Gender in Twin Peaks: The Return

[ScarFace32]

You pulled these words out of context and painted them as an argument about responsibility that you're deliberately obfuscating with expectation in order to have something to attack. Nice attempt at derailing, though. Furthermore, if you wanted us to debate the tentative suggestions in those isolated quotes, you could have pulled them so the posters you quoted could address them. NO ONE SAID UNJUSTIFIABLE. Stuff your pie.

What a joke! "It is something, I feel, that really has to come through at some point before the end of the series to justify the amount of time the series has focused on violence against women so far" means exactly the same thing as saying the show has to do something specific or the violence against women is unjustifiable.

[starmand]

No, words used such as reckless, unjustifiable, irresponsible are in reference to responsibility and not expectation!

You are the only one using these words, friend.

You out right wrong about that

I'm curious, ScarFace32, do you believe that art has any responsibilities? Trying to understand your position on art/artists.

Do you believe that artists should create whatever they want with no regard for their audience?

Do you believe that audiences should be allowed to critique art based on how it makes them feel?

(I am genuinely interested in your responses to these questions, not trying to get a rise or trick you in any way.)

[whoisalhedges]

*To whomever said David Lynch will never be a perfect feminist, no one is. We all have to adapt to survive in this world until it's a better world.

That was me and that was precisely my point. I'm pretty sure the only *-ist at the top of DKL's to-do list is "artist." However, he has over his career, and especially in the second half of his career, crafted some amazing female characters whose depth vs. standard Hollywood fare is measured in leagues.

Feminism as a POV for critiquing art is itself only one POV. There are many places you can stand to get a look at something. Put it all together and it's a recipe for, yes, imperfection. And that's great. Perfect is for computer programmers; neither for the arts nor their analyses.

[ScarFace32]

You are the only one using these words, friend.

You out right wrong about that

I'm curious, ScarFace32, do you believe that art has any responsibilities? Trying to understand your position on art/artists.

Do you believe that artists should create whatever they want with no regard for their audience?

Do you believe that audiences should be allowed to critique art based on how it makes them feel?

(I am genuinely interested in your responses to these questions, not trying to get a rise or trick you in any way.)

Yes of course an artist has no responsibility. And of course the audience is free to critique however they like. I guess it's a critique to say without X then B is reckless or irresponsible, but it sounds more like a demand for moral guidelines that *should" be adhered to then critique.

[whoisalhedges]

Art has a responsibility to itself. Beyond that can be a subject for debate, but few will argue that art shouldn't at least try to be good.

People who don't like the Dougie storyline do not feel it is justified by and within the material. That's what justification means in this discussion. It's not a moral judgment necessarily, it's an æsthetic one (yes, one's interpretation of art can and often is colored by their moral compass; I am just saying they are by no means identical).

Similarly, here - when someone says the gendered violence doesn't feel justified by and within the material, it is affecting their judgment of the series qua art. They're not saying Lynch is a bad guy; and they're not even saying TPTR is bad art - just that this aspect of it could be better.

That is, frankly, FAR less harsh than (for instance) the anti-Dougie crowd, one of whom just said a few hours ago:

Maybe Dougie will get killed and Cooper will go back to the Black Lodge. Maybe he can come back out again and start over. This whole Dougie thing is a total freaking mess. We have been loyal fans for over 25 years and we get Dougie ? !

Nobody here is suggesting, not even *hinting* that L&F "owe" us anything. If anyone thinks the art suffers for it, that ain't personal.

[wAtChLaR]

Yes. I think this new series has exposed an ugly thread in his work. I don't think that something is bad because of its fans' behavior, but it is disheartening, and I'm not 100% sure they are wrong about Lynch. He makes magic happen on screen, and that's why we are all here, presumably, but it has an unpleasant price.

how is exposing systemic misogyny and patriarchal abuse of women an ugly thread?

Yeah... I don't see Lynch as having the goal of exposing systematic misogyny, exactly. There's all these movie references in Twin Peaks... you often get the sense that, like Quintin Tarantino, he's making pop culture out of pop culture.

i disagree with this vehemently

[wAtChLaR]

ummm i think this may be a fair generalization LOL

I think it's more like big corporations now. Aren't the mafia owners largely gone from Vegas now?

yes a great metaphor for out of control capitalism

[Framed_Angel]

I'm mulling over the whole "art has vs. has not any responsibility" other than to itself bit.

