the work of a filmmaker demonstrating a control of the medium that would be incredible even from a seasoned director. Its mix (and subversion) of countless genres (dark comedy, horror, sci-fi, abstract mood piece, morality play, and first and foremost, raw psychologically immersive character piece) results in one of the most unique films I've ever seen. I'm convinced I could watch it a hundred times and have a different emotional reaction and a different interpretation every time. Heck, setting its command of mood and pacing aside, just from a technical standpoint, the Baby is on par with work that was being done by the top big-budget creature effects guys in the industry at that time. And, not that the opinions of others should determine ours, but let's remember that Kubrick -- one of the most accomplished and lauded directors of all time -- apparently considered Eraserhead his favorite film, as of the early '80s.

I also disagree with what seems to be an assumption in your post that "personal" is almost synonymous with competence / command of the medium. I think there's a strong argument to be made that, if we were to draw a Venn diagram,'"personal" may have more overlap with defying convention and perhaps even crossing over into self-indulgence than it does with tight control. While I agree with you that command of medium can allow a filmmaker to express him/herself more effectively, I don't think a film has to be well-made to be deeply personal. Whereas the concept of "personal" (to me, personally ), includes at least some degree of ignoring deeply-entrenched standards and conventions.

Your implied premise that scenes need to have "purpose" to be worthwhile indicates to me that perhaps you and I simply experience art differently. The "purpose" of the sick girl scene, for instance, is that it created an incredible reaction in me. It built and built with its mood of suburban dread, gridlock and guns, similar to Eraserhead's inimitable ambience in some ways while totally its own thing. It then had a glorious catharsis which simultaneously made my skin crawl and made me laugh hysterically when the "zombie" popped up. Like DKL's best work, it made me feel a complex mix of emotions that very few if any directors give me. And that made me happy. I don't need the scene to do or say anything beyond working on a visceral, intuitive level.

All of that being said, and to get slightly back on topic, I think TP:TR is one of DKL's less personal works. While Dougie I believe is a personal "character" for him, and many individual scenes and images work as standalone glimpses into his subconscious, I'm shocked by how invested he apparently was in straight mythology/story. The Audrey reveal (and its incredible execution) leaves me at least slightly hopeful that the final couple of hours will reveal a more personal/psychological component beneath all that shoe leather.

[mtwentz]

(incredibly thoughtful, well-written analysis snipped)

The "purpose" of the sick girl scene, for instance, is that it created an incredible reaction in me. It built and built with its mood of suburban dread, gridlock and guns, similar to Eraserhead's inimitable ambience in some ways while totally its own thing. It then had a glorious catharsis which simultaneously made my skin crawl and made me laugh hysterically when the "zombie" popped up. Like DKL's best work, it made me feel a complex mix of emotions that very few if any directors give me. And that made me happy. I don't need the scene to do or say anything beyond working on a visceral, intuitive level.

I completely agree about that scene. I thought the payoff was right then and there (for me).

[David Locke]

I was gonna make a post in the thread about TR getting a glowing review from the Washington Post, but I didn't wanna get chewed out, so...

I have very complicated and mixed feelings on TR as a whole, and I suspect many critics do as well. Surely some do love it, as they've written, but I can't help but wonder how many TV critics out there have given TR a positive review despite actually being rather mixed on it. After all, isn't there an enormous pressure to like/love this thing? There's pressure as a critic from other critics - you don't wanna be seen as a philistine who can't appreciate real Art. Because Lynch is Lynch and TR certainly pushes the boundaries of what TV can be, and because that is so welcome and rare, it's probably tempting to just give the show a rave review instead of being more negative and possibly appearing "dumb." (Even though of course that's ridiculous).

And then there's of course more personal pressure, that of a TP fan who's waited 25 years and desperately WANTS to like/love this new, super-Lynchian, no-holds-barred, highly artistic piece of work. As both the first Peaks in a quarter-century, and the first real Lynch work in over a decade, it's very hard for a fan of either or both to admit that, perhaps, TR is quite flawed, or even an outright failure. (If you wanted to exaggerate you could say it's Lynch's first real widely-seen/"mainstream" project, in terms of distribution, since MD in 2001 - IE was very limited and mostly seen by hardcore Lynch fans, who are virtually the only people who'd appreciate it).

