Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group

[judasbooth]

SIGH ... this is so beautifully stated I could cry! Aces, man, truly.

Very true. I'm honestly amazed at the acclaim for The Return given how difficult it is to connect with. Not that I don't respect that, it annoys me when ridiculously easy to connect with works (like The Shawshank Redemption) are so lauded, given that they're basically designed to play on the emotions of their audience. The Return isn't easy watching at all and that alone should endear it to me. Unfortunately there's no way I can watch The Return and find it anything other than terrible. Wish it weren't the case.

I get what you're saying. It's not like I (as someone who has yet miles to go to somewhat warm up to The Return, if it'll ever hapen at all) am someone whose viewing preferences can be (I say this at the risk of sounding disrespectful or elitist, though that's far from my intention) easily aligned with those of the general masses and it's not like I tend to gush over mushy mainstream stuff (agree with The Shawshank Redemption being hugely overrated; it's an OK movie and a very good Stephen King adaptation but "the greatest movie of all time"? Nah.). Throughout my life as a viewer, I've always - and I do mean always, from as far back as I can remember - gravitated towards weird, quirky, controversial, unsettling, difficult, frightening and just generally offbeat cinema - and while I get all of that from the original run (and FWWM) and The Return sounds on paper like the ideal candidate for it, the engagement, enjoyment and intrigue for me just aren't there. Weird, but that's how it is.

I never go in for all this "greatest movie of all time" nonsense because it's so subjective as to be meaningless. The movies that top these lists (and similar lists concerning novels or records) depend on which publication they're done by. The GOAT in say, Sight & Sound will never be the same as the one in Empire or Sci-Fi Supernerd Quarterly. Plus, folk don't vote for these movies because they think they're better than all the others, they vote for them because they are personal favourites.

The Shawshank Redemption tops so many lists not because it is the greatest achievement in cinematic art, but because it's the favourite of a huge amount of people. It's not hard to see why that is - everything that The Return has failed at, TSR excels at. Real believable human characters, well written, well directed. The kind of movie that makes you glad you spent time with it. Beautifully shot by Roger Deakins (before he went over to the dark side) with perfectly gauged performances by all the main cast.

Ah, you say, but isn't the Shawshank Redemption just a lightweight emotionally-manipulative prison melodrama? Well, if you recall, in the first act a new inmate is murdered by the guards by having his skull caved, the main protagonist is repeatedly beaten and raped and a young man is gunned down on the say-so of the warden. Who is the scarier, more believable villain? Twin Peaks' Mr C., who is supposed to be a supernatural, demonic entity, or Byron Hadley, the sadistic prison guard who is the embodiment of human cruelty and violence? The main protagonist provides the essential counterbalance to this darkness, a man who, unable to help his own situation, instead opts to reach out to his fellow human beings as a way of preserving his own humanity. This humanistic feel was an essential part of the original Twin Peak and, as has been stated repeatedly above, is sorely lacking from the new series.

[Agent Earle]

Very true. I'm honestly amazed at the acclaim for The Return given how difficult it is to connect with. Not that I don't respect that, it annoys me when ridiculously easy to connect with works (like The Shawshank Redemption) are so lauded, given that they're basically designed to play on the emotions of their audience. The Return isn't easy watching at all and that alone should endear it to me. Unfortunately there's no way I can watch The Return and find it anything other than terrible. Wish it weren't the case.

I get what you're saying. It's not like I (as someone who has yet miles to go to somewhat warm up to The Return, if it'll ever hapen at all) am someone whose viewing preferences can be (I say this at the risk of sounding disrespectful or elitist, though that's far from my intention) easily aligned with those of the general masses and it's not like I tend to gush over mushy mainstream stuff (agree with The Shawshank Redemption being hugely overrated; it's an OK movie and a very good Stephen King adaptation but "the greatest movie of all time"? Nah.). Throughout my life as a viewer, I've always - and I do mean always, from as far back as I can remember - gravitated towards weird, quirky, controversial, unsettling, difficult, frightening and just generally offbeat cinema - and while I get all of that from the original run (and FWWM) and The Return sounds on paper like the ideal candidate for it, the engagement, enjoyment and intrigue for me just aren't there. Weird, but that's how it is.

