Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group

[Mr. Reindeer]

I think there are a lot of rushed emotional reactions both from the people who love the show and from the people who are disappointed. My advice to both sides is to let things flow and see how it sinks in as the time progresses. Using words like masterpiece or garbage so soon, defies the purpose and the point of art itself. We're 4 hours in, there's no need for definitive statements, positive or negative. Just my two cents.

I think this is incredibly sage advice. Imagine if someone had shut off MD 35 minutes in (the rough equivalent of where we are in TP:TR -- i.e., right after Adam's "This is the girl" meeting), and asked you to give a review. I imagine your impressions would be pretty different from what they were after you saw the whole film. We can't come close to appraising this thing until we've seen it all.

That said -- and speaking as someone who overall is thrilled that DKL is doing whatever the hell he wants -- I think the disappointed folks have slightly better cause to make a judgment at this point than those of us who are loving it. It's certainly reasonable to expect a sequel/continuation to feel a bit like the original, focus on some of the same characters, etc. Aside from the fact that that the show continues/expands the existing mythology and focuses on Coop (who, for all his different iterations thus far, never feels much like "our" Coop at all), the only thing the current show four hours in has in common with the original is the sheriff's station scenes and a few stray cameos by old characters. (Well, that, and -- significantly, IMO -- the fact that it's completely subverting expectations just as the original did). Personally, I came into this expecting (and wanting) DKL to do something unpredictable. But I do think those who are disappointed at just how different this is from the original thus far have understandable cause to feel that way, and are more justified in expressing that critique than those who have decided this is a "masterpiece" without having seen the full picture.

I was listening to the EW podcast because Damon Lindelof (The Leftovers, Lost) was on. At one point, Lindelof expresses his wonder at the fact that certain scenes in TP:TR are simultaneously "empirically bad" and "empirically good" (he specifically cites the "chocolate bunny" scene). While I think his statement is somewhat nonsensical on a few levels (not least of which is the fact that "bad" and "good" are matters of subjective taste), I get what he's talking about. Not the bunny scene -- I personally find that scene flat-out bad. But the Jacoby scene, for instance. It makes me so happy -- seeing one of my favorite characters/actors receiving loving focus from DKL, doing an undeniably Lynchian task, lingering on detail to the point where the scene goes from mysterious to mundane to hypnotic to hysterically funny. It's just beautiful to me. But I don't really have a counterargument to those who say that scene is shamelessly self-indulgent. It is. But I love it.

Frankly, I'm absolutely shocked by how many critics, Dugpa board members, existing fans and newcomers seem to love what we've seen so far. After watching the first hours and mostly loving them, I was bracing myself to be in the minority. I hope that the disappointed fans are ultimately able to find the show rewarding by the end of this journey, but I certainly respect -- and to some extent understand -- the disenchantment and anger.

[AnotherBlueRoseCase]

.

[mtwentz]

Speaking of the chocolate bunny scene, one of my few complaints is when Lucy calls Hawk and 'Indian'. I do not believe he was ever called that on the original show, and that term went out of date in regards to Native Americans since I can remember (especially now since there are so many real actual people from India living in the U.S.).

Not sure if Lynch/Frost thought that was funny, but it fell flat with me.

There, ya got a criticism of the show not related to Chrysta Bell from me.

[ozziejohn]

Speaking of the chocolate bunny scene, one of my few complaints is when Lucy calls Hawk and 'Indian'. I do not believe he was ever called that on the original show, and that term went out of date in regards to Native Americans since I can remember (especially now since there are so many real actual people from India living in the U.S.).

Not sure if Lynch/Frost thought that was funny, but it fell flat with me.

There, ya got a criticism of the show not related to Chrysta Bell from me.

Fairly sure that line is supposed to be quite jarring - I assume that Lucy meant nothing derogatory by using the term but perhaps knows no better than the "Cowboys and Indians" tropes/terms. It shows her isolation from more enlightened levels of discourse.

[mtwentz]

Speaking of the chocolate bunny scene, one of my few complaints is when Lucy calls Hawk and 'Indian'. I do not believe he was ever called that on the original show, and that term went out of date in regards to Native Americans since I can remember (especially now since there are so many real actual people from India living in the U.S.).

Not sure if Lynch/Frost thought that was funny, but it fell flat with me.

There, ya got a criticism of the show not related to Chrysta Bell from me.

Fairly sure that line is supposed to be quite jarring - I assume that Lucy meant nothing derogatory by using the term but perhaps knows no better than the "Cowboys and Indians" tropes/terms. It shows her isolation from more enlightened levels of discourse.