Just some food for thought, I know you can never really know what people are thinking but I think that it's true that there's a kind of critical incentive to get on board with TR right now - to be seen as "with it" or "cool." Lynch is a kind of brand by now, and it's not "cool" to question his artistic choices. But the thing is, the people who treat him and his works like a brand, like a surface-level, banal parade of Surreal Shit and OMG, Like Totally Lynchian Shit, Dude - they trivialize his work more than most of his detractors ever could. Lynch's work should not be reduced to another consumer product, another Instagram post or Etsy mug or rug or poster with Cooper's saintly visage or the red room floor pasted onto it... In his best years, in Blue Velvet and Eraserhead and the original Twin Peaks and FWWM and Lost Highway and The Straight Story and Mulholland Drive, Lynch just vomited his personal & very emotional/sincere vision onscreen with little care for what others thought.

But the problem is, in TR, one senses by now Lynch is very cognizant to what others think and this is even anticipated and addressed in the content of the series itself. IE had a bit of this but TR truly goes into a kind of quasi-meta territory that just crashes and burns for me. Lynch being more successful to the point of seen as this infallible master of filmic surrealism doesn't seem to do him favors, though the situation is much more dire now than it was at the height of his popularity in about 1990 - Wild at Heart was, I'd say, partly the product of an overconfident director who felt he could indulge any whim and still be called a genius. Thus, it came out a messy, self-indulgent, if engaging and brilliantly-crafted film - but the anomaly was it only sometimes had those moments of sincere pathos/emotion and sheer personal vision that his best work usually gave us in every scene. He was a bit too comfortable. But he was still an expert craftsman, not yet resigned to lazily lounging in the world of digital cinema where so much less craft and effort is needed.

Now, he can be lazier. He can indulge whatever whim he wants. He can do whatever. At the end of the day, some will call it genius, or great, or his "magnum opus," even. (Christ, can you imagine? Have these people seen Blue Velvet and FWWM and the rest of the ones I listed? ). Just as some will call it self-indulgent or simply not-good bollocks.

And I just hope that he tries harder next time, and does make one more film or season of TV - or at least that he doesn't produce something with such poor and porous sense of structure as TR, because I think that structural weirdness that resulted in such a misshapen lump of material after editing is one of the chief problems with TR.

[boske]

This is the crux of the matter. This was the mystery, this was the story, what better story would one need to explore and resolve. And they blew it. On a very fine bottle of Bordeau and special agent Tammy Preston. On Chip and Tina and Billy, on that NYC box that has not been seen since who knows when, on face removing reptilians, on that girl with an armpit rash, on Red and his Sparkle. There can be no other story, this was it, and it's gone. Almost.

I think you're right about the box (a wasted opportunity), but all the other little absurd moments are what I was starting to enjoy about the show, including the armpit rash. It was a sense of playfulness from Lynch, and you could feel that he and his cast had fun doing that sort of stuff. However, this show is going to be judged on how it resolves itself, and if they totally blew it with a "Lost"-derivative type of ending (as the final moment of Part 16 might, but hopefully doesn't, point to), the entire show will go down as a complete failure to me despite having a lot that I liked. They've got to balance making these episodes plot heavy, and resolving those main plots, without trying to "explain" the little absurdities.

For some reason, I now think the resolution of the show might be that Gordon Cole is also revealed a "tulpa", created by, no less, David Lynch himself, and that Monica Belucci scene might have hinted to that now that we know how DoppelDiane remembered what happened between the real Diana and Mr C. Phillip Jeffries is out of the picture as the bad guy ("I do not have your phone number Cooper"), I mean what does Phillip Jeffries need? And he is under a lock anyway. So, somebody on the FBI team is a rotten apple.

Anyway, we'll see shortly, I am looking very much forward to this thread then, plus we should get some people who chose not to post until all is over/"revealed".

[referendum]

nice comment from @Novalis here in the ep #16 thread ( extracted from much longer comment) - could equally apply to people who like TP TR as to those who are profoundly disappointed:

''This show isn't so much about the one hour we spend sitting in front of the screen, it's the take-away. The things that play out in our minds in the periods between parts. YMMV, of course, but I do get a lot of 'mileage' out of this fuel.''

[dronerstone]

nice comment from @Novalis here in the ep #16 thread ( extracted from much longer comment) - could equally apply to people who like TP TR as to those who are profoundly disappointed:

''This show isn't so much about the one hour we spend sitting in front of the screen, it's the take-away. The things that play out in our minds in the periods between parts. YMMV, of course, but I do get a lot of 'mileage' out of this fuel.''