I never go in for all this "greatest movie of all time" nonsense because it's so subjective as to be meaningless. The movies that top these lists (and similar lists concerning novels or records) depend on which publication they're done by. The GOAT in say, Sight & Sound will never be the same as the one in Empire or Sci-Fi Supernerd Quarterly. Plus, folk don't vote for these movies because they think they're better than all the others, they vote for them because they are personal favourites.

The Shawshank Redemption tops so many lists not because it is the greatest achievement in cinematic art, but because it's the favourite of a huge amount of people. It's not hard to see why that is - everything that The Return has failed at, TSR excels at. Real believable human characters, well written, well directed. The kind of movie that makes you glad you spent time with it. Beautifully shot by Roger Deakins (before he went over to the dark side) with perfectly gauged performances by all the main cast.

Ah, you say, but isn't the Shawshank Redemption just a lightweight emotionally-manipulative prison melodrama? Well, if you recall, in the first act a new inmate is murdered by the guards by having his skull caved, the main protagonist is repeatedly beaten and raped and a young man is gunned down on the say-so of the warden. Who is the scarier, more believable villain? Twin Peaks' Mr C., who is supposed to be a supernatural, demonic entity, or Byron Hadley, the sadistic prison guard who is the embodiment of human cruelty and violence? The main protagonist provides the essential counterbalance to this darkness, a man who, unable to help his own situation, instead opts to reach out to his fellow human beings as a way of preserving his own humanity. This humanistic feel was an essential part of the original Twin Peak and, as has been stated repeatedly above, is sorely lacking from the new series.

Dang, you just managed to whet my appetite for seeing Shawshank again after many years! Seriously, I've got nothing against the flick (was even obsessed with it for awhile and used to rent it every second weekend back in the day), it's just that I'm sorta fed up with it constantly being mentioned as this divine piece of cinema, in the light of all the other great(est?) movies (of all time?) not getting nearly enough attention or recognition. Even as far as Stephen King adaptations go, there are better ones out there, though I (as a lifelong Stephen King fan) would concede Shawshank's certainly among the most faithful ones.

I'd be curios to know, since we're talking "best flicks lists" business, what do you make of nearly God-like status ascribed to Mulholland Dr.? I pretty much hate the movie personally and can't help but feel the hailing has to somewhat do with the emperor's new clothes syndrome (although that could be just me finding ways to justify my stupidity for not being able to, for the life of me, grasp just what it is that's so special about it ).

[Rex]

When you dig up the past all you get is dirty.

Season 3 was a waste of my time and a reminder as to why I prefer non-fiction.

The one positive aspect of it has been my ability to multitask during almost every scene. I was able to recoup some of my time doing other things.

I think Lynch is laughing his a** off having hoodwinked all of us. This season should have been aborted on the drawing board.

[Venus]

[
I never go in for all this "greatest movie of all time" nonsense because it's so subjective as to be meaningless. The movies that top these lists (and
I'd be curios to know, since we're talking "best flicks lists" business, what do you make of nearly God-like status ascribed to Mulholland Dr.? I pretty much hate the movie personally and can't help but feel the hailing has to somewhat do with the emperor's new clothes syndrome (although that could be just me finding ways to justify my stupidity for not being able to, for the life of me, grasp just what it is that's so special about it ).

I saw it once when it was released, when I was on a first date with someone. All I recall was sitting there just mortified at some of the scenes and wishing it to end! It was such a bad experience for me I've never watched it since but I think I should give it a go again after all these years so I can make a proper judgement on what I think about it. It's not a first date movie.

[Framed_Angel]

...I'd be curios to know, since we're talking "best flicks lists" business, what do you make of nearly God-like status ascribed to Mulholland Dr.? I pretty much hate the movie personally and can't help but feel the hailing has to somewhat do with the emperor's new clothes syndrome (although that could be just me finding ways to justify my stupidity for not being able to, for the life of me, grasp just what it is that's so special about it ).

I saw it once when it was released, when I was on a first date with someone. All I recall was sitting there just mortified at some of the scenes and wishing it to end! It was such a bad experience for me I've never watched it since but I think I should give it a go again after all these years so I can make a proper judgement on what I think about it. It's not a first date movie.

