Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group

Moderators: Jerry Horne, Brad D, Annie, BookhouseBoyBob, Ross

LateReg
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby LateReg » Wed Jun 28, 2017 7:48 am

AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:
counterpaul wrote:
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:By almost any standard measure most of The Return has failed artistically.


It's probably inadvisable for me to respond to this statement, but I'm genuinely curious about what you consider to be "standard measure(s)" of assessing artistic success/failure. Unless I'm misinterpreting, you do not seem to be speaking of your own subjective reaction (which: different strokes for different folks and all that), but rather you seem to be implying something more objective.

I can think of several measures by which TPTR, so far, would be considered a resounding artistic success (critical and general fan consensus, the ability to create "buzz," inspiring other artists, how it makes my guts flutter and zing) but I am also totally willing to admit that they may be measures you would consider non-standard.

It's also odd to me that you follow this statement by comparing The Return to the work of some of the greatest artists of the 20th Century. I suppose the comparison could be meant to imply that Lynch has only attempted something these great artists have succeeded at. Or would you contend that Joyce and Calvino and Kaufman and Beckett are also artistic failures, by almost any standard measure?

Man, I can see how most of that might sound really snarky. I genuinely don't mean it that way (I find snark dull and counterproductive in nearly any context). I find your post fascinating in its apparent contradictions!

AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:It is really anti-narrative, in the sense we’ve had the anti-novels of Calvino and Joyce, the anti-comedy of Andy Kaufman and Jerry Sadowitz, and so on.


This is what really prompted me to respond to this post. It's an interesting thought, and there is some textual evidence that Lynch is at least partially taking an anti-narrative approach (the glass box can be read as a TV and the creature murderously breaking out of it and attacking the "viewers" as a commentary on how we as viewers of The Return will not come out of this project unmutilated; ??????? breaking the 4th wall to seemingly appraise us as viewers before going on to essentially appraise the film itself--these are two examples that jump immediately to mind), but I don't think Lynch is interested in Brechtian methods that keep the audience from investing emotionally. It's not his style at all. He's all about immersion, and I do not think TPTR is an exception.

It's actually not new for Lynch to try and have his cake and eat it too in this way. From his very earliest experiments, he has always been interested in simultaneously revealing the seams, even reveling in the artifice of his creations, and encouraging total immersion--getting "lost inside a dream," as he likes to put it. I think it's because, for Lynch, reveling in the tools of art-making is not in any way contradictory to being consumed by the art. The making of the thing (or, for the viewer, being invited into becoming almost a post-facto participant the making of the thing) is a huge part of the joy of art for him. To be reminded of artifice, in this context, is not to be made self-aware and distant from the art. It's part of the immersion!

This isn't a totally unheard-of approach in the world of filmmaking, but it is extremely unusual in the world of narrative filmmaking and possibly unprecedented in the world of narrative filmmaking at this scale/budget/audience size.

It's a big part of the magic, though. It's not so much anti-narrative and narrative-plus. At least from Lynch's point of view.

It works for me like gangbusters!

I like your Beckett comparison. I think Beckett worked similarly in a lot of ways.



By the “standard measures” of narrative art – strong characterisation and storytelling – many anti-novels would be regarded as artistic failures, no? I’m not saying I necessarily see them that way, but that many others would. In fact, for the moment I’m parking my own judgement about The Return’s failure or otherwise until somebody comes up with a plausible explanation for its anti-narrative approach. Impossible to judge the overall work until we can see why it’s taken this route.

And here it’s necessary to retract something said right at the start of this thread, which was that it doesn’t matter if the shoddiness of this series is deliberate or not. Obviously I’ve done a 180 on this, my only defence being that this is a headwrecker of a work to grapple with! The key has been to see the shoddiness (I could put such words in quote marks but would rather not) as systematic and scenes such as the floorsweeping and shovel-painting as clues to this; systematic anti-narrative being brought to millions via television – as you say, that’s an interesting project all right. And having done such a 180, I should probably be more forgiving of those who see nothing wrong at all with this show. I think they’re wrong in the same way people cracking up at Andy Kaufman (non-existent) punchlines are wrong, but none of us is without sin here.