That perfectly sums it up.

This is why it's good to watch it on a weekly basis rather than binge-watching it all at once. Our brains are working it through and letting it seep in for 7 days until there's new food for thought.

That said, anyone could binge on it after 9/3, no control over that.

[referendum]

That said, anyone could binge on it after 9/3, no control over that.

i think alot of people are going to use the ' binge after 9/3' to check out this animal's health. Can't perform an autopsy until it is dead.

[mlsstwrt]

nice comment from @Novalis here in the ep #16 thread ( extracted from much longer comment) - could equally apply to people who like TP TR as to those who are profoundly disappointed:

''This show isn't so much about the one hour we spend sitting in front of the screen, it's the take-away. The things that play out in our minds in the periods between parts. YMMV, of course, but I do get a lot of 'mileage' out of this fuel.''

I agree but, just for me personally (in my person, subjective view, not presenting this as objective fact - ok MT?) there has been NOTHING playing in my mind between episodes. Nothing sticks and I spend zero minutes thinking about TPTR (except to post here). It's the very worst sign for me. I remember seeing Eyes Wide Shut in the cinema. I was pretty young and went in with a bunch of friends expecting titillation. I left the cinema feeling really confused. But I couldn't stop thinking about that film, re-watched it with a different mindset and now it's up there as one of my favourite films of all time. TPTR - Nothing.

[referendum]

nice comment from @Novalis here in the ep #16 thread ( extracted from much longer comment) - could equally apply to people who like TP TR as to those who are profoundly disappointed:

''This show isn't so much about the one hour we spend sitting in front of the screen, it's the take-away. The things that play out in our minds in the periods between parts. YMMV, of course, but I do get a lot of 'mileage' out of this fuel.''

I agree but, just for me personally (in my person, subjective view, not presenting this as objective fact - ok MT?) there has been NOTHING playing in my mind between episodes. Nothing sticks and I spend zero minutes thinking about TPTR (except to post here). It's the very worst sign for me. I remember seeing Eyes Wide Shut in the cinema. I was pretty young and went in with a bunch of friends expecting titillation. I left the cinema feeling really confused. But I couldn't stop thinking about that film, re-watched it with a different mindset and now it's up there as one of my favourite films of all time. TPTR - Nothing.

ha, well there you go then. The only reason i joined this forum is because this stuff DID play in my head for days afterwards, and after six weeks or so it bothered me enough to see what other people were saying about it. I made a long list of repeats and echoes and repetitions for myself ( which i thought about posting here but when i read what people had written in here it seemed redundant) just because this programme bugged me. Eyes Wide Shit, i can see why you raise that as a car-crash comparison. But...i never dreamt about eyes wide shit. ( a film that i intensely dislike). This series of TP i have dreamt about a couple of times. For all it's awkwardness and clumsiness and miss-steps and failed promises and flaws and gaping holes, it is ( for me anyway ) a living breathing thing, all the critical stuff about narrative ineptitude and crass characterisation and 'meta'/stasis and dodgy attitude to women and misanthropy and so on, sit on a little shelf for me marked ' problems'. That shelf is inside a room with a load of things in it which i will be carrying round with me for the next few years. I think Lynch has made something very self-conscious here ( an aspect which alot of people reasonably dislike ) which is a sort of major-network promo for his version of outsider art. He has deliberately turned his back on people that ignore that kind of thing, and like finished product, and made something very positive ( and sometimes borderlines inept) to project the things he loves into the world. He loves DIY. He sees himself as an artisan. This is why the ' making ' hand-made aspect is so close to the surface. What you see is what you get.

[boske]

I think you fine folks here are right, TR was assembled and then split this way so that you get to think of and obsess over what happened in the previous part. Whether that is a time well spent is where we may start to diverge in opinion. I think that time is definitely not well spent, it is pretty much wasted, and the show is structured purposely around these wild goose chases, e.g:

• Linda, where is she?
• Where are Mr C puke analysis results;
• Why did not Andy pursue that guy when he did not show up at 4:30 at the arranged place;
• Who are Billy, Tina and myriad other names mentioned and never heard of again;
• 1-1-9 Mom;
• Why was there a spotlight on Sunny Jim;
• Who was that insurance agent looking for sheriff Truman;

I just remembered these few, there are tens of them out there slowly and methodically chewing people's brains out.