I was watching it for only the 2nd time ahead of the airing of TP:TR. It had been many years since first seeing it and not taking to it then. This time around, I still found it frustrating more than compelling. For one thing, I knew Robert Forster had a role in it, and because he was anticipated as having a big role ahead in the upcoming Season 3 TP it disappointed me he was only briefly in MD. Throughout, I kept looking for him to show up again.

I was able to enjoy MD for some parts rather than the full whole, much as I have experienced TP:TR so far. Some of the acting esp Naomi was quite good. I'd read Harring was directed by DKL to "walk like a broken doll" (acc to an interview she said this). I observed how carefully framed several shots were, such as within the house; the kitchen in the latter part of the film reminded me of the one in Blue Velvet; the "outdoor" scenes as Watts & Harring were looking for Diane's apartment felt fake but familiarly fake, like the haunted forest scenes in Wizard of Oz, as they're walking through a space unfamiliar to them.

If nothing else I've gotten a little benefit from rewatching other Lynch work to help me understand what I'm watching with The Return. I'm recommending you re-watch. It's on netflix last time I checked!

[judasbooth]

I get what you're saying. It's not like I (as someone who has yet miles to go to somewhat warm up to The Return, if it'll ever hapen at all) am someone whose viewing preferences can be (I say this at the risk of sounding disrespectful or elitist, though that's far from my intention) easily aligned with those of the general masses and it's not like I tend to gush over mushy mainstream stuff (agree with The Shawshank Redemption being hugely overrated; it's an OK movie and a very good Stephen King adaptation but "the greatest movie of all time"? Nah.). Throughout my life as a viewer, I've always - and I do mean always, from as far back as I can remember - gravitated towards weird, quirky, controversial, unsettling, difficult, frightening and just generally offbeat cinema - and while I get all of that from the original run (and FWWM) and The Return sounds on paper like the ideal candidate for it, the engagement, enjoyment and intrigue for me just aren't there. Weird, but that's how it is.

I never go in for all this "greatest movie of all time" nonsense because it's so subjective as to be meaningless. The movies that top these lists (and similar lists concerning novels or records) depend on which publication they're done by. The GOAT in say, Sight & Sound will never be the same as the one in Empire or Sci-Fi Supernerd Quarterly. Plus, folk don't vote for these movies because they think they're better than all the others, they vote for them because they are personal favourites.

The Shawshank Redemption tops so many lists not because it is the greatest achievement in cinematic art, but because it's the favourite of a huge amount of people. It's not hard to see why that is - everything that The Return has failed at, TSR excels at. Real believable human characters, well written, well directed. The kind of movie that makes you glad you spent time with it. Beautifully shot by Roger Deakins (before he went over to the dark side) with perfectly gauged performances by all the main cast.

Ah, you say, but isn't the Shawshank Redemption just a lightweight emotionally-manipulative prison melodrama? Well, if you recall, in the first act a new inmate is murdered by the guards by having his skull caved, the main protagonist is repeatedly beaten and raped and a young man is gunned down on the say-so of the warden. Who is the scarier, more believable villain? Twin Peaks' Mr C., who is supposed to be a supernatural, demonic entity, or Byron Hadley, the sadistic prison guard who is the embodiment of human cruelty and violence? The main protagonist provides the essential counterbalance to this darkness, a man who, unable to help his own situation, instead opts to reach out to his fellow human beings as a way of preserving his own humanity. This humanistic feel was an essential part of the original Twin Peak and, as has been stated repeatedly above, is sorely lacking from the new series.

Dang, you just managed to whet my appetite for seeing Shawshank again after many years! Seriously, I've got nothing against the flick (was even obsessed with it for awhile and used to rent it every second weekend back in the day), it's just that I'm sorta fed up with it constantly being mentioned as this divine piece of cinema, in the light of all the other great(est?) movies (of all time?) not getting nearly enough attention or recognition. Even as far as Stephen King adaptations go, there are better ones out there, though I (as a lifelong Stephen King fan) would concede Shawshank's certainly among the most faithful ones.

I'd be curios to know, since we're talking "best flicks lists" business, what do you make of nearly God-like status ascribed to Mulholland Dr.? I pretty much hate the movie personally and can't help but feel the hailing has to somewhat do with the emperor's new clothes syndrome (although that could be just me finding ways to justify my stupidity for not being able to, for the life of me, grasp just what it is that's so special about it ).