I'm keeping in mind, even as many of us appreciate DKL's work for the artistic value, we *are* talking about a medium that is art + entertainment. A televised serial, as opposed to a single-installment movie or short film. A program that reached many more viewers than just the artsy league. Which doesn't diminish the meaning of Lynch's art -- it makes it more powerful, IMO, and therefore more subject to scrutiny.

Not "obligated' to the scrutiny that ensues. I get a sense there's been mix-up between "obligation" and "responsibility", as with the prevailing opinion that "Dougie storyline has been prolonged too far, where's the catch? You're *obligated* to explain this to me!" Some levels of bewilderment, frustration or bemusement at the direction Cooper's path has taken have been experienced by those strictly watching for entertainment and those who brought some level of expectation from their past TP experience.

I don't get why "expectation" is a bugaboo word. I suppose it has multiple contexts. I DO get why its segue into "obligation" of the artist becomes problematic.

But as much as we viewers (of a television show -- even one conceived as one big Film chopped-up for Showtime purposes ) who are also "art" conoisseurs have balanced our intake of this new creation by an established auteur with the reality that no one can predict what Lynch & Frost will pull out of their vest next: i don't think it's possible to digest what we're seeing in TPTR without it being informed by how we experienced the previous series. We are sort of holding it up even subliminally to the earlier show. (Excepting those first-time viewers who never watched S1-2 of course). I think, it's just a guess but that might be where words like "expectation" and "responsibility" become triggers during dialogue about the content? A storytelling of sorts, which is what I consider TP to be doing in vignettes, takes a narrative function and invites the viewer to consider it. So that's what we're doing, considering what it all means. And we've only seen about half of what is to come.

So I find myself among those wanting to know how the outcome for women who were victimized in Part 10 will (and Darya as well from Part 2; the mother whose boy's run over in Part Whichever) shape the overall narrative. I do care about the "meaning" of the recent developments in the show and I anticipate upcoming installments will bring more than the ongoing female body counts and mothers losing their children to senseless violence. MEANWHILE: shouldn't the concerns how the partial-story we've seen, shouldn't we feel free to critique in a context that appreciates TPTR not strictly art but a unique delivery from Lynch & Co. as storytelling art? Also a context we each bring unique perspectives to.

And Frost collaborated on this, we don't know to what extent (I know lots of fuss about his tie-in book, but Frost also had a hand in the series we're watching), but it makes me reluctant to appraise this Lynch creation as I would any other Piece Of Art. It's a complex of contributors, inspirations from TM, filled with teasing references to Lynch's earlier works, and not what I'd call your usual artpiece. The playing field opens up for many different viewpoints and that's largely why I find Lynch's capabilities in his field fascinating and unparalleled among his peers.

[AgentEcho]

This keeps being repeated over and over but this concept is completely lost on me. Why does an artist have to "justify" anything?

I'm all for free expression, but I'm also for people being able to freely express their experience with art. This is the same series where there's an entire subsection of fans who are arguing that the existence of the series isn't justified because there's not enough pie, coffee and jazzy music so far. It's amusing to me that some of the same people so vehemently objecting to the very existence of a discussion about the issues in this thread are making those criticisms. Is it really so unreasonable and befuddling for someone to express that, at some point before the series is over, I'd like to see something that reflects the human experience of those who suffer as a result of this kind of violence? I'm not even very specific about what it needs to be.

Your last question seems to indicate that artists should have no sense of responsibility when it comes to expressing human ugliness. I'd say at a minimum we always need to be able to have a conversation about it. And there are far more questionable examples than Lynch's work. Let's take an extreme example: Is it okay to have a conversation about the social effects of a film like D.W. Griffith's "The Birth of a Nation"? Making a broad statement that artists never need to justify anything is kind of extreme, but I'd give you their right to free expression if we can at least have the right to discuss the impact of their work.

The fucked up part about Birth of a Nation is how so many people loved it. Artist has a right to free speech. And did Birth of a Nation bring any censorship to film...nope...it was Shame of a Nation that did....because it showed violence and crime.
No one's saying you can't criticize TP. But saying it's reckless it's just dumb. Also, how many people went out and joined the Klan or lynched a black person after being inspired by Birth of a Nation? And how many people watched Twin Peaks and went out and killed a woman?