Good to see the suggestion about an anti-narrative approach has some resonance with you. So let’s put the question directly: why do you think the creators may have taken this approach? Call it narrative-plus if that helps, as the anti-narrative thing hasn’t been completely systematic.

The stuff above about Eastern practise is only an initial guess, one that allows me to maintain the more slightly more optimistic feelings I’ve had about the show recently.


I'm enjoying this conversation and before Counterpaul responds I'd just like clarification on something. I get the anti-narrative thing you're talking about and have theories as to why, but what do you perceive as shoddiness in The Return? Are you saying you see the floor sweeping/shovel painting as shoddy? What are you referring to?
User avatar
LurkerAtTheThreshold
RR Diner Member
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby LurkerAtTheThreshold » Wed Jun 28, 2017 6:58 pm

LateReg wrote:
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:
counterpaul wrote:

It's probably inadvisable for me to respond to this statement, but I'm genuinely curious about what you consider to be "standard measure(s)" of assessing artistic success/failure. Unless I'm misinterpreting, you do not seem to be speaking of your own subjective reaction (which: different strokes for different folks and all that), but rather you seem to be implying something more objective.

I can think of several measures by which TPTR, so far, would be considered a resounding artistic success (critical and general fan consensus, the ability to create "buzz," inspiring other artists, how it makes my guts flutter and zing) but I am also totally willing to admit that they may be measures you would consider non-standard.

It's also odd to me that you follow this statement by comparing The Return to the work of some of the greatest artists of the 20th Century. I suppose the comparison could be meant to imply that Lynch has only attempted something these great artists have succeeded at. Or would you contend that Joyce and Calvino and Kaufman and Beckett are also artistic failures, by almost any standard measure?

Man, I can see how most of that might sound really snarky. I genuinely don't mean it that way (I find snark dull and counterproductive in nearly any context). I find your post fascinating in its apparent contradictions!



This is what really prompted me to respond to this post. It's an interesting thought, and there is some textual evidence that Lynch is at least partially taking an anti-narrative approach (the glass box can be read as a TV and the creature murderously breaking out of it and attacking the "viewers" as a commentary on how we as viewers of The Return will not come out of this project unmutilated; ??????? breaking the 4th wall to seemingly appraise us as viewers before going on to essentially appraise the film itself--these are two examples that jump immediately to mind), but I don't think Lynch is interested in Brechtian methods that keep the audience from investing emotionally. It's not his style at all. He's all about immersion, and I do not think TPTR is an exception.

It's actually not new for Lynch to try and have his cake and eat it too in this way. From his very earliest experiments, he has always been interested in simultaneously revealing the seams, even reveling in the artifice of his creations, and encouraging total immersion--getting "lost inside a dream," as he likes to put it. I think it's because, for Lynch, reveling in the tools of art-making is not in any way contradictory to being consumed by the art. The making of the thing (or, for the viewer, being invited into becoming almost a post-facto participant the making of the thing) is a huge part of the joy of art for him. To be reminded of artifice, in this context, is not to be made self-aware and distant from the art. It's part of the immersion!

This isn't a totally unheard-of approach in the world of filmmaking, but it is extremely unusual in the world of narrative filmmaking and possibly unprecedented in the world of narrative filmmaking at this scale/budget/audience size.

It's a big part of the magic, though. It's not so much anti-narrative and narrative-plus. At least from Lynch's point of view.

It works for me like gangbusters!

I like your Beckett comparison. I think Beckett worked similarly in a lot of ways.



By the “standard measures” of narrative art – strong characterisation and storytelling – many anti-novels would be regarded as artistic failures, no? I’m not saying I necessarily see them that way, but that many others would. In fact, for the moment I’m parking my own judgement about The Return’s failure or otherwise until somebody comes up with a plausible explanation for its anti-narrative approach. Impossible to judge the overall work until we can see why it’s taken this route.

And here it’s necessary to retract something said right at the start of this thread, which was that it doesn’t matter if the shoddiness of this series is deliberate or not. Obviously I’ve done a 180 on this, my only defence being that this is a headwrecker of a work to grapple with! The key has been to see the shoddiness (I could put such words in quote marks but would rather not) as systematic and scenes such as the floorsweeping and shovel-painting as clues to this; systematic anti-narrative being brought to millions via television – as you say, that’s an interesting project all right. And having done such a 180, I should probably be more forgiving of those who see nothing wrong at all with this show. I think they’re wrong in the same way people cracking up at Andy Kaufman (non-existent) punchlines are wrong, but none of us is without sin here.