I agree she meant nothing derogatory, and it would not have bothered me except in the series Hawk is referred to as a 'native person' or 'indigenous'- can't remember all the instances, but I think one of those was by Lucy's sister Gwen, who was even ditzier than Lucy.

So I guess it felt out of place coming even from her- though I guess I should go back and re-watch the episode where Lucy returns with her sister. Maybe her sister did call Hawk an 'Indian'?

Edit: It was also jarring that Hawk did not correct her, although it looked for a second like he was about to.

All in all, a very minor complaint over what has been a truly terrific audio/visual experience so far.

[counterpaul]

I'm somewhat hesitant to jump into this thread. I am really loving The Return so far, but I have no interest in telling anyone they're an "idiot" or "living in the past" or whatever for not liking it. People have different reactions to things--c'est la vie. But this post is really thoughtful and I have some reactions I'd like to share.

As you suggest, this thread is one of the few places to find half-decent macro discussions and not just musings on whether RussellBrandCoop is on the phone not with Phillip Jeffries but with The Evolution of the Arm's Doppelganger.

I must say, I do find myself feeling similarly a lot of the time. Oddly, I find a lot of posts by people who are digging the show more frustrating and baffling than some posts by people who are hating it. Discussing sci-fi/fantasy minutia ad nauseam seems like such a strange reaction to Twin Peaks to me. It's not a sci-fi/fantasy show!

To be fair, this is in no way a new phenomenon. Discussions of the original run and FWWM have been going down these roads for 27 years, and I've always been just as mystified. It plain confuses me. And it does get incredibly silly at times. And I guess where my opinion and yours diverge is that I feel like it's taking something sublime (Twin Peaks itself--the new series included) and making it seem silly.

I can definitely imagine how reading a lot of these elaborate theories might turn a lot of viewers off--exactly the viewers who would get the most out of the show, ironically. For some reason, I keep combing through it all looking for the occasional, truly inspired nuggets and posting from time to time, trying to start conversations about poetics, but I certainly do get annoyed.

Now, at what point, would you say, are people who post such speculation deluding themselves when they refuse to consider that the artwork concerned is a little wanky? At what point is it necessary to tap them on the shoulder, remove the spliff from their lips and suggest that that insight they’re so concerned with sharing, if accurate, is very bad art indeed?

Amen to this! Even though I may disagree with you on the "wanky" part (depending on your definition of the term--maybe I'd agree that it's wanky and I just like wanky things!), this is maybe my biggest gripe with 27 years' worth of internet Twin Peaks discussion. It's generally incredibly reductive. Twin Peaks is almost always (a few unfortunate blips in late season 2 aside, perhaps) expansive. Why try to whittle it down into a boring fantasy epic?

In fact, S03 has many ingredients that I admire. What I object to in late-career Lynch is the lack of discipline in how he brings his ingredients together – he follows too many ideas way, way too far and then bundles the resulting mess together with little thought for coherence.

Here I do respectfully disagree. I'm consistently impressed by just how tight and thematically/aesthetically coherent Lynch's recent work has been! To me, there isn't a spare minute in INLAND EMPIRE, for example. This isn't the place to go on at length about that, I guess, but every time I watch it, I marvel at what a tight 3 hours it really is--and watching "More Things That Happened" only underlines it. Lynch works on instinct, yes, but his instincts are strong.

Masturbation, disappearing up your own back passage, offering homebrew made from conger eels, audience contempt, the emperor’s butt nakedness, loss/dismissal of craftsmanship, laziness, shoddy quality control – take your pick. Old age, too many years in La La Land surrounded by people calling him a genius, self-perception as a trickster Zen master walloping his audience around the head ‘for their own good’ as possible explanations for the above – ditto.

This is just tired. I should probably ignore this paragraph, but I especially hate the old "audience contempt" complaint. From the moment people started writing about Lynch, it has come up (look at reviews of even venerated "classic Lynch" like Blue Velvet and Mulholland Drive, and certainly pre-reassessment reactions to FWWM, and you will find it again and again). And I just don't think it could be any further from the truth. Lynch's work is fundamentally generous. However you may feel about any given piece, it always comes from a genuine desire to share something meaningful.

Now, Lynch has never catered to audiences. And, yes, the primary audience he is looking to satisfy is himself. But that is a million miles from contempt. When he shares a work, he hopes it will be loved by others as it is loved by him. He has said many times that he is comfortable with the fact that he has no control over how something is perceived, and that he finds it beautiful that every person will have their own reaction to every piece. He finds every reaction thrilling, and feels no need to argue that what he sees in it is the "right" way to view it. That is not contempt. That is generous.

