Gender in Twin Peaks: The Return

[whoisalhedges]

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

If you think anyone in this thread is calling Lynch a misogynist, there's a 100% chance you haven't read this thread.

[TheAlien]

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

If you think anyone in this thread is calling Lynch a misogynist, there's a 100% chance you haven't read this thread.

No, it was just an open statement

[Trudy Chelgren]

I feel Lynch does not make 'themes' in his work, it's about individuals. If a particular individual is violent, and feels powerful being violent, towards women then that is what Lynch has chosen to define that character.
I can't speak for Frost; he's very political, and I try not to be. But, as a fine artist, I've processed and witnessed a lot of people who make art, and many make it very apparent immediately what fires them, some deliberately. Some people find exploring social and political mores fulfilling, or at least makes them feel empowered and intelligent, and worthy of closer examination or like a 'good person'. Many artists use these ideas as a means to garner attention, and I hate to say it, but it's often true.
Lynch is the kind of artist who works with instinct and emotion, rather than intellect and a need to impress. He does not feel a need to ingratiate himself. It's why he's so uncompromising in his work. Instinct is, admittedly, a very fallible source for creativity, because the answer to "where did this idea come from?" is almost always "I don't know", and Lynch goes out of his way to avoid talking deeply about his art. The way I experience making art, and knowing artists, that way of talking about your work means one of five things;

1: he doesn't enjoy sharing what deeply excites him because he feels it could lose it's 'magic' for himself, as he draws so much from it.
2: he's simply uninterested in having people try and 'understand' him through his art.
3: he's genuinely interested in the audience, and having them interpret his work for themselves.
4: he himself can't explain where his work comes from.
or 5: he's simply inarticulate, which I refuse to believe, given the emotional density and complexity of his work.

Intellectualizing those kind of aesthetic choices that come out of the ether, does not work for him, it doesn't make him feel 'smart'. It's the raw idea that feeds him. Intellectual creative ideas need to be sought out, and deliberately put together, and collated, whereas Lynch's vague, dreamy ideas exist as they are. They generally don't suit being forced into a social/political morality idea, because those kind of ideas are calculated, because the artist wants to express a particular image of themselves and their beliefs. It's why you so rarely, if ever, see art that deliberately, and genuinely tries to be sexist or racist, and promotes those values. Many artists who express political/social ideas do so because they want to fight something, or to feel like they are. To be a 'good person', and it's so so so common in the art community, whatever medium.

Lynch cannot, and will not, account for, justify, solidify or align his ideas with movements, or promote social positions. That's not good or bad, that's who he is as an artist. It doesn't fulfill him to express that. If a man acts questionably towards women in The Return, it is because that is who that character is. Lynch is a simple man, who speaks in simple terms. I don't believe there is more to be read into gender roles in this season.




*drops mic*

[sylvia_north]

I feel Lynch does not make 'themes' in his work, it's about individuals.

I think you dropped something... oh here. You could say that about all artists, yeah. And then a whole discipline devoted to textual analysis would disappear. Authorial intent is a minor aspect of criticism.

Themes are usually a post-hoc deal, as in how he learned to "read" Eraserhead's meaning through a passage in the Bible years later. And he likes to talk about "women in trouble." That's not only a theme, but THE overarching theme to all his work, as has been mentioned. Individuals in stories are all archetypes informed by class, psychology, historical context, social context. DKL doesn't spill his guts. We are not psychics. Even if he did, theme and alternate readings are what carries art through history. "One woman doesn't stand for all women," is what he's said in the press, but he doesn't get the final word, unless you volunteer to take the anti-intellectual stance and choose to not think about it. Not to mention, artists are often disingenuous and often not even all that self aware. When we say David Lynch does 'x', we're never saying 'on purpose,' btw...

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.

And we keep saying no one said he "needed" to do anything.

Expectation is not responsibility. Responsibility to thematic consistence in a body of work is an expectation based on historical evidence but hardly a mandate. Not sure how many different ways we can say this but it looks like deliberate attempts to frustrate when you don't believe us when we say we agree with that. FramedAngel's last post covered it.