Good to see the suggestion about an anti-narrative approach has some resonance with you. So let’s put the question directly: why do you think the creators may have taken this approach? Call it narrative-plus if that helps, as the anti-narrative thing hasn’t been completely systematic.

The stuff above about Eastern practise is only an initial guess, one that allows me to maintain the more slightly more optimistic feelings I’ve had about the show recently.


I'm enjoying this conversation and before Counterpaul responds I'd just like clarification on something. I get the anti-narrative thing you're talking about and have theories as to why, but what do you perceive as shoddiness in The Return? Are you saying you see the floor sweeping/shovel painting as shoddy? What are you referring to?


You've got to admit. Sometimes elements like the special effects and acting are so bad, but there seems to be no context for it.

Don't get me wrong, mostly I like the series.

But for instance in the last episode when Ray kills Mr C and then says "I think he's dead. But I'm not sure about that. I saw something in Cooper. It may be the key to what this is all about."

The delivery and the inflection, and hell even the content is so corny, I haven't seen such bad dialogue and acting at some points in the return since the 1980's. Like it reminds me of something you would see in a Stephen segal movie.

The original series got away with a lot of bad acting because it was parodying soap operas. James and Donna were ok as pastiches, it was only once the irony drifted off that the thrill of terrible acting wore off.

The problem with the return is it's not directly setting itself up as a parody of anything. It just seems to parody random things, and there's a lot of self loathing or something. The bad acting is just really distracting.

All that said, I like the new series as a dodgy third season, mixed with Lynchian self referential aggrandising.

Speaking of which. I just saw someone pull from Reddit a shot from Eraserhead of Henry with a nuclear bomb picture behind him. They were of course discussing this image in the context of what a genius Lynch is to be able to endlessly reference his own work.

But this only further gave me the shits. To think that you would just recycle old imagery from your early films for such a major plot point in the new mythology, for me, is extremely dull.
User avatar
mtsi
RR Diner Member
Posts: 253
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:56 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby mtsi » Wed Jun 28, 2017 7:22 pm

Has anyone ever considered that the acting and writing in the original series wasn't so much direct parody as it was just terrible acting and dissonant writing? I say this because everything about the series is either melodramatic or maudlin.

I loved it then, and have a soft spot in my heart for it, but if I go back, I spend an awful lot of time wincing.

Same for Wild at Heart, or Blue Velvet, or Eraserhead. Those were definitely intended to be surreal leaning films, but if you get to the moment where Jeffrey, in Blue Velvet says "why is there so much trouble in this world," you really can't help but be distracted by this oddly humorous moment, which in some ways, shouldn't be considered humorous.

Then, look at Elephant Man or The Straight Story, and witness well written, powerfully acted films, with subtle oddities and you'll see true film making genius.

Taste is a strange thing.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
We live inside a dream.
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Lodge Member
Posts: 3151
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Wed Jun 28, 2017 7:43 pm

LurkerAtTheThreshold wrote:Speaking of which. I just saw someone pull from Reddit a shot from Eraserhead of Henry with a nuclear bomb picture behind him. They were of course discussing this image in the context of what a genius Lynch is to be able to endlessly reference his own work.

But this only further gave me the shits. To think that you would just recycle old imagery from your early films for such a major plot point in the new mythology, for me, is extremely dull.


This feels a bit like you're looking for reasons to put the new show down. Eraserhead didn't have a massive several-minute abstract setpiece revolving around a nuclear explosion...it had a photo in the background that few people even notice (yourself included, I surmise, from the context of your post). It was a throwaway (albeit one that I believe says a lot about the film's themes of creation and destruction). If you want to go this route, the reappearance of Eraserhead's chevron floor in the Red Room and reuse of BV's logging truck motif in the original TP series are far more egregious examples of Lynch repeating himself. The detonation of the atom bomb is a huge turning point in modern history and human evolution, and is too often ignored/overshadowed by comparatively minor events, because history is written by the winners, and the collective American conscience begs us not to look too closely at that particular "accomplishment." I think the iconic mushroom cloud is at least as deserving of a repeat performance in DKL's ouevre as a squiggly floor pattern, and I for one applaud him for addressing the dark side of the mid-century era he so adores. This is the bugs under the green suburban grass writ large. (And, as I've noted elsewhere, I think it's significant that this is the first time DKL has actually set scenes in the postwar '50s, after a career-long fixation with fetishizing the era.)