Somebody whose opinion I value once described Lynch to me as ‘the only genuinely decent person I’ve met in Hollywood’. I can believe that. Despite his films’ darkness, he’s on the side of the angels, I would say. But surely nobody but a cult follower would deny that late Lynch is horribly self-indulgent and audience-antagonistic.

I suppose I simply don't have a problem with self-indulgence. I may not always like the result of self-indulgent art, but I also think that all of my favorite art in the world has been primarily, if not exclusively, the result of self-indulgence. It all depends on what the artist finds indulgent, I guess.

So far, anyway, Lynch's indulgences and my desires as a consumer of art have been remarkably on the same page! There are the occasional exceptions (most of the music he's done without Angelo Badalamenti, for example, has not really been my cup of tea, and I'm certainly happy to ignore all his TM proselytizing--which he's thankfully kept out of 98% of his artwork), but when the guy makes films/videos, he just tends to hit my happy places. What can I say? The first 4 parts of The Return are emphatically not an exception--my happy places are constantly a-tingle as I watch it and I can't get it out of my head between viewings. What more can I ask?

The following was written by another early-peaking artist, before he too fell away into deliberate tediousness and audience alienation:

See, I also love The Pale King! Obviously it's unfinished, but it's so unbelievably gorgeous and sad and human! And, again, I do not see an ounce of audience contempt in it. It's a love letter to humanity!

Here's something that's unsettling but true: Lynch's best movies are also the ones that strike people as his sickest. I think this is because his best movies, however surreal, tend to be anchored by well-developed main characters-Blue Velvet's Jeffrey Beaumont, Fire Walk With Me's Laura, The Elephant Man's Merrick and Treves. When characters are sufficiently developed and human to evoke our empathy, it tends to break down the carapace of distance and detachment in Lynch, and at the same time it makes the movies creepier-we're way more easily disturbed when a disturbing movie has characters in whom we can see parts of ourselves. For example, there's way more general ickiness in Wild at Heart than there is in Blue Velvet, and yet Blue Velvet is a far creepier/sicker film, simply because Jeffrey Beaumont is a sufficiently 3-D character for us to feet about/for/with.

I love DFW to death, but I'd disagree with one thing implied here--Sailor and Lula (especially Lula, who is one of my favorite characters in cinema history--and, yes, I know it's based on a book, but if you've read the book, you know that Lynch's Lula and Gifford's Lula are profoundly different people) ARE vivid, 3-D characters.

And, though this was written before MD and IE existed, I would also disagree with what you imply by quoting this at length in the context of this thread--namely, that Lynch is no longer anchoring his work with well-developed main characters.

If anything, I would argue that the inverse is true. Lynch's recent work (FWWM, LH, MD, IE--and I'm betting that this will also largely be true of TPTR once it's done) is so completely rooted in character, that sometimes people miss it. People are used to getting to know a character through a plot--how does this character react to the events of the plot and use their agency to push said plot forward, etc.--but Lynch seems to have grown disinterested in manufacturing plot. Instead, he's telling the stories of characters directly from the inside. Insomuch as there is plot, it's 100% malleable and can irrationally shift at any moment based on who the character is and which aspect of his/her personality Lynch is exploring at any given moment. Because the story is the character. ALL he's doing is developing character, using the language of cinema.

[mlsstwrt]

I think there are a lot of rushed emotional reactions both from the people who love the show and from the people who are disappointed. My advice to both sides is to let things flow and see how it sinks in as the time progresses. Using words like masterpiece or garbage so soon, defies the purpose and the point of art itself. We're 4 hours in, there's no need for definitive statements, positive or negative. Just my two cents.

I think this is incredibly sage advice. Imagine if someone had shut off MD 35 minutes in (the rough equivalent of where we are in TP:TR -- i.e., right after Adam's "This is the girl" meeting), and asked you to give a review. I imagine your impressions would be pretty different from what they were after you saw the whole film. We can't come close to appraising this thing until we've seen it all.

That said -- and speaking as someone who overall is thrilled that DKL is doing whatever the hell he wants -- I think the disappointed folks have slightly better cause to make a judgment at this point than those of us who are loving it. It's certainly reasonable to expect a sequel/continuation to feel a bit like the original, focus on some of the same characters, etc. Aside from the fact that that the show continues/expands the existing mythology and focuses on Coop (who, for all his different iterations thus far, never feels much like "our" Coop at all), the only thing the current show four hours in has in common with the original is the sheriff's station scenes and a few stray cameos by old characters. (Well, that, and -- significantly, IMO -- the fact that it's completely subverting expectations just as the original did). Personally, I came into this expecting (and wanting) DKL to do something unpredictable. But I do think those who are disappointed at just how different this is from the original thus far have understandable cause to feel that way, and are more justified in expressing that critique than those who have decided this is a "masterpiece" without having seen the full picture.