The Disappointed thread gets "you just don't get it and I'll tell you why," this one gets "you don't like it AND you're imposing control." Interestingly, the catch-all defense on the former is that Lynch is a surrealist so this is genius, while the latter gets (on 10 thread several times) that he's a realist showing the awful side of men. This statement still reduces the female characters to tools to do so.

So far, The Return is still about the "evil that men do." Violence, capitalism, nuclear weapons. Destructive power.

However, creative power is featured in 8- the Experiment vomiting BOB and insect eggs, and Dido and the Giant creating Laura. Dougie's as-yet mysterious creation, is also creative.

This reading just occurred to me:

DougieCoop has been feminized thus far for the purpose of the storyline.
When we talk about old Coop coming back that we enjoy identifying with, it's when he has flashes of purpose, is a cobra (phallic symbol, reifying masculine control) or a magnetic stud. In a way, DougieCoop is the woman in trouble- his extranormal intuition has been heightened, as well, and he is exceedingly vulnerable, which are typical feminine stereotypes that shape the internalized beliefs of the spectator.

Many of us bristled initially at Janey-E's masculine assertiveness, but our hero would be utterly lost without her. Playing the traditional masculine role in narrative, she sexually awakened the innocent DougieCoop. We still don't know what effect this had on him, it could be as superficial as the coffee- just momentary remembered pleasures. Still, this is an important turning point for females in classical narrative film. And going back to the Giant, he creates the energy-essence gold matter- Dido "fertilizes" his egg/bubble with a kiss...

Is David Lynch subverting gender using both horror and reversing classical gender role? Is he Final Girl AND potentially detective whose job it is to bring order to the world? Is the Return a revolutionary feminist (post-gender) counter cinema that is subverting classical film narrative sex role stereotypes (gender)? Not super serious, but I betcha something like this ends up in a scholarly journal.

[AgentEcho]

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.

So you'd say the same thing about DW Griffith? Which is why I brought that up. It's an extreme, dogmatic perspective, frankly. Basically, that every creative decision an artists makes is valid and beyond reproach? Simply because they are an artist? We can agree to disagree on that.

[KnewItsPa]

One thing that struck me particularly about the violence in ep. 10 is the way the camera seems to linger on the female victim.

If we compare the Stephen/Becky scene with the Leo/Shelly scene (with the soap in the sock) - there are lines of dialoge that directly reflect each other, inviting a comparison - there's the part about having the clean house, and I think the 'minium wage', not sure, a bit hazy on the specifics - I like to remember things my own way. How I remembered them, not necessarily the way they happened. Anyway, with Leo/Shelly the camera takes us into Leos point of view then fades out, putting us into the position of the abuser, but not showing the abuse. With Stephen/Becky the camera remains a free-floating eye, within the physical, intimate space where the abuse is happening and unflinchingly displays the abuse for our entertainment. There's a definite contrast of sensibility there, a willingness to show, but also from an external view.

Johnny/Richard/Silvia, where we see Johnny tied up and forced to watch, something like the camera-eye, the passive, captaive TV audience. I wonder if it's that portrayal of the helpless watcher that people are responding to, rather than the violence itself - the highly sexualised imagery of Darya and her brutal killing by Mr. C. didn't seem to get as much a reaction as ep. 10. which again, brought back to the watching and taping of the 'glass box' as metaphors for the netflix-and-chill tv viewer, and the demon attack that followed. Not sure where it's heading, but like Jeffery Beaumont peeping through the shutters, returning to the themes of film, voyeurism and violence against women.

This is a pretty good post. Some ideas I hadn't thought of before; and a few others I had, but lacked the eloquence to express.

I think there was less of a reaction to Darya's murder because it was the first - at least the first murder by a human (or near enough) killer.

<snip> Laura Palmer was a corpse; in Fire Walk with Me, she was a person.

Glad you found my post had something of merit. Sorry for editing your post, but this point made me think.

In Twin Peaks, Laura wasn't really a character, she was an absense, a shape defined by the hole she had left, and the clues that defined that shape - we didn't know her, but sympathised with those that were left behind. One can think of the uncomfortably long shot of Sarah Palmer crying that cements her grief and the audiences empathy with that. Even Lauras corpse was seen to be treated with respect by many of the townsfolk - with the hoo-ha over the autopsy. But we had female characters - Donna Heywood, Audrey Horne, Catherine Martell that were strong, independent, and multi-faceted female characters, capable of expressing their own sexuality who weren't victims at all.