Sorry to hijack this thread; I just felt the need to counter this particular criticism. I've been enjoying this thread in lurk-mode, and continue to find most of the criticisms interesting and well-expressed, even if I often disagree. As my penance for intruding here, I'll note that I too am pretty disturbed by the "messianic Moon Child Laura" twist. However, DKL has earned my trust throughout his career and throughout this series (terrible Lucy/Andy/Wally shtick aside), so I'm willing to hold on and see where this goes. Most things in DKL's work are left pretty open to interpretation, so I'm hoping that this will be one of those areas where I can make up my own mind at the end of the day. Obviously many of you feel very differently about the series thus far; from that perspective, I can definitely see "Anakin Christ Laura" as the straw that broke the camel's back.
User avatar
LurkerAtTheThreshold
RR Diner Member
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby LurkerAtTheThreshold » Wed Jun 28, 2017 7:48 pm

Mr. Reindeer wrote:
LurkerAtTheThreshold wrote:Speaking of which. I just saw someone pull from Reddit a shot from Eraserhead of Henry with a nuclear bomb picture behind him. They were of course discussing this image in the context of what a genius Lynch is to be able to endlessly reference his own work.

But this only further gave me the shits. To think that you would just recycle old imagery from your early films for such a major plot point in the new mythology, for me, is extremely dull.


This feels a bit like you're looking for reasons to put the new show down. Eraserhead didn't have a massive several-minute abstract setpiece revolving around a nuclear explosion...it had a photo in the background that few people even notice (yourself included, I surmise, from the context of your post). It was a throwaway (albeit one that I believe says a lot about the film's themes of creation and destruction). If you want to go this route, the reappearance of Eraserhead's chevron floor in the Red Room and reuse of BV's logging truck motif in the original TP series are far more egregious examples of Lynch repeating himself. The detonation of the atom bomb is a huge turning point in modern history and human evolution, and is too often ignored/overshadowed by comparatively minor events, because history is written by the winners, and the collective American conscience begs us not to look too closely at that particular "accomplishment." I think the iconic mushroom cloud is at least as deserving of a repeat performance in DKL's ouevre as a squiggly floor pattern, and I for one applaud him for addressing the dark side of the mid-century era he so adores. This is the bugs under the green suburban grass writ large. (And, as I've noted elsewhere, I think it's significant that this is the first time DKL has actually set scenes in the postwar '50s, after a career-long fixation with fetishizing the era.)

Sorry to hijack this thread; I just felt the need to counter this particular criticism. I've been enjoying this thread in lurk-mode, and continue to find most of the criticisms interesting and well-expressed, even if I often disagree. As my penance for intruding here, I'll note that I too am pretty disturbed by the "messianic Moon Child Laura" twist. However, DKL has earned my trust throughout his career and throughout this series (terrible Lucy/Andy/Wally shtick aside), so I'm willing to hold on and see where this goes. Most things in DKL's work are left pretty open to interpretation, so I'm hoping that this will be one of those areas where I can make up my own mind at the end of the day. Obviously many of you feel very differently about the series thus far; from that perspective, I can definitely see "Anakin Christ Laura" as the straw that broke the camel's back.


BelIeve me, I'm not looking for reasons.

I'm actually trying as hard as I can to like the return as it is given to us. There's still ten more episodes which I have no choice but to watch as an obsessive fan, at this point.

And yeah-- the Laura space opera thing is hilarious but hard to resonate with on a genuine emotional level
User avatar
LurkerAtTheThreshold
RR Diner Member
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby LurkerAtTheThreshold » Wed Jun 28, 2017 7:54 pm

mtsi wrote:Has anyone ever considered that the acting and writing in the original series wasn't so much direct parody as it was just terrible acting and dissonant writing? I say this because everything about the series is either melodramatic or maudlin.