I've heard that some lists have voted MD as the greatest film of the 21st century. I don't know how any film can be objectively "better" than every other film that has been made in the past 17 years, but I love MD. I saw it in the cinema with a friend when it came out, and I remember coming out of it slightly dazed. I think the first words I managed to utter after what seemed like forever were "what exactly di I just see?". I meant this in a good way. Yes, it was mysterious, and it didn't make sense to me at the time, but it was an exhilarating experience. It was beautifully shot (just savour those nighttime shots of the Hollywood Hills), Naomi Watts was a revelation (I'm not kidding, at the time I could have sworn that Betty and Diane were played by different actors), and Laura Harring was... well... very nice indeed. I loved the whole "Cowboy" scene and the Club Silencio bit is still amazing. Even the silly comedy bits are good, like the bit with the hitman.

A few posters farther back in this thread have tried to use the whole "you can't judge The Return until you've seen the whole thing" argument, and tried to argue MD isn't very good until the final act. Pish, I say. It's mysterious, stylish, unsettling, funny and sexy. The final denoument is what elevates it into the "great movies" bracket. It's a film about love and broken Hollywood dreams, Lynch's Sunset Boulevard, right down to the title. Once the meaning of the film becomes more apparent, the real sadness at the core is made clear. But this couldn't have happened without Lynch having real empathy for Diane Selwyn, (or someone like her, at least). Do we care enough about any of the characters in the Return to feel anything when bad things happen to them?

[mlsstwrt]

Just remember I almost lost it during the 'Silencio' scene. Think I was quite fragile at the time. Was actually on a date but took everything I had not to break down in tears. I should be more ashamed to admit this.

[Agent Earle]

Yes, being more frustrating than compelling and having parts that are more enoyable than the whole, as Framed Angel says, is basically my take on MD. My favorite bit would probably have to be the supremely creepy bum behind the diner thing - just ... creepy as hell and I'm a sucker fur such stuff. On the contrary to what judasbooth claims, I found the last part of the movie, some 30 minutes or so, an incomprehensible, self-indulgent mess that brought the whole thing down, not elevated it; and I hated the Club Silencio scene, which is where it all started to go downhill for me!

I'm in dire need of a re-watch and will most definitely do so - it seems like one of those movies that morphs severely on repeated viewings; then again, the first viewing is the one where your reaction is the most organic (and therefore valid?) one. We'll see.

[BOB1]

I see the word 'self-indulgent' as one of the most commonly used in this thread to express criticism - often about Lynch himself in The Return, but here, too, regarding Mulholland. I hadn't known this word earlier but from the first time I saw it here, I was under the impression that it is not something that really concerns me... perhaps I still don't understand it well enough but I don't really see a problem. Like, how is Mulholland self-indulgent and why is it bad?

[LateReg]

(I'm pretty sure the straight-up reuse of Jacoby footage was simply out of economy/laziness and not some elaborate, deeply-embedded subliminal theme about time being out of whack, as several posters seem to believe).

I haven't gone back to check, but was that most recent Jacoby rant exactly the same as one of the previous ones?

Most of it was reused from the first one. At a certain point, it switched to a bit of new material.

I was similarly jarred and disappointed by that Jacoby repetition on first viewing, but not on second viewing. It makes sense in the most deliberately frustrating Part, a Part about time standing still, and a Jacoby moment that bleeds directly into Audrey trapped in her own personal hell. Now I don't necessarily think the repeat footage means that time is out of whack, but it serves the same function as Norma sitting and sifting thru paperwork in scene after scene. Time and again, is it future or is it past? These people are stuck in a loop, and it's being proposed to us in disoroentingly repetitive fashion.

[BOB1]

It makes sense in the most deliberately frustrating Part, a Part about time standing still, and a Jacoby moment that bleeds directly into Audrey trapped in her own personal hell. Now I don't necessarily think the repeat footage means that time is out of whack, but it serves the same function as Norma sitting and sifting thru paperwork in scene after scene. Time and again, is it future or is it past? These people are stuck in a loop, and it's being proposed to us in disoroentingly repetitive fashion.