With The Return, so far, I think there is only Janey, who approaches anything like a rounded female non-victim character, but there is this single-mided purposeness to her character which culminated with the sexual predation of Dougie in his mindless state. Not quite a horror of female desire, but something calculated before the sex-act, similar to Tracey and Sam. Again, I think we get a lot of shots of the female from the male POV, when Janey is saying 'do you find me attracive?' she's talking to camera, and I think Traceys invitation to Sam also delivered in the same way. The camera biasing the male gaze. Indeed part of the humour (?) when the camera shifts to Janey's POV, and she's saying "I find you attractive", we get to see Dougie mindlessly spooning cake into his face. Not something we generally think of as sexually attractive. Similarly when Dougies torso arouses Janie, we are presented the male figure in a medical, rather than romantic context. There's something 'off' there.

For other female characters in the return, Tammy seems stubbornly two dimensional, and Diane, whilst well rounded is clearly 'damaged' and elicits little empathy. But in TP, outside of Laura we were also shown sympathy for other female victims - Ronette Pulaski even if we didn't get to know her very well, Shelly Johnston, Josie Packard, while no doubt victimised, were portrayed in a less fetishistically sexual way than Tracey or Darya. Perhaps there is something of the old slasher movie trope where only the virginal survive, and the promiscuous females inevitably get killed off. Janey will be OK, she's married.

[whoisalhedges]

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

If you think anyone in this thread is calling Lynch a misogynist, there's a 100% chance you haven't read this thread.

No, it was just an open statement

Good to know.

And yes - nobody here is arguing any different. I don't even think TPTR itself crosses any imaginary "lines" (though I would likely have issues with part 10 if it existed without any context - but it doesn't). If female characters don't develop any more at all over the last 8 episodes, I definitely think it'll be a missed opportunity, and a sop to the Richards out there. But I don't think that will happen. On the contrary; I think at the end we will be able to look back at *a David Lynch show*.

[sylvia_north]

In Twin Peaks, Laura wasn't really a character, she was an absense, a shape defined by the hole she had left, and the clues that defined that shape - we didn't know her, but sympathised with those that were left behind. One can think of the uncomfortably long shot of Sarah Palmer crying that cements her grief and the audiences empathy with that. Even Lauras corpse was seen to be treated with respect by many of the townsfolk - with the hoo-ha over the autopsy. But we had female characters - Donna Heywood, Audrey Horne, Catherine Martell that were strong, independent, and multi-faceted female characters, capable of expressing their own sexuality who weren't victims at all.

With The Return, so far, I think there is only Janey, who approaches anything like a rounded female non-victim character, but there is this single-mided purposeness to her character which culminated with the sexual predation of Dougie in his mindless state. Not quite a horror of female desire, but something calculated before the sex-act, similar to Tracey and Sam. Again, I think we get a lot of shots of the female from the male POV, when Janey is saying 'do you find me attracive?' she's talking to camera, and I think Traceys invitation to Sam also delivered in the same way. The camera biasing the male gaze. Indeed part of the humour (?) when the camera shifts to Janey's POV, and she's saying "I find you attractive", we get to see Dougie mindlessly spooning cake into his face. Not something we generally think of as sexually attractive. Similarly when Dougies torso arouses Janie, we are presented the male figure in a medical, rather than romantic context. There's something 'off' there.

For other female characters in the return, Tammy seems stubbornly two dimensional, and Diane, whilst well rounded is clearly 'damaged' and elicits little empathy. But in TP, outside of Laura we were also shown sympathy for other female victims - Ronette Pulaski even if we didn't get to know her very well, Shelly Johnston, Josie Packard, while no doubt victimised, were portrayed in a less fetishistically sexual way than Tracey or Darya. Perhaps there is something of the old slasher movie trope where only the virginal survive, and the promiscuous females inevitably get killed off. Janey will be OK, she's married.

Yes to Laura's presence. Like Otto Preminger's Laura- she becomes a character through Lydecker making sense of her death, the secrets revealed in death. (In the Return she still has secrets ) Diane also has secrets.

