Character vs. Character Development

General discussion on Twin Peaks not related to the series, film, books, music, photos, or collectors merchandise.

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

User avatar
NoiselessFan
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 81
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 11:59 am

Re: Character vs. Character Development

Post by NoiselessFan »

NoiselessFan wrote:
Audrey Horne wrote:And in regards to Audrey -the character is absolutely wonderfully written and developed, sure.

But in terms of surprising us in which side of morality she will fall on -it becomes pretty clear after the crying at Leland and the madness of the town, that she is an innocent.

Her scheming is always against those that deserve it- always a cog to those attempting to do something illicit (Ben and the Norwegians raping the land; Battis and Blackie recruiting underage girls into prostitution; Bobby attmepting to blackmail Ben and leading to stealing evidence of Renault to exonnorate Cooper. Her tactics are always fun and surprising but the viewer begins to feel safe and secure that the end result is in the vein of acheiving good. It's just the surprise of how she'll do it.
Yes, I agree her motivations are consistently good. She's just the closest thing to unpredictable in the show. Everyone else, while they may have a few blips of behavior here or there, are totally predictable to me, in all moral situations.

With Audrey I was surprised when she cried seeing Leland. I figured she'd laugh, so she got me there. I was also wondering if her tactics to get Cooper would escalate later and entering more of a scheming mode. They never did but I thought they might, so I felt that made her future course a bit unpredictable. Other than that, yeah, she could be read fairly easily.

All humans have 2 things in common: 1) we all want something that makes us happy, whatever it is, and 2) we'll go to varying lengths to get it. So we all have motivations pushing us and moral boundaries holding us back, and the boundary can be the same or different for each motivation we have. This is what makes us all the same and unique at the same time. It's what makes us complex and unpredictable, because the combo of motivation to boundary is a tug of war that goes on forever.

The best characters mimic this - for characters to be great, they need lots of different motivations and lots of different moral boundaries matched to those motivations.

So for example, I may be motivated to get money or fame or a particular woman, 3 different motivations. I could go to school to get the money and while I'm there I may have to cheat on a test (moral boundary crossed); I could also try to marry someone who already has money (a different moral boundary crossed); I could also try to steal the money (the most severe moral boundary crossed). It all depends on how big the motivation pushing me versus the boundary in my way.

What's my point? Audrey seems predictable because she seems to have only one motivation: To get Cooper. Within that one motivation, however, she has a variety of different moral boundaries, some of which she will cross at times, some she will not. This is what makes her cool, because although we're sure what drives her, we're never quite sure where she'll stop to get it.

Some characters are unpredictable because we don't know what their motivations are, others because we don't know what their boundaries are, and some because we're unsure about both. Audrey is more the second type, so I guess I now disagree that she is predictable - she is only predictable in what she wants, not in what she will do to get it.
User avatar
NoiselessFan
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 81
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 11:59 am

Re: Character vs. Character Development

Post by NoiselessFan »

As an example of this: Audrey starts out flirting with Coop, doesn't work, then she tries to help solve the Laura case, in which she starts out manipulating her father, then leads to her outright lying and cheating to get to Jacks, which then puts her own life in danger. When this didn't work, she even risks putting her own dad in prison by getting the photos from Bobby.

I knew she resented her dad, since in the beginning she messed up the Norwegian contract, but I wouldn't have guessed she'd go so far as to turn on him and possibly put in behind bars. To me this is her boundaries widening as she goes after what she wants.

This is also what separates Audrey from everyone else. Everyone else had very clear motivations and even clearer boundaries. It'd be okay if they have clear needs, but I would like to see at least the key characters have some variation in what they'd do to get what they want.
User avatar
Audrey Horne
Lodge Member
Posts: 2030
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:20 pm
Location: The Great Northern

Re: Character vs. Character Development

Post by Audrey Horne »

I agree with you 100%.

And I should point out, the reveal of Audrey when she cries at Leland comes at the right time when precisely we are supposed to reevaluate everything that has preceeded it.

I still think this is movie land, heightened stylization -but I agree that doesn't mean it's not rooted in reality and truth. It is not camp. (not that there's anything wrong with that genre)

I thought of another one for Leo -when he screams offscreen to Shelly, "You broke my heart!" Of course, it's absurd the lech that he is -but from his point of view, it's valid.

By the way, you just watched the show for the first time (which blows my mind) -who did you think DID IT, and what did you think was going to happen?
God, I love this music. Isn't it too dreamy?
User avatar
NoiselessFan
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 81
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 11:59 am

Re: Character vs. Character Development

Post by NoiselessFan »

Believe it or not, I had guessed Leland when I saw the white hair in ep 8. That and he had struck me as psychotic with all the dancing and mood shifts. It doesn't count though because TV has changed over the yrs and shows have ratcheted up the trickiness with plot twists, so what's obvious now wasn't obvious in 1991.

In other words, Leland was the least obvious person, being the dad who seemed the most hurt by her loss, so nowadays this person would never be "it" - and the white hair would be way too big of a clue in today's TV culture; however, back in the late 80s, it would've been tricky. TP was way ahead of its time, as most of us on this board are well aware.

As for other developments:

I figured Audrey would keep pursuing Coop and wind up attacked by Earle. I figured Coop would show more signs of falling for her but would resist at least till season 3 - maybe his feelings would surface when he had to rescue her.