I was listening to the EW podcast because Damon Lindelof (The Leftovers, Lost) was on. At one point, Lindelof expresses his wonder at the fact that certain scenes in TP:TR are simultaneously "empirically bad" and "empirically good" (he specifically cites the "chocolate bunny" scene). While I think his statement is somewhat nonsensical on a few levels (not least of which is the fact that "bad" and "good" are matters of subjective taste), I get what he's talking about. Not the bunny scene -- I personally find that scene flat-out bad. But the Jacoby scene, for instance. It makes me so happy -- seeing one of my favorite characters/actors receiving loving focus from DKL, doing an undeniably Lynchian task, lingering on detail to the point where the scene goes from mysterious to mundane to hypnotic to hysterically funny. It's just beautiful to me. But I don't really have a counterargument to those who say that scene is shamelessly self-indulgent. It is. But I love it.

Frankly, I'm absolutely shocked by how many critics, Dugpa board members, existing fans and newcomers seem to love what we've seen so far. After watching the first hours and mostly loving them, I was bracing myself to be in the minority. I hope that the disappointed fans are ultimately able to find the show rewarding by the end of this journey, but I certainly respect -- and to some extent understand -- the disenchantment and anger.

As the Return approached I told friends that I hoped it might top a certain novel as the best artwork of my lifetime. Those hopes have now faded, obviously.

But if I'm left concluding that this series was pretty good overall, my awe at the rescue operation... Well, I'd be happy to [deletes some filth meant merely to provoke more maiden-aunt tuts from Needleman].

I'd be very happy and very chastened. Put it that way.

Hi BlueRoseCase, what's the novel?

[LurkerAtTheThreshold]

Lurker: "But I just can't understand why the series supporters are so reactionary against people that don't feel the same way, calling them stupid, ignorant, nostalgic and people 'seeking instant gratification'."

To be fair, most of its supporters who've joined this thread have been fine IMO. As for some of the rest: six letters, begins with D, not just a river in Egypt. Does funny things to people. And who can blame them? Decades of waiting for this?

I can't even pretend I'm free of it myself. It may be all that's keeping me from seeing S03 not just as a failure but as something worse (see below). It would help if the promised, though unprecedented, improvement happens very soon.

Agreed with virtually every word of your recent posts and found them funny. Keep them coming, please. As you suggest, this thread is one of the few places to find half-decent macro discussions and not just musings on whether RussellBrandCoop is on the phone not with Phillip Jeffries but with The Evolution of the Arm's Doppelganger.

If this and even a fraction of reddit's other musings are true, by the way, it should be revealed in the brown-tinted Brown Room as a clue to where in Lynch's anatomy this series is really taking place.

Lol. No absolutely, I haven't had any real problem with the people on Dugpa, and the fans coming in here to diss are usually pretty civil. I suspect that there was something to do with the river in Egypt going on for some people for sure.

'Russel brand coop' ---stop it... you're killing me

[Gabriel]

I think it's the 'heart' I'm missing at the moment. For all the sickness, weirdness and perversion prevalent in the bad guys in Lynch's work, there's a deep-seated love for good characters fighting to stay good in Lynch's best films. Merrick, Paul, Jeffery, Sailor, Lula, Coop, Laura, Alvin, Betty... even Fred, in his own way, are characters who resonate with me on a certain level; these are memorable characters about whom I care a lot.

The new Twin Peaks hasn't given me that yet. It's like seeing someone you care about for the first time in many years and wanting to embrace them, but they're keeping you at arm's length, taking a step back when you move towards them. Right now, there's a very alienated feeling. I really hope it changes.

I will keep on about what I dislike, but I've waited for more years than I'd been alive at the point the old show finished to see more Twin Peaks. I'll give it every chance I can and I intend to stick with it, but thus far it's not being made easy. David Lynch seems to be a warm person and that warmth is still there in his scenes as Gordon, but so much else seems cold as a result. I'm ready for a 'journey' in the new show, but thus far it seems a bit of an ordeal. Still, I'll keep hoping.

[N. Needleman]

As for some of the rest: six letters, begins with D, not just a river in Egypt. Does funny things to people. And who can blame them? Decades of waiting for this?

This is a very helpful and productive argument which furthers your noble cause and helps people see your side.