[David Locke]

I agree but, just for me personally (in my person, subjective view, not presenting this as objective fact - ok MT?) there has been NOTHING playing in my mind between episodes. Nothing sticks and I spend zero minutes thinking about TPTR (except to post here). It's the very worst sign for me. I remember seeing Eyes Wide Shut in the cinema. I was pretty young and went in with a bunch of friends expecting titillation. I left the cinema feeling really confused. But I couldn't stop thinking about that film, re-watched it with a different mindset and now it's up there as one of my favourite films of all time. TPTR - Nothing.

Alright, now I like you even more, mlsstwrt! Eyes Wide Shut is my personal favorite film of all time, and though it's grown in stature in recent years it's still unfairly knocked by many, so it's always great to encounter others who dig it like I do. Cheers

On a related note, I feel EWS was to an extent influenced by early/mid Lynch works like Blue Velvet (they have a quite similar narrative/thematic structure, with a naive protagonist discovering a hidden world of debauchery), Twin Peaks (there's plenty of red-curtained rooms in EWS), and Lost Highway (also about jealousy and infidelity and a woman named Alice whose identity seems to meld into other women's)... though I doubt LH was intentional as it came out right in the middle of production on EWS. But regardless of intention, EWS very much feels like Kubrick's "Lynch" film, while also totally being Kubrick's own thing. For one thing, it's very dreamlike but it has a more cerebral, objective viewpoint (as usual for Kubrick), instead of the hyper-subjective impressionism of Lynch. EWS feels like it could all very well be "real," yet it's also besides the point what's "real" and what's not. It's a bit like MD too in the way it juxtaposes the devastating Real and the pleasant dream-world, except EWS blurs these lines more.

[waferwhitemilk]

[David Locke]

Nice one, I've certainly had that thought before. That's easily the best part of the Keaton episode as well, which, well, I won't get into here...

Conversely, Lynch is also a fan of not just Kubrick generally as we all know but EWS as well. During an online chat with fans promoting MD, he was asked his opinion of the film, and said (paraphrasing): "I really love Eyes Wide Shut. I just wonder if Stanley Kubrick finished it the way he wanted to." And technically, it is an unfinished film (though I'd say at least 95% finished)... but, my God, it's gotta be the greatest unfinished film there is.

Not surprising Lynch would like it - it seems like a film right up Lynch's alley... as I wrote above, it seems to reference Lynch's own works subtly but not even that. It just has a mood, an ambiguity, and an unapologetically "old-fashioned" quality to its filmmaking style that seems like Lynch's thing.

[mlsstwrt]

I agree but, just for me personally (in my person, subjective view, not presenting this as objective fact - ok MT?) there has been NOTHING playing in my mind between episodes. Nothing sticks and I spend zero minutes thinking about TPTR (except to post here). It's the very worst sign for me. I remember seeing Eyes Wide Shut in the cinema. I was pretty young and went in with a bunch of friends expecting titillation. I left the cinema feeling really confused. But I couldn't stop thinking about that film, re-watched it with a different mindset and now it's up there as one of my favourite films of all time. TPTR - Nothing.

Alright, now I like you even more, mlsstwrt! Eyes Wide Shut is my personal favorite film of all time, and though it's grown in stature in recent years it's still unfairly knocked by many, so it's always great to encounter others who dig it like I do. Cheers

On a related note, I feel EWS was to an extent influenced by early/mid Lynch works like Blue Velvet (they have a quite similar narrative/thematic structure, with a naive protagonist discovering a hidden world of debauchery), Twin Peaks (there's plenty of red-curtained rooms in EWS), and Lost Highway (also about jealousy and infidelity and a woman named Alice whose identity seems to meld into other women's)... though I doubt LH was intentional as it came out right in the middle of production on EWS. But regardless of intention, EWS very much feels like Kubrick's "Lynch" film, while also totally being Kubrick's own thing. For one thing, it's very dreamlike but it has a more cerebral, objective viewpoint (as usual for Kubrick), instead of the hyper-subjective impressionism of Lynch. EWS feels like it could all very well be "real," yet it's also besides the point what's "real" and what's not. It's a bit like MD too in the way it juxtaposes the devastating Real and the pleasant dream-world, except EWS blurs these lines more.

Thanks David, let's choose to rise above referendum's cheap shot

I was never sure whether Lynch had influenced Kubrick or vice versa, interesting stuff.