I loved it then, and have a soft spot in my heart for it, but if I go back, I spend an awful lot of time wincing.

Same for Wild at Heart, or Blue Velvet, or Eraserhead. Those were definitely intended to be surreal leaning films, but if you get to the moment where Jeffrey, in Blue Velvet says "why is there so much trouble in this world," you really can't help but be distracted by this oddly humorous moment, which in some ways, shouldn't be considered humorous.

Then, look at Elephant Man or The Straight Story, and witness well written, powerfully acted films, with subtle oddities and you'll see true film making genius.

Taste is a strange thing.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


It always bordered on being terrible verse that translating into brilliant parody - mixed with genuine emotion and enthusiastic characters.

I just remember that back in the day, it was the fact that it was a soap opera parody that gave people a licence to praise Lynch as an infallible genius. But now that that's not there (They're still doing it) it's just not as clear why sloppy filmmaking, nostalgia for themes explored to death in last century --and bad acting are examples of Avante guards genius.

What I dot understand is why go back to the nuclear bomb? Something which has been explored in countless works of art, when their are a million things which are just as haunting happening in the world today. Islamic terror? The rise of totalitarian ideologies? Militantism? Imperialism?

Instead we are re exploring something that happened mid last century. Yes; it was a horrible moment in humanity. But the way it's treated in this series is almost nostalgic. The atomic bomb is the cherry pie, and coffee of the aged horror filmmaker.
Lynch is so out of touch it's unbelievable. Then the fact that a small town murder mystery has slowly expanded into a camp invasion of the body snatchers sci fi double feature which would make Ed Wood laugh.

I love it but it hate it. I love to hate it.
User avatar
mtsi
RR Diner Member
Posts: 253
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:56 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby mtsi » Wed Jun 28, 2017 8:03 pm

Interesting. My perspective is simply one of time and distance. Time allows us to look back, and to paraphrase Lost Highway, "I choose to remember things my own way."

I'm not sure if it was ever great. Perhaps we just convinced ourselves it was.

This said, I am loving the new series. Broken or not, I'm all in and Part 8 sealed that for me.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
We live inside a dream.
Weasel84
New Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2017 8:00 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby Weasel84 » Wed Jun 28, 2017 8:10 pm

AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:Good posts, Venus and Mr Podcast.

By almost any standard measure most of The Return has failed artistically. It is really anti-narrative


As far as you're concerned, the vast majority watching Seawon 3 don't give two hoots about "the standard measures of narrative art", and they certainly aren't using that as a barometer by which to measure


But because I admired part 8, I’m now happy to wait and see why they’ve decided to take the anti-narrative approach. Some least favourite possibilities: that it’s some art school conceptual pish to do with matter and anti-matter or positive and negative electrical charges or whatever; that Coop is suffering for days so the audience should at least suffer for hours; or that the creators have just turned into misanthropic old men and genuinely dislike their audience. Sadly none of these can be discounted.

One of the more interesting anti-narrative possibilities, though, is that’s it’s connected to Lynch’s interests in Eastern philosophy and practise, much of which is concerned with escaping personal narrative, the ongoing stories we tell ourselves to maintain the illusion of individuality (what is the meditation he so values but the ending of inner narrative?). This would bring The Return into line with the anti-novels of Beckett, whose work it resembles more obviously than that of Kafka IMO. If it turns out that this series is trying something that ambitious – an all-out attack on narrative itself and the illusions it creates – then it’s hats off to all concerned for the bravery of the attempt if nothing else.

Anyway, this seems the most intriguing question now: why have they chosen to make so much of The Return so bad in the traditional sense? Why has the occasional deliberate shoddiness of the previous seasons now become the default? The debate about whether or not this has happened ended weeks ago, while Dougie was scrawling his third/fourth/fifth ladder on an insurance claim.

There’s no way this thread ends with agreement that The Return was actually a good story. The opposite is pretty much guaranteed. But it would be nice to at least know why this route was taken.[/quote]
User avatar
Hockey Mask
RR Diner Member
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2015 3:31 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby Hockey Mask » Wed Jun 28, 2017 8:12 pm

LurkerAtTheThreshold wrote:
mtsi wrote:Has anyone ever considered that the acting and writing in the original series wasn't so much direct parody as it was just terrible acting and dissonant writing? I say this because everything about the series is either melodramatic or maudlin.