Are you actually responding to me? I mean you responded to my post and you are discussing Birth of a Nation which I brought up, but other than that nothing you wrote has anything to do with the opinion I was expressing. Are you making any attempt to understand what I'm saying before you respond or are you just taking one little bit and using that as a launching point for random thoughts?

From your comments I'm not sure if you are aware that BoN is single handedly, unambiguously responsible for the modern day existence of the Klan. I mean you follow that up with some question about people killing women after watching Twin Peaks, which is I hope is intentionally absurd. Point counterpoint? I don't know man, it's all pretty incoherent. I wasn't comparing BoN and TP which should have been a simple enough thing to understand, I used BoN as an extreme counterpoint, which I already explained.

[ScarFace32]

I'm all for free expression, but I'm also for people being able to freely express their experience with art. This is the same series where there's an entire subsection of fans who are arguing that the existence of the series isn't justified because there's not enough pie, coffee and jazzy music so far. It's amusing to me that some of the same people so vehemently objecting to the very existence of a discussion about the issues in this thread are making those criticisms. Is it really so unreasonable and befuddling for someone to express that, at some point before the series is over, I'd like to see something that reflects the human experience of those who suffer as a result of this kind of violence? I'm not even very specific about what it needs to be.

Your last question seems to indicate that artists should have no sense of responsibility when it comes to expressing human ugliness. I'd say at a minimum we always need to be able to have a conversation about it. And there are far more questionable examples than Lynch's work. Let's take an extreme example: Is it okay to have a conversation about the social effects of a film like D.W. Griffith's "The Birth of a Nation"? Making a broad statement that artists never need to justify anything is kind of extreme, but I'd give you their right to free expression if we can at least have the right to discuss the impact of their work.

The fucked up part about Birth of a Nation is how so many people loved it. Artist has a right to free speech. And did Birth of a Nation bring any censorship to film...nope...it was Shame of a Nation that did....because it showed violence and crime.
No one's saying you can't criticize TP. But saying it's reckless it's just dumb. Also, how many people went out and joined the Klan or lynched a black person after being inspired by Birth of a Nation? And how many people watched Twin Peaks and went out and killed a woman?

Are you actually responding to me? I mean you responded to my post and you are discussing Birth of a Nation which I brought up, but other than that nothing you wrote has anything to do with the opinion I was expressing. Are you making any attempt to understand what I'm saying before you respond or are you just taking one little bit and using that as a launching point for random thoughts?

From your comments I'm not sure if you are aware that BoN is single handedly, unambiguously responsible for the modern day existence of the Klan. I mean you follow that up with some question about people killing women after watching Twin Peaks, which is I hope is intentionally absurd. Point counterpoint? I don't know man, it's all pretty incoherent. I wasn't comparing BoN and TP which should have been a simple enough thing to understand, I used BoN as an extreme counterpoint, which I already explained.

I never said you were comparing Twin Peaks to Birth of Nation. But racism is responsible for the KKK, don't blame it on a movie. The point is that film resonated with the masses. The people are the problem. What's the line where art becomes propaganda? You call my post incoherent, but I thought it was pretty clear. As evil as the message and influence of Birth of a Nation were, they had no effect on censorship in film. It wasn't until Scarface that all started.

[Mr. Reindeer]

how is exposing systemic misogyny and patriarchal abuse of women an ugly thread?

Yeah... I don't see Lynch as having the goal of exposing systematic misogyny, exactly. There's all these movie references in Twin Peaks... you often get the sense that, like Quintin Tarantino, he's making pop culture out of pop culture.