Tracy and Janey's lust- yes- female subjectivity- So far, females in Return can only desire the other, and desire to be desired by the other - propping up the men. We are the voyeur with Tracy and Sam, just behind her rear, identifying with Sam's lust. Janey has an orgasm so loud it wakes Sonny Jim- but the camera takes DougieCoop's perspective, and makes it silly.

Also, how often do we see women shouting/cursing/blubbering tears/screaming/silent (including post death silences?) The female characters lack the power/signifying position (language, meaning, power.) Candie: "How could you love me after what I did?" This is a woman forced to perform submissive femininity for the approval of the paternalist gangsters. Her shtick is messing up and inviting their anger and not having anywhere else to go. Lucy has been demoted to 90% airhead again. The corpse silence is deafening.

On 10 thread people were talking about Miriam being "stupid" for sending the letter and not protecting herself, as if she brought violence on herself. What else is the text blaming on the victims?
Syliva just should've locked the door and called the police, right? Becky should quit drugging and leave Stephen. The girl at the Roadhouse shouldn't have talked to a stranger. Darya should not have been involved with Ray or naked in bed with a scary man she handed her gun over to. There is a strong implication of complicity in their fates, because we know nothing else about them.

Beverly and Tammy both serve Ben and Gordon as their underlings and objects of desire. Nadine is a business owner, but she sits in the dark of her store watching Jacoby on public access. What does she say ? "He's so beautiful." Norma and Shelly are still at the diner after 25 years- that is depressing. Sarah's scene of isolation, drinking and absorbed by a violent scene in a nature documentary. Like Nadine, she is also in the darkness, lit by the TV, captive by the TV. Both diminished.

[ScarFace32]

And we keep saying no one said he "needed" to do anything.

OK so change it to Lynch doesn't have to justify anything. Like I've said repeatedly the words reckless, justify, irresponsible (and I showed you people using these words, but you literally took them out of their own context and claimed they were out of context lol) aren't words used to describe "expectation".

[ScarFace32]

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.

So you'd say the same thing about DW Griffith? Which is why I brought that up. It's an extreme, dogmatic perspective, frankly. Basically, that every creative decision an artists makes is valid and beyond reproach? Simply because they are an artist? We can agree to disagree on that.

I never said it was "beyond reproach". I said the artist doesn't need to justify it....even to you.

[sylvia_north]

And we keep saying no one said he "needed" to do anything.

OK so change it to Lynch doesn't have to justify anything. Like I've said repeatedly the words reckless, justify, irresponsible (and I showed you people using these words, but you literally took them out of their own context and claimed they were out of context lol) aren't words used to describe "expectation".

Justify and needed aren't synonymous, friend, nice try again with the semantic derailing. Note you said "need to justify" in your response to AgentEcho. Replace need with justify in that sentence. lol

You took the words out of context, I highlighted their context for you. This is just derailing on and on. If you don't get it or disagree, leave the thread. Why does this thread hold such fascination for you apart from the sport of trolling? Rhetorically. I'm getting nothing from engaging with you. The bugbear here that makes our wants different from other plot-related wants is gender and that drives fanboys up the wall, that's why there's a separate thread now. If you were here with an open heart wanting to learn, you'd not make us keep repeating and deliberately playing dumb.

[ScarFace32]

And we keep saying no one said he "needed" to do anything.

OK so change it to Lynch doesn't have to justify anything. Like I've said repeatedly the words reckless, justify, irresponsible (and I showed you people using these words, but you literally took them out of their own context and claimed they were out of context lol) aren't words used to describe "expectation".

Justify and needed aren't synonymous, friend, nice try again with the semantic derailing. Note you said "need to justify" in your response to AgentEcho. Replace need with justify in that sentence. lol

You took the words out of context, I highlighted their context for you. This is just derailing on and on. If you don't get it or disagree, leave the thread. Why does this thread hold such fascination for you apart from the sport of trolling? Rhetorically. I'm getting nothing from engaging with you. The bugbear here that makes our wants different from other plot-related wants is gender and that drives fanboys up the wall, that's why there's a separate thread now. If you were here with an open heart wanting to learn, you'd not make us keep repeating and deliberately playing dumb

So I'm derailing the thread because I'm standing up for the fact that an artist doesn't have any responsibility to you or your ideas? This isn't about gender

[sylvia_north]

OK so change it to Lynch doesn't have to justify anything. Like I've said repeatedly the words reckless, justify, irresponsible (and I showed you people using these words, but you literally took them out of their own context and claimed they were out of context lol) aren't words used to describe "expectation".