Very interesting!
I'm actually looking forward to rewatching more than to seeing how it all ends. I don't really believe the ending is going to make much of a difference to the way I view The Return. But the rewatch, more.

[LateReg]

Agree that the sites you mention give decent measurements. However, most of these are based on the opening four episodes, as far as I can see. What happens when a writer gives his final assessment - is the earlier evaluation erased, or is the last one simply added? I'm not too familiar with how these aggregate things work.

Anyway, I'm fine if my opinion differs from the consensus. It happens from time to time. I don't know a single individual apart from myself who watches this show, so it's not like I'm going to have furious debates on a regular basis

Some of the sites have been giving weekly synopses, so on the last episode we will probably get their take on the entire series. However, I do not know if those final reviews ever make it to Rotten Tomatoes or Meta-critic.
I must admit, I don't really know how that works either. Since The Return has had relatively low viewership numbers, it is uncertain how much it will be reviewed after the series concludes.

As far as your opinion differing from the consensus, yes it happens to all of us. I just think it's important to acknowledge what the critical consensus actually is, then explain why they're wrong, when one is making an argument against the critical consensus on a particular film or show. Some posters on this thread (not you) have confused the issue by declaring The Return an unmitigated artistic failure, leaving the misimpression that the critics have largely panned the series.

I read what you've written and while I do agree with certain points I'm not really sure what to make out of your final sentence. Are you trying to imply that critics are the only one qualified to assess if something is an artistic success or not ? At least from my understanding, when someone here proclaims TR as an artistic failure I don't think they're stating anything more than their personal opinion without any allusions or even correlation to the critics consensus. I'm not even sure why anyone would make that connection. Furthermore I believe that posters in this thread have done a splendid job explaining their sentiments on the show in a very detailed and eloquent manner. That's definitely one of the main reasons why this is one of the most enjoyable and thought-provoking threads on the entire forum and I don't really see a reason why anyone would have a problem with it.

As far as Metacritic goes, I just checked it and TR is currently holding a score of 74% . Definitely positive but still an indicator that not everyone's on board with it. However I noticed that most of those reviews date from May 22nd, meaning that most of them were written before the quarter of the show has aired. I assume that critics will review the show in its entirety once it ends, so will those partial reviews be deleted and replaced with the complete ones ? Do you have any insight in that ?

Hi guys. Tv critics are generally only given the first few episodes of a show for review. Sometimes it's one episode, sometimes it's half the season, in the case of Leftovers this year it was 7 of the 8 episodes. Most of the time it's the first few. So aggregate sites like metacritic and RottenTomatoes always have to be taken with a grain of salt when it comes to TV. The sites will not be updated with reviews once the series is over; you always have to look at the scores as being only for the first few episodes. In the case of The Return, most of the reviews are based on just parts 1 and 2. Rotten Tomatoes does keep a tally of individual episode scores, and parts 14 and 15 are two of the highest rated by critics. Other than searching the individual episode reviews and scouring the internet for random pieces that tally the show's strengths up to a certain point, the single current best barometer for judging The Return's critical success is by waiting for year end lists. Then you can see how people reacted to the whole.

I think the 74 on metacritic is a pretty good score for something this difficult and potentially alienating. I'm not sure how it would score if people had seen the whole thing, but it would still be divisive for sure, in which case the score would tell you just that. Which is why I think it's important to look at the year end tally to see just how many people truly loved it. It's that kind of passion for a work that carries a film's reputation into history and makes it's status more of an "objective" thing. Like, say, Citizen Kane is a masterpiece. We may agree or disagree, but there's no denying that it's considered a masterpiece. We shall see what The Return comes to be considered. Let the debate continue!

[Agent Earle]

I see the word 'self-indulgent' as one of the most commonly used in this thread to express criticism - often about Lynch himself in The Return, but here, too, regarding Mulholland. I hadn't known this word earlier but from the first time I saw it here, I was under the impression that it is not something that really concerns me... perhaps I still don't understand it well enough but I don't really see a problem. Like, how is Mulholland self-indulgent and why is it bad?