And again, per another post: All this talk of people out to 'psychologically destroy' you - where is this happening? Because it's not on Dugpa as far as I can see. Where are the hysterical reactionary posts on this website trying to ghetto-ize you? Because all I'm seeing are people in here talking about how awful everyone else is being to them or how clueless and in denial we all are for not seeing that David Lynch is pissing on their faces. Further, what happens on Reddit or anywhere else is not relevant to this forum. So stop acting like it is and stop expecting anyone on this forum to account for it. Or acting like people shouldn't be allowed to speculate in any way you don't like.

Maybe it's a question of perspective. But I don't think everything is that subjective. When it comes to what's actually happening on Dugpa I think what is being described is largely an interpretation and projection of one's own feelings of disillusionment vs. what is actually happening on this forum. I don't mind if you don't like it. I do mind being tarred with a broad brush or seeing what just seems like rampant venom towards either people who do or Lynch himself that to me seems to go above and beyond any kind of measured critique.

[deletes some filth meant merely to provoke more maiden-aunt tuts from Needleman].

Oh darling, don't stop on my account. I can go all night.

[counterpaul]

I think it's the 'heart' I'm missing at the moment. For all the sickness, weirdness and perversion prevalent in the bad guys in Lynch's work, there's a deep-seated love for good characters fighting to stay good in Lynch's best films. Merrick, Paul, Jeffery, Sailor, Lula, Coop, Laura, Alvin, Betty... even Fred, in his own way, are characters who resonate with me on a certain level; these are memorable characters about whom I care a lot.

The new Twin Peaks hasn't given me that yet. It's like seeing someone you care about for the first time in many years and wanting to embrace them, but they're keeping you at arm's length, taking a step back when you move towards them. Right now, there's a very alienated feeling. I really hope it changes.

I can see feeling that way, but I think your concern is answered in show itself.

First, I don't think "cold" is the right adjective to describe these first 4 hours. I think "unsettled" is better. Something's wrong. As Margaret says, something is missing. The first couple of hours, especially, is all about establishing this tone--establishing the current state of the world of Twin Peaks.

I know this is well-worn territory (and the argument that, regardless of why, 4 hours is a lot to sit through if you're not getting anything out of it is completely fair), but I would also argue that there is a lot to love, even amongst this scene-setting. There are indelible images I will never forget (the glass box, the Evolution of the Arm, the mauve room), there are shining character beats that moved me on their own merits (the whole interrogation scene between Bill and Dave, Hawk and Margaret's knowing "good night" sign-offs, the deep melancholy with which Laura ponders Coop's questions and quiet thrill with which she reenacts their shared dream before she's forced out of it), and it's all anchored by what, to me, is a deeply compelling conceit: Dale Cooper's very soul has been profoundly compromised and he must build himself back up from nothing to redeem himself.

It's all there!

But, I can see what you mean about the missing "heart." And, clearly, Lynch does too. He tells us with the final scene of Parts 1-2 at the Roadhouse (and by returning there at the end of each week's segment). I wrote this in another thread, but those threads are gargantuan and so I hope it isn't too presumptuous to quote it here:

The story here is of a great man who has fallen and must be redeemed. Things are amiss. They're amiss because Dale Cooper is out in the world doing cruel, unspeakable things. An important foundational premise of Twin Peaks is that internal horror leaks out into the surrounding environment. Coop's struggle is not his alone because he's out in the world. This, to me, speaking poetically, is a profound truth.

So every scene, as we're reintroduced to the series, carries a heavy weight. A somber quietude. A sense of dis-ease. Something's wrong. Something is missing.

And yet there is the glorious scene in the Roadhouse. It is not accidental that Lynch placed this scene at the end of the first two hours. Here is a scene of life continuing on--of simple, human-sized, life. We get hints at drama, there's a definite bittersweetness to it, but it is feee of that weight. This is Lynch telling us that, yes, something important is very wrong, but there is also life happening. Don't forget. There is music, and there are love stories, and for 25 years the folks in Twin Peaks have continued to live regular, human-sized lives. And we'll meet them. We'll get there.

But, right now, we are far away. Listen to the sounds.

[Twin Peaks Podcast]

Released our review on episodes 3 and 4... I'm really scared of the fan backlash over the next week. Hope we weren't too hard on the episodes but we don't want to be dishonest and pretend we love them.

http://twinpeakspodcast.blogspot.ca/201 ... -been.html

[AnotherBlueRoseCase]

I'm somewhat hesitant to jump into this thread. I am really loving The Return so far, but I have no interest in telling anyone they're an "idiot" or "living in the past" or whatever for not liking it. People have different reactions to things--c'est la vie. But this post is really thoughtful and I have some reactions I'd like to share.