I loved it then, and have a soft spot in my heart for it, but if I go back, I spend an awful lot of time wincing.

Same for Wild at Heart, or Blue Velvet, or Eraserhead. Those were definitely intended to be surreal leaning films, but if you get to the moment where Jeffrey, in Blue Velvet says "why is there so much trouble in this world," you really can't help but be distracted by this oddly humorous moment, which in some ways, shouldn't be considered humorous.

Then, look at Elephant Man or The Straight Story, and witness well written, powerfully acted films, with subtle oddities and you'll see true film making genius.

Taste is a strange thing.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


It always bordered on being terrible verse that translating into brilliant parody - mixed with genuine emotion and enthusiastic characters.

I just remember that back in the day, it was the fact that it was a soap opera parody that gave people a licence to praise Lynch as an infallible genius. But now that that's not there (They're still doing it) it's just not as clear why sloppy filmmaking, nostalgia for themes explored to death in last century --and bad acting are examples of Avante guards genius.

What I dot understand is why go back to the nuclear bomb? Something which has been explored in countless works of art, when their are a million things which are just as haunting happening in the world today. Islamic terror? The rise of totalitarian ideologies? Militantism? Imperialism?

Instead we are re exploring something that happened mid last century. Yes; it was a horrible moment in humanity. But the way it's treated in this series is almost nostalgic. The atomic bomb is the cherry pie, and coffee of the aged horror filmmaker.
Lynch is so out of touch it's unbelievable. Then the fact that a small town murder mystery has slowly expanded into a camp invasion of the body snatchers sci fi double feature which would make Ed Wood laugh.

I love it but it hate it. I love to hate it.

You really want Twin Peaks to revolve around Islamic terror? You need to take a deep breath.
User avatar
mtsi
RR Diner Member
Posts: 253
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:56 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby mtsi » Wed Jun 28, 2017 8:13 pm

I think the bomb is a fine metaphor.

Refinement by fire. Tempered.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
We live inside a dream.
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Lodge Member
Posts: 3151
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Wed Jun 28, 2017 8:24 pm

LurkerAtTheThreshold wrote:What I dot understand is why go back to the nuclear bomb? Something which has been explored in countless works of art, when their are a million things which are just as haunting happening in the world today. Islamic terror? The rise of totalitarian ideologies? Militantism? Imperialism?


Lynch is a visual artist (and also has never been a particularly topical guy). Even in this era of drone strikes, there is no visual image that so perfectly encapsulates humanity's transition from hand-to-hand combat to impersonal mass warfare as that mushroom cloud. And while the topic of nuclear warfare has certainly been addressed many times before in various works of art, I applaud Lynch and particularly Showtime for subversively presenting an act of American aggression as the (or "a") mechanism for birthing pure evil into the world, on mainstream prestige cable. I don't want to get political, at the risk of being banned....so all I'll say is, I don't think the imagery, and what it represents, is nearly as outdated as you believe -- just as I think Mad Men says more about modern civilation than most TV shows set in the present day. YMMV, of course.
Last edited by Mr. Reindeer on Wed Jun 28, 2017 8:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Rudagger
RR Diner Member
Posts: 337
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 6:29 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby Rudagger » Wed Jun 28, 2017 8:25 pm

LurkerAtTheThreshold wrote:What I dot understand is why go back to the nuclear bomb? Something which has been explored in countless works of art, when their are a million things which are just as haunting happening in the world today. Islamic terror? The rise of totalitarian ideologies? Militantism? Imperialism?

Instead we are re exploring something that happened mid last century. Yes; it was a horrible moment in humanity. But the way it's treated in this series is almost nostalgic. The atomic bomb is the cherry pie, and coffee of the aged horror filmmaker.
Lynch is so out of touch it's unbelievable.