I figured Coop and Earle would wind up in a face to face, mano y mano showdown. In this squaring off, I felt Earle's sanity would surface more and we'd see a more pure and understandable rage, as maybe we'd see how hurt he was by what he perceived as betrayal in Coop's love for his wife. I figured Coop might even apologize. More than likely this battle of wills would occur with Earle with the upper hand. Instead I had hoped the battle would come in a balanced arena; i.e. both kidnapped and tied up by BOB and forced to form an unsteady alliance of sorts to get free (I knew this was wishing for too much).

I thought Hank would wind up in some situation where he would team up with Harry again.

In season 1, Bobby was a bit crooked but still a kid, so I figured he'd either straighten out from his near death experience or turn worse, raise the stakes and become a serious villain. Since he had evidently killed someone in the past, I figured he was headed toward villain.

I thought UFOs would play a larger role in the Lodge, though I like the White vs. Black, Good vs. Evil thing they touched on an how they applied it to the interworkings of the human mind and soul, rather than bringing in a bunch of extraterrestrial forces. The Woods weren't really this dark "other" entity but actually a representation of the split of good and evil within us - so the Woods were more of an internal entity rather than external. I thought that was very cool as a concept (although they blew the story badly).

At least these were might thoughts at the outset of Season 2.
User avatar
NoiselessFan
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 81
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 11:59 am

Re: Character vs. Character Development

Post by NoiselessFan »

I also thought it was highly possible Laura wasn't dead, in which case I thought Laura killed Maddy.

So I figured Leland killed Laura or Laura killed Maddy. I had no idea about BOB, however, and I thought that was a cool twist.
User avatar
Evenreven
Great Northern Member
Posts: 741
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 2:11 am

Re: Character vs. Character Development

Post by Evenreven »

I thought of another one for Leo -when he screams offscreen to Shelly, "You broke my heart!" Of course, it's absurd the lech that he is -but from his point of view, it's valid.
I agree. And then there's this:
LEO
(over the phone) Soon. Everything okay?

SHELLY
Yeah, everything fine Leo. [...]Come on home.

LEO
I miss you Shelly.

SHELLY
I miss you too.
"Who's the towhead? Those drugs are LEGAL!"
User avatar
Black Rose
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 12:06 am

Re: Character vs. Character Development

Post by Black Rose »

The first few times I saw the series, I thought of Cooper as being an infallibly good character. A "Boy Scout," if you will.

Upon more recent viewings, I'm not sure that's the case.

When Cooper and Big Ed go to One Eyed Jack's, not only is Cooper out of his jurisdiction in Canada, he's got $10,000 of the Bureau's money to gamble with. Yes, we know he's going to pay it back, but it's still stealing.

Furthermore, there's a certain gleam in his eye when faced with the unsavory. When they find the copy of Fleshworld in the safe deposit box, when they find the envelope with cocaine residue in the diary, when the hooker at Jack's whispers in his ear, and when he asks Audrey how old she is, there's a sleaziness present.

Even in some scenes where Cooper is being "good," there's a sinister energy there. For example, at the firing range when he's talking about the woman he loved and lost, it seems like the focus brought about by this memory enables him to absolutely nail a paper target.

Cooper is able to enter the Black Lodge in his dreams, and he's also able to see and interact with the Lodge residents. The scene where Laura kisses him is pretty creepy, if you think about it.

Windom Earle is Cooper's mirror image in many ways, but in Daoist thought, the light has a little of the dark and the dark has a little of the light. Earle was the wronged party in the triangle between Cooper, Caroline, and Earle. (Yeah, he's still a psycho, but his wife cheated on him.)

Friedrich Nietzsche said "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster."

I think Cooper has enough darkness within himself to allow him to understand Laura, Jacques, Josie, and others, and there's a certain attraction to that darkness.

In summary, I think that clean-cut exterior is a facade, behind which are great depths.
douglasb
RR Diner Member
Posts: 241
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 1:51 pm
Location: Exiled in England
Contact:

Re: Character vs. Character Development

Post by douglasb »

Given what we know of Leo and Shelley's relationship, the 'sensitive' quotes from Leo should be viewed as being part of his twisted personality - not as indicative of another side of him. He thinks he loves Shelley but he beats her and controls her. Abusive partners often couch their actions in 'loving' terms ("I am doing this for your own good!").

However, perhaps the last dialogue we have from him is "Save Shelley!" I wouldn't say Leo has undergone a transformation but he's putting the fate of another before his own.
User avatar
gavriloP
RR Diner Member
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:24 pm

Re: Character vs. Character Development

Post by gavriloP »

Just to chime in:

I remember when I was watching TP for the first time as it aired in Finland in 91, I was very impressed by the characters. I mean compared to your regular show and not forgetting that TP was actually quite shortlived. To me, it was the whole picture how the actors felt good in their roles. Like Hank, I know he is manipulative sweet talker and badass but there are hints of his other aspects: like his relationship with sheriff Truman. He was also charmingly weak at some points, I didn't think that he is some omnipotent bad guy.

Leo was hard but his "condition" after the shooting made him very interesting. And this tension that was there when Shelly and Bobby were making fun of him.

Hey, oops am I allowed to talk about 2nd season? Have you seen it already?

Anyway we saw lot more sides of characters there.
User avatar
NoiselessFan
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 81
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 11:59 am

Re: Character vs. Character Development

Post by NoiselessFan »

Also, I'm comparing TP to current shows, which isn't fair. Character development on TV has come a long way in almost 20 yrs. TP was limited by its era somewhat. I should've said that earlier.
Post Reply