As you suggest, this thread is one of the few places to find half-decent macro discussions and not just musings on whether RussellBrandCoop is on the phone not with Phillip Jeffries but with The Evolution of the Arm's Doppelganger.

I must say, I do find myself feeling similarly a lot of the time. Oddly, I find a lot of posts by people who are digging the show more frustrating and baffling than some posts by people who are hating it. Discussing sci-fi/fantasy minutia ad nauseam seems like such a strange reaction to Twin Peaks to me. It's not a sci-fi/fantasy show!

To be fair, this is in no way a new phenomenon. Discussions of the original run and FWWM have been going down these roads for 27 years, and I've always been just as mystified. It plain confuses me. And it does get incredibly silly at times. And I guess where my opinion and yours diverge is that I feel like it's taking something sublime (Twin Peaks itself--the new series included) and making it seem silly.

I can definitely imagine how reading a lot of these elaborate theories might turn a lot of viewers off--exactly the viewers who would get the most out of the show, ironically. For some reason, I keep combing through it all looking for the occasional, truly inspired nuggets and posting from time to time, trying to start conversations about poetics, but I certainly do get annoyed.

Now, at what point, would you say, are people who post such speculation deluding themselves when they refuse to consider that the artwork concerned is a little wanky? At what point is it necessary to tap them on the shoulder, remove the spliff from their lips and suggest that that insight they’re so concerned with sharing, if accurate, is very bad art indeed?

Amen to this! Even though I may disagree with you on the "wanky" part (depending on your definition of the term--maybe I'd agree that it's wanky and I just like wanky things!), this is maybe my biggest gripe with 27 years' worth of internet Twin Peaks discussion. It's generally incredibly reductive. Twin Peaks is almost always (a few unfortunate blips in late season 2 aside, perhaps) expansive. Why try to whittle it down into a boring fantasy epic?

In fact, S03 has many ingredients that I admire. What I object to in late-career Lynch is the lack of discipline in how he brings his ingredients together – he follows too many ideas way, way too far and then bundles the resulting mess together with little thought for coherence.

Here I do respectfully disagree. I'm consistently impressed by just how tight and thematically/aesthetically coherent Lynch's recent work has been! To me, there isn't a spare minute in INLAND EMPIRE, for example. This isn't the place to go on at length about that, I guess, but every time I watch it, I marvel at what a tight 3 hours it really is--and watching "More Things That Happened" only underlines it. Lynch works on instinct, yes, but his instincts are strong.

Masturbation, disappearing up your own back passage, offering homebrew made from conger eels, audience contempt, the emperor’s butt nakedness, loss/dismissal of craftsmanship, laziness, shoddy quality control – take your pick. Old age, too many years in La La Land surrounded by people calling him a genius, self-perception as a trickster Zen master walloping his audience around the head ‘for their own good’ as possible explanations for the above – ditto.

This is just tired. I should probably ignore this paragraph, but I especially hate the old "audience contempt" complaint. From the moment people started writing about Lynch, it has come up (look at reviews of even venerated "classic Lynch" like Blue Velvet and Mulholland Drive, and certainly pre-reassessment reactions to FWWM, and you will find it again and again). And I just don't think it could be any further from the truth. Lynch's work is fundamentally generous. However you may feel about any given piece, it always comes from a genuine desire to share something meaningful.

Now, Lynch has never catered to audiences. And, yes, the primary audience he is looking to satisfy is himself. But that is a million miles from contempt. When he shares a work, he hopes it will be loved by others as it is loved by him. He has said many times that he is comfortable with the fact that he has no control over how something is perceived, and that he finds it beautiful that every person will have their own reaction to every piece. He finds every reaction thrilling, and feels no need to argue that what he sees in it is the "right" way to view it. That is not contempt. That is generous.

Somebody whose opinion I value once described Lynch to me as ‘the only genuinely decent person I’ve met in Hollywood’. I can believe that. Despite his films’ darkness, he’s on the side of the angels, I would say. But surely nobody but a cult follower would deny that late Lynch is horribly self-indulgent and audience-antagonistic.

I suppose I simply don't have a problem with self-indulgence. I may not always like the result of self-indulgent art, but I also think that all of my favorite art in the world has been primarily, if not exclusively, the result of self-indulgence. It all depends on what the artist finds indulgent, I guess.

So far, anyway, Lynch's indulgences and my desires as a consumer of art have been remarkably on the same page! There are the occasional exceptions (most of the music he's done without Angelo Badalamenti, for example, has not really been my cup of tea, and I'm certainly happy to ignore all his TM proselytizing--which he's thankfully kept out of 98% of his artwork), but when the guy makes films/videos, he just tends to hit my happy places. What can I say? The first 4 parts of The Return are emphatically not an exception--my happy places are constantly a-tingle as I watch it and I can't get it out of my head between viewings. What more can I ask?