I mean, because that seems to be where Frost/Lynch's interest is? They would've been kids during the height of the Cold War, so, is it surprising that people from that generation have a particular interest in nukes? And also, if you think that terrorism is anywhere near as haunting as the Manhattan Project is then you really need to take a history class. I'm not saying that to be insensitive, but, terror in the name of religion is as old as religion itself (and hell, you could argue that's been done to death too, or totalitarian stories .. 1984 anyone?). It's only been since sometime in the fifties with M.A.D. that humankind has had the capability to make itself extinct in the blink of the eye (well, however many hours it might take for those nukes to fly across the world). Like, at any given point, even today, the fate of humanity as we know it is in the hands of a *very* short list of people. If that doesn't give you an existential crisis, then I don't know what will.

But this whole 'Lynch is out of touch' stuff is nonsense. He's always had an affinity for imagery/themes/concepts/etc. around the atomic age, the nuclear family, the white picket fence. It's just part of his style (didn't notice the 1950's throwback outfits in the original Twin Peaks? The extraterrestrial suggestions? The Sheriff named Harry S Truman after the President who nuked Japan?). If you're going in expecting a Twin Peaks that takes on terrorism, then you were setting yourself up for disappointment with some really bizarre expectations.
Weasel84
New Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2017 8:00 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby Weasel84 » Wed Jun 28, 2017 8:44 pm

[/quote]By almost any standard measure most of The Return has failed artistically. It is really anti-narrative[/quote]

As far as you're concerned, there are many of us watching Season 3 who don't give two hoots about "the standard measures of narrative art", and certainly aren't using that as a barometer by which to measure whether the show is an "artistic failure" or otherwise. The reason being, they're too busy enjoying it.

It is a waste of time trying to find some objective reason floating in the ether as to why you don't like something, then lord it over everyone else like an overbearing professor lecturing a class he feels is beneath him. Just accept you don't like it, and move on.

Your comments make me wonder whether you've actually seen anything by David Lynch before Twin Peaks: The Return other than The Straight Story (pun intended); or, for that matter, anything that doesn't move from Point A to Point B without digressing for a second. You seem like a total dinosaur, or a relic of a bygone age. I can only imagine how you'd prattle on after viewing Christopher Nolan's 'Memento'.

[/quote]I’m now happy to wait and see why they’ve decided to take the anti-narrative approach. Some least favourite possibilities: that it’s some art school conceptual pish to do with matter and anti-matter or positive and negative electrical charges or whatever; that Coop is suffering for days so the audience should at least suffer for hours; or that the creators have just turned into misanthropic old men and genuinely dislike their audience.[/quote]

You won't receive an explanation; neither are you owed one. There doesn't have to be a reason. But I'll give you the answer regardless (even though it can be found buried within the depths of the new season and most of Lynch's creative output to boot, if you care to look for it):

I think it goes without saying that David Lynch is usually not interested in telling standard, non-linear, self-contained, coherent narrarives. His "style" (not that he has a concrete style or formula) is more akin to a sprawling mosaic painting consisting of various hidden panels. The artist briefly reveals one panel at a time before covering it up and moving onto the next one.

Granted, you might find the experience maddening. But if somebody showed you a painting that way, and you committed to their way of showing it to you, the result would be an experience you'd never forget.

You might become confused, bored, or angry. You might stumble away in a daze, wondering if the exercise was futile, or otherwise unnecessarily silly or pretentious. You might even come away thinking the experience was not worth the time you invested.

But for the rest of your life, there would be moments when you'd flash back to the time that that painter invited you into the studio and unveiled a work one square at a time, then stood back while you gazed at it in wonder (or bafflement).

If you haven't figured that out by now, then the new season of Twin Peaks is wasted on you.
User avatar
LurkerAtTheThreshold
RR Diner Member
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby LurkerAtTheThreshold » Wed Jun 28, 2017 8:56 pm

Rudagger wrote:
LurkerAtTheThreshold wrote:What I dot understand is why go back to the nuclear bomb? Something which has been explored in countless works of art, when their are a million things which are just as haunting happening in the world today. Islamic terror? The rise of totalitarian ideologies? Militantism? Imperialism?

Instead we are re exploring something that happened mid last century. Yes; it was a horrible moment in humanity. But the way it's treated in this series is almost nostalgic. The atomic bomb is the cherry pie, and coffee of the aged horror filmmaker.
Lynch is so out of touch it's unbelievable.