You don't see the problem, so you're able to enjoy the flick (presumably on many levels) - great, I'm glad for you. I, however, really don't find the way initially very intriguing elements eventually come together (or don't) making a whole lot of sense. There is too much obtuse, elliptic, vague stuff in it to work for me and it's open to interpretaton in a way that you can paste almost anything onto it in order to somehow make it sensible - and I do mean almost anything. It's like the creator didn't know what he truly wanted to achieve/say with it, so he deliberately left things hanging in the air or, better, left all these vast open spaces, so the viewers can fill them up with anything they want. Bottom line: I like my "mindfuck" flicks to come equipped with some kind of conclusive meaning, however concealed it may be; I don't mind working hard in order to get it, but it has to be there for me to get it and there have to be clues. In my book, smart "mindfuck" flick isn't the one that leaves you completely befuddled and alone at sea as to just what the heck to make of it - such tacticts are used in modern movies all too often and I find them cheap, shoddy and lazy, to be honest. As for MD, it has great mood for about two thirds of its running time and a great sense of intrigue but the payoff in the last third is, for me, lousy to the point of being non-existent.
Sorry I couldn't make more sense, but what can I say, it's all pretty subjective.

[sylvia_north]

Synchronicity as I read Nochimson on Inland Empire in Swerves - the MD chapter was also a good quantum look at that story (like LH, not a dream, but real universes.) The description below might be a way to consider TR's go-nowhere clusters, too.

"Entanglement literally occurs when physicists observe particles involved with each other without being in direct or even indirect relation to each other in a single time/space frame. Lynch's figurative use of this quantum paradigm allows him to portray creation in art and life as a mysterious large confluence of multiple time/space frames permitting processes of influence and counterinfluence unrestricted by any of the specifications of the usual chains of causality" (so basically just what Agent Earle said, in a different way)

"In Lynch's words, the nature of the infinite cosmos is composed of many universes some of which become permanent and 'take hold and grow' some only brief seconds. Creative possibilites manifest themselves for Lynch as entire worlds that may come and go like bubbles. In IE the characters must full experience numerous metaphorical bubbles worlds... But in Lynch's eyes this is authentic energy filled nature an example of how life fully lives unfolds and how we generate the most exciting form of storytelling as well" (except it's not exciting for the people who find it a half-hearted handjob/fingerbang... with waggly fingers)

[mtwentz]

Hi guys. Tv critics are generally only given the first few episodes of a show for review. Sometimes it's one episode, sometimes it's half the season, in the case of Leftovers this year it was 7 of the 8 episodes. Most of the time it's the first few. So aggregate sites like metacritic and RottenTomatoes always have to be taken with a grain of salt when it comes to TV. The sites will not be updated with reviews once the series is over; you always have to look at the scores as being only for the first few episodes. In the case of The Return, most of the reviews are based on just parts 1 and 2. Rotten Tomatoes does keep a tally of individual episode scores, and parts 14 and 15 are two of the highest rated by critics. Other than searching the individual episode reviews and scouring the internet for random pieces that tally the show's strengths up to a certain point, the single current best barometer for judging The Return's critical success is by waiting for year end lists. Then you can see how people reacted to the whole.

I think the 74 on metacritic is a pretty good score for something this difficult and potentially alienating. I'm not sure how it would score if people had seen the whole thing, but it would still be divisive for sure, in which case the score would tell you just that. Which is why I think it's important to look at the year end tally to see just how many people truly loved it. It's that kind of passion for a work that carries a film's reputation into history and makes it's status more of an "objective" thing. Like, say, Citizen Kane is a masterpiece. We may agree or disagree, but there's no denying that it's considered a masterpiece. We shall see what The Return comes to be considered. Let the debate continue!

I hope to see at the end of the run if David Edelstein of New York Magazine and NPR turns in his final verdict. After the premiere, he wrote this:

"I've seen four hour-long episodes of his and Mark Frost's new "Twin Peaks" series on Showtime, and I absolutely love it...If you were tuning in to see something linear, which the "Twin Peaks" of 25 years ago kind of sort of was, maybe you're annoyed at Lynch, and maybe even at me. But look: Even back then Lynch didn't care about the murder mystery. He didn't want to know who killed Laura Palmer, but what. How he defines "what" is the thrill.

The thing to hold onto is that, just when you think you've caught up to Lynch, he moves on. And I'll frankly follow him anywhere, reserving the right at the end of the journey, of course, to say, "This was a piece of crap."