The following was written by another early-peaking artist, before he too fell away into deliberate tediousness and audience alienation:

See, I also love The Pale King! Obviously it's unfinished, but it's so unbelievably gorgeous and sad and human! And, again, I do not see an ounce of audience contempt in it. It's a love letter to humanity!

Here's something that's unsettling but true: Lynch's best movies are also the ones that strike people as his sickest. I think this is because his best movies, however surreal, tend to be anchored by well-developed main characters-Blue Velvet's Jeffrey Beaumont, Fire Walk With Me's Laura, The Elephant Man's Merrick and Treves. When characters are sufficiently developed and human to evoke our empathy, it tends to break down the carapace of distance and detachment in Lynch, and at the same time it makes the movies creepier-we're way more easily disturbed when a disturbing movie has characters in whom we can see parts of ourselves. For example, there's way more general ickiness in Wild at Heart than there is in Blue Velvet, and yet Blue Velvet is a far creepier/sicker film, simply because Jeffrey Beaumont is a sufficiently 3-D character for us to feet about/for/with.

I love DFW to death, but I'd disagree with one thing implied here--Sailor and Lula (especially Lula, who is one of my favorite characters in cinema history--and, yes, I know it's based on a book, but if you've read the book, you know that Lynch's Lula and Gifford's Lula are profoundly different people) ARE vivid, 3-D characters.

And, though this was written before MD and IE existed, I would also disagree with what you imply by quoting this at length in the context of this thread--namely, that Lynch is no longer anchoring his work with well-developed main characters.

If anything, I would argue that the inverse is true. Lynch's recent work (FWWM, LH, MD, IE--and I'm betting that this will also largely be true of TPTR once it's done) is so completely rooted in character, that sometimes people miss it. People are used to getting to know a character through a plot--how does this character react to the events of the plot and use their agency to push said plot forward, etc.--but Lynch seems to have grown disinterested in manufacturing plot. Instead, he's telling the stories of characters directly from the inside. Insomuch as there is plot, it's 100% malleable and can irrationally shift at any moment based on who the character is and which aspect of his/her personality Lynch is exploring at any given moment. Because the story is the character. ALL he's doing is developing character, using the language of cinema.

One of the best pro-S03 posts I've seen, and the only one to provide that spark of hope I've been looking for, that we'll be proven dead wrong on this series as a whole. It probably helps that you're a fellow David Foster Wallace devotee and therefore have the core issues of this thread running through your veins.

I want to mull over your comments some more before responding properly (if only so I don't immediately crush this newfound hope ) but for now I'll just say I dispute your disputing of Gabriel's point about coldness. These four hours are one of the most loveless sequences ever aired IMO, and even when basic human warmth and decency is portrayed, such as Andy's for Lucy, it's not exactly presented straight, is it?

Remember this, too. When the warmth and decency return along with the decent music and acting (and maybe even less provocative editing?), as we keep getting promised, there is no guarantee that this return will endure. It was suspicious how fast the consensus was reached that these improvements were indeed on the way, so much so that it's almost nailed on that they are. But a weird part of this consensus is that when things return to twin Peaks everything will be hunky-dory again and will stay that way.

High fives and smiles all round this site, universal agreement that it's a masterpiece, an Emmy for Chrysta Bell, the closing of the support group, me and Auntie Needleman dancing arm in arm into the sunset... I really don't think that's what the David Lynch of 2017 has in mind for us. More likely is a temporary uplift before he whips the rug away again with eighteen minutes of Wally, Tammy, Andy, Lucy, Dougie and RussellBrandCoop having a messy group drool in a wind-tunnel.

To our gracious group facilitator: the novel is Infinite Jest, notorious to many for its tediousness and reader-baiting.

[sylvia_north]

What a fantastic thread! The things I don't like, I really don't like, and it's good to see that reflected here. My love affair with Lynch has been rocky as he sort of lost me halfway through DL.com and I've echoed a lot of the worst sentiment through the years, but like an abusive lover, I keep coming back because I keep seeing glimmers of hope. Rabbits, for example. Just don't give me A Darkened Room again.

I was one of the only only objectors I knew in the past 3 years to having Twin Peaks back AT ALL and I was expecting the worst (!!!)

Secret History's interactive interpretations and how they relate to the new episodes is what's making the Return really magical and exciting for me, nearly as good as the first run in my early teens. Pothead Jerry, hehe of course, eternal sensualist and to whomever said this is stoner comedy nailed it, and I respect that's not for everyone. I noticed in David Lynch Art Life he finally opened up to using pot after denying it for so long. I think the old man has still got it! Except for the sheriff's stations scenes (sorry Kimmy and Michael.)