i disagree with this vehemently

I too find this an odd statement. Sure, the original TP had some fun making winking references to Vertigo, The Fugitive, etc., as well as more generalized soap opera parody. And the new show, for better or worse, has (ick) Wally Brando. And, sure, there's some element of pastiche to Blue Velvet (the Rear Window connection) and Wild at Heart (all the Wizard of Oz stuff). But DKL -- while a very hip 70-year-old in some ways (particularly in terms of musical taste) -- is pretty unapologetically out of touch with pop culture, and unlike Tarantino has a relatively spotty knowledge of cinema (he's an expert on certain directors/genres he loves, but seems very comfortable ignoring wide swathes of the medium's past and present). Whereas Tarantino (whom I love in his own right) seems mostly concerned with "making pop culture out of pop culture," as you say, DKL has always been about presenting his own personal truth. Insofar as film references and pop culture enter into the equation, it's only because those particular references are deeply ingrained in his dreams and subconscious. It's part of the larger picture of what he's trying to do, not the endgame; whereas for Tarantino, I think mashing up film references and making "cool" cinema that builds on what came before is the mission statement itself.

[TheAlien]

If you think Lynch is misogynistic, there's a high chance you haven't even watched the show

[AgentEcho]

I never said you were comparing Twin Peaks to Birth of Nation. But racism is responsible for the KKK, don't blame it on a movie. The point is that film resonated with the masses. The people are the problem. What's the line where art becomes propaganda? You call my post incoherent, but I thought it was pretty clear. As evil as the message and influence of Birth of a Nation were, they had no effect on censorship in film. It wasn't until Scarface that all started.

See, I'm not talking about censorship at all, I'm not sure why you are bringing it up. Conversations are a lot more coherent for both parties when they choose to discuss the same subject.

I'm not absolving the people of blame, but I am saying that when an artist chooses to express something as D.W. Griffith did, we should have a conversation about the social impact that art has, and people shouting "free speech!" to shut down the conversation are being hypocrites. The KKK would not exist today if the Birth of a Nation was not made. We can talk about that. Racism would exist obviously, and we can continue to have conversations about the role that mass media plays in that. You seem to be arguing that art is purely a reflection of the society it stems from, and I would say it's not that simple. Art and society feed off of and influence each other. If you can blame a person for being racist, racist art doesn't get a pass just because it's art. We can still call art what it is. And that is in no way shape for form censorship, if that's why you are bringing it up.

BTW, you do know that I haven't been criticizing Twin Peaks right? I said, simply, we should be having a conversation about the role gender and the violence against women has in Twin Peaks. Art doesn't get to be exempt from these conversations, that doesn't make any sense. Why does having these conversations make some people so uncomfortable?

I did say I hope the violence would be "justified" by the end of the show. Perhaps I should have said, I want the violence to have been worth it and have enhanced my overall experience of the show. That's a pretty broad statement. I actually think by the end it probably will. But it hasn't yet, which is fine by me since I'm fully aware this thing isn't over.

[Cipher]

If you think Lynch is misogynistic, there's a high chance you haven't even watched the show

Literally everyone who has posted in this thread agrees with you that Lynch is not misogynistic.

[ScarFace32]

See, I'm not talking about censorship at all, I'm not sure why you are bringing it up. Conversations are a lot more coherent for both parties when they choose to discuss the same subject.

I'm not absolving the people of blame, but I am saying that when an artist chooses to express something as D.W. Griffith did, we should have a conversation about the social impact that art has, and people shouting "free speech!" to shut down the conversation are being hypocrites. The KKK would not exist today if the Birth of a Nation was not made. We can talk about that. Racism would exist obviously, and we can continue to have conversations about the role that mass media plays in that. You seem to be arguing that art is purely a reflection of the society it stems from, and I would say it's not that simple. Art and society feed off of and influence each other. If you can blame a person for being racist, racist art doesn't get a pass just because it's art. We can still call art what it is. And that is in no way shape for form censorship, if that's why you are bringing it up.

BTW, you do know that I haven't been criticizing Twin Peaks right? I said, simply, we should be having a conversation about the role gender and the violence against women has in Twin Peaks. Art doesn't get to be exempt from these conversations, that doesn't make any sense. Why does having these conversations make some people so uncomfortable?

I did say I hope the violence would be "justified" by the end of the show. Perhaps I should have said, I want the violence to have been worth it and have enhanced my overall experience of the show. That's a pretty broad statement. I actually think by the end it probably will. But it hasn't yet, which is fine by me since I'm fully aware this thing isn't over.

I never said you shouldn't discuss anything. All I've been saying, all along, is that the artist (in this case David Lynch) doesn't need to justify anything.