Justify and needed aren't synonymous, friend, nice try again with the semantic derailing. Note you said "need to justify" in your response to AgentEcho. Replace need with justify in that sentence. lol

You took the words out of context, I highlighted their context for you. This is just derailing on and on. If you don't get it or disagree, leave the thread. Why does this thread hold such fascination for you apart from the sport of trolling? Rhetorically. I'm getting nothing from engaging with you. The bugbear here that makes our wants different from other plot-related wants is gender and that drives fanboys up the wall, that's why there's a separate thread now. If you were here with an open heart wanting to learn, you'd not make us keep repeating and deliberately playing dumb

So I'm derailing the thread because I'm standing up for the fact that an artist doesn't have any responsibility to you or your ideas? This isn't about gender

Yes, *this* very thread is about gender. Not "needing to justify" our position on our wishes to you when you don't want to participate in the gender discussion. Are you bothering people expressing other plot wishes? It's literally no different.

Art has a role in confronting social problems directly, and can heal and rehabilitate communities affected by said violence. Lynch has a history of creating meaning in his violence with an responsibility to his female protags. That's just a fact. Art does not have to be intentional to accomplish this. Sensationalistic and propagandistic art (Birth of a Nation) has a different purpose/unintended or "reckless" consequences. Femcrit argues insidious influences that sustains negative stereotypes. Art portrays and enforces social norms. Here, this is gender related. Anything else is off topic.

Yes, depicting violence against women with no payoff "might be reckless" but it's early in the show to make that judgment call. Come back after the end when it's pertinent.

[ScarFace32]

Justify and needed aren't synonymous, friend, nice try again with the semantic derailing. Note you said "need to justify" in your response to AgentEcho. Replace need with justify in that sentence. lol

You took the words out of context, I highlighted their context for you. This is just derailing on and on. If you don't get it or disagree, leave the thread. Why does this thread hold such fascination for you apart from the sport of trolling? Rhetorically. I'm getting nothing from engaging with you. The bugbear here that makes our wants different from other plot-related wants is gender and that drives fanboys up the wall, that's why there's a separate thread now. If you were here with an open heart wanting to learn, you'd not make us keep repeating and deliberately playing dumb

So I'm derailing the thread because I'm standing up for the fact that an artist doesn't have any responsibility to you or your ideas? This isn't about gender

Yes, *this* very thread is about gender. Not "needing to justify" our position on our wishes to you when you don't want to participate in the gender discussion. Are you bothering people expressing other plot wishes? It's literally no different.

Art has a role in confronting social problems directly, and can heal and rehabilitate communities affected by said violence. Lynch has a history of creating meaning in his violence with an responsibility to his female protags. That's just a fact. Art does not have to be intentional to accomplish this. Sensationalistic and propagandistic art (Birth of a Nation) has a different purpose/unintended or "reckless" consequences. Art portrays and enforces social norms. Here, this is gender related. Anything else is off topic.

Yes this thread is about gender. But this specific argument goes beyond gendered violence. Like I've said over and over, an artist does not have any responsibility to you or your ideas. Interesting how you won't outright say, "Yes Lynch has a responsibility as an artist" but rather you speak about art's potential or an artist's history that are irrelevant.

[ScarFace32]

Yes, depicting violence against women with no payoff "might be reckless" but it's early in the show to make that judgment call. Come back after the end when it's pertinent.

You don't seem to be understanding.

Definition of reckless
1
:  marked by lack of proper caution :  careless of consequences
2
:  irresponsible

By calling Twin Peaks reckless you are saying Lynch as an artist has a responsibility. Recklessness doesn't exist without responsibility. And once again, an artist doesn't have a responsibility to you or anyone's ideas, values, etc.