Here's something that's unsettling but true: Lynch's best movies are also the ones that strike people as his sickest. I think this is because his best movies, however surreal, tend to be anchored by well-developed main characters-Blue Velvet's Jeffrey Beaumont, Fire Walk With Me's Laura, The Elephant Man's Merrick and Treves. When characters are sufficiently developed and human to evoke our empathy, it tends to break down the carapace of distance and detachment in Lynch, and at the same time it makes the movies creepier-we're way more easily disturbed when a disturbing movie has characters in whom we can see parts of ourselves. For example, there's way more general ickiness in Wild at Heart than there is in Blue Velvet, and yet Blue Velvet is a far creepier/sicker film, simply because Jeffrey Beaumont is a sufficiently 3-D character for us to feet about/for/with.

Oh, dear, you said RussellBrandCoop- combined with your siggy, I almost can't continue from laughing to type my very serious comment responding to your above quote. But I'll try! I read this entire thread, every word, and appreciated you keeping up with it.

Beaumont's perversion in the deleted scenes is what FINALLY made him 3D for me. I understood he was a voyeur, but not a near-rape enabler, who only called off his watching because he heard someone coming. He was still too ideal for me to relate to in the theatrical cut. And this is the stomach-churning reaction I had to "you're nice and wet" moment from Mr. C. Just, no, this is the antithesis of Audrey's perfect love object, and that contrast makes it so effective for me. How gross can you get? Same deal as BV.

I think this is incredibly sage advice. Imagine if someone had shut off MD 35 minutes in (the rough equivalent of where we are in TP:TR -- i.e., right after Adam's "This is the girl" meeting), and asked you to give a review. I imagine your impressions would be pretty different from what they were after you saw the whole film.

...

Ya know, I was so excited for MD and my first time watching I wanted to throw tomatoes at Betty for being such a twit. I didn't wake up til the turning point. Now I see the suppressed sadness in Betty, and it's beautiful.

But I digress, the chocolate bunny scene is abysmal. STILL--- the worst that I feared (think Michael Cera and Skye Ferrera having pie with a fully functional, unchanged Cooper with a contemporary pop soundtrack) did not happen, and I thank my lucky stars and Mark Frost I have something with teeth that's as roughened by time as I am. I'm happy to have things to criticize, and I'm happy I expected the very worst because nothing can disappoint me. I'm won over, I'm engaged, I thought I had lost my fandom forever being so removed from the average fanboys and girls generic pop culture consumer zombies who seem to harbor secret fears of not being cool.

I badly want to hug Mr Jackpots and take care of him and help him take his morning pee, tie his tie, and nurse him with coffee. Wasn't sure what to expect of post Lodge Cooper but I knew whatever it was would break my heart- I cried for days over the last scene in season 2. He and Mr C both exceeded my expectations and Kale better see an Emmy

[KnewItsPa]

I really miss the soap opera elements and the heart and warmth of the original, so many of the characters showed obvious affection and kindness very early on that built a sense of goodness that contrasted the darkness. Instead we have a lot of awkward characters who don't really relate to each other, many of the conversations are stilted, forced or otherwise ominous, there is a sense of isolated individuals. There are moments, Shelly's "James was always cool" being one, and Albert and Cole's conversation, but the heart isn't there.

I'm not convinced by the theory that as the series progresses more of that mood will surface. It's not there in Lost Highway, Mullholland Drive, Inland Empire either, no reason it should be, but it's absence from the Twin Peaks series 3 opening 4 episodes is disappointing.

That the supernatural elements are now no longer ambiguous is a killer for me. BOB still might have just been a metaphor for psychosis or an evil spirit, or both or neither. The Red Room a kind of Jungian psycho- dream-space, not a sci-fi parallel dimension. Now we have garmonbozia being sent to an FBI lab, an gore-fest alien, and people actually coming out of electrical wall sockets. Not implied or mysterious. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the hokey surrealism, but it's a marked difference from the original and disappointing that they've taken a more concrete approach to showing the mechanics of the occult. I almost feel like I'm being talked down to in this regard, it's too easy to follow!

The Sawmill and the Bewicks Wren are gone, and that's a loss, the whole establishing a sense of place missing. So far the series feels less like a continuation and more like a mutated severed appendage (pun intended).

But more importantly, did Jade manage to find the original will, or did Emeralds scheming pay off? Waited 25 years to find out, and it looks like Invitation to Love has been cancelled. Damn it Lynch/Frost.