I mean, because that seems to be where Frost/Lynch's interest is? They would've been kids during the height of the Cold War, so, is it surprising that people from that generation have a particular interest in nukes? And also, if you think that terrorism is anywhere near as haunting as the Manhattan Project is then you really need to take a history class. I'm not saying that to be insensitive, but, terror in the name of religion is as old as religion itself (and hell, you could argue that's been done to death too, or totalitarian stories .. 1984 anyone?). It's only been since sometime in the fifties with M.A.D. that humankind has had the capability to make itself extinct in the blink of the eye (well, however many hours it might take for those nukes to fly across the world). Like, at any given point, even today, the fate of humanity as we know it is in the hands of a *very* short list of people. If that doesn't give you an existential crisis, then I don't know what will.

But this whole 'Lynch is out of touch' stuff is nonsense. He's always had an affinity for imagery/themes/concepts/etc. around the atomic age, the nuclear family, the white picket fence. It's just part of his style (didn't notice the 1950's throwback outfits in the original Twin Peaks? The extraterrestrial suggestions? The Sheriff named Harry S Truman after the President who nuked Japan?). If you're going in expecting a Twin Peaks that takes on terrorism, then you were setting yourself up for disappointment with some really bizarre expectations.


You can't tell me that it's nonsense saying Lynch is out of touch. If anything go with the argument that it's natural for someone in their seventies to be out of touch.

If we had been treated to an hour long treatment of the Nazi camps in Dachau-- then as powerful as the imagery may have been it would be a fair thing to wonder what the hell its doing in the middle of a season of Twin Peaks.
User avatar
LurkerAtTheThreshold
RR Diner Member
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby LurkerAtTheThreshold » Wed Jun 28, 2017 9:03 pm

Hockey Mask wrote:
LurkerAtTheThreshold wrote:
mtsi wrote:Has anyone ever considered that the acting and writing in the original series wasn't so much direct parody as it was just terrible acting and dissonant writing? I say this because everything about the series is either melodramatic or maudlin.

I loved it then, and have a soft spot in my heart for it, but if I go back, I spend an awful lot of time wincing.

Same for Wild at Heart, or Blue Velvet, or Eraserhead. Those were definitely intended to be surreal leaning films, but if you get to the moment where Jeffrey, in Blue Velvet says "why is there so much trouble in this world," you really can't help but be distracted by this oddly humorous moment, which in some ways, shouldn't be considered humorous.

Then, look at Elephant Man or The Straight Story, and witness well written, powerfully acted films, with subtle oddities and you'll see true film making genius.

Taste is a strange thing.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


It always bordered on being terrible verse that translating into brilliant parody - mixed with genuine emotion and enthusiastic characters.

I just remember that back in the day, it was the fact that it was a soap opera parody that gave people a licence to praise Lynch as an infallible genius. But now that that's not there (They're still doing it) it's just not as clear why sloppy filmmaking, nostalgia for themes explored to death in last century --and bad acting are examples of Avante guards genius.

What I dot understand is why go back to the nuclear bomb? Something which has been explored in countless works of art, when their are a million things which are just as haunting happening in the world today. Islamic terror? The rise of totalitarian ideologies? Militantism? Imperialism?

Instead we are re exploring something that happened mid last century. Yes; it was a horrible moment in humanity. But the way it's treated in this series is almost nostalgic. The atomic bomb is the cherry pie, and coffee of the aged horror filmmaker.
Lynch is so out of touch it's unbelievable. Then the fact that a small town murder mystery has slowly expanded into a camp invasion of the body snatchers sci fi double feature which would make Ed Wood laugh.

I love it but it hate it. I love to hate it.

You really want Twin Peaks to revolve around Islamic terror? You need to take a deep breath.



Let me tell you this-- I want Islamic terror in my twin peaks as much as I want the white sands bomb tests.

Not very much at all.
But if a film maker is going to attempt to shock me with a total diversion from a normal viewing experience, Islamic terror would have had more chance of instilling dread in me than the nuclear bomb detonation --which just bored me and made me feel Lynch had lost his marbles.

It just didn't connect to real world fears for me. That's all I'm saying. If it worked for you--- great

Return to “Season 3 (2017) The Return”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests