Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Discussion of each of the 18 parts of Twin Peaks the Return

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

User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 2854
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:05 am

Cappy wrote:Well, there is also the Jumping Man from FWWM. The frog-bug thing jumped like him. That character might play a larger role in the Lodge-spirit-hierarchy than any of us realized.


The frog-thing also has Jumping Man's beak if you look closely.
claaa7
Posts: 715
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 2:47 am

Re: RE: Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby claaa7 » Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:22 am

Framed_Angel wrote:
zeronumber wrote:
Mr. Reindeer wrote:I sort of hope not. It's an intriguing and tempting idea, but the Blue Rose and the ring have been a tad de-mystified to me by the way the Return has utilized them. I sort of enjoy Judy as a tantalizing non sequitir.

I will make the conjecture that Judy is none other than that very same Agent who uttered the eponymous "Blue Rose..." before she died~
I don't recall mention of the woman who uttered "blue rose", as Albert explained it, being an agent. I thought I heard him say she was a victim or casualty in one of the cases. However, I'm intrigued with the idea she was an agent who did in fact die while saying those words. A colleague whose dying words stay in the minds of those witnessing her death might have more bearing on their decision to pursue a special secret task force in her memory.

Did you hear Albert say it was an agent? I can't go re-watch at the moment Google (naturally) isn't helping me (but that's probably cause I'm not searching the right way)~


i'm pretty sure Albert said "...a phrase uttered by a woman involved in one of those cases just before her death"
Rik Renault
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 6:41 am

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby Rik Renault » Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:33 am

alreadygoneplaces wrote:
Wonderful & Strange wrote:We can read the Shelly-Becky switchback scenes similarly. In the "present" we see Becky going nuts and almost killing her mother in her rage at Stephen's behavior.

Then we shift back a day or two to see that Shelly had tried to help Becky by giving her a piece of cherry pie, and we realize how this had zero effect on Becky's state of well being -- her mother's act of kindness had no real lasting power. The cherry pie had no magical effects that could make such dysfunction better.

This time shift criticizes what we had been taking at face value in the Dougie story line, and in Twin Peaks in general -- that there's any inherent goodness in material enjoyment. This almost seems to suggest that Dougie's current pie-glazed happiness is unsustainable.

So these time shifts can create interesting meanings when we read how they work with the stories themes and symbols. There's no reason to assume the laws of nature are actually being transgressed, even if such a thing is possible in Twin Peaks.


As much as I agree with your final point, that Shelly/Becky scene wasn't out of sequence, she had the grazes on her elbows from getting thrown off the car.

Personally, I'm not in the crowd that thinks L/F were expertly at ease with and in control of managing this vast multitude of plot threads and characters. It more comes across to me like they've desperately wrestled with all of this along with the often conflicting needs of major variables such as structure, rhythm, pace (on both an episodic and an overall 18-hour basis); which information needs to be withheld and revealed (and when), let alone the more minor timeline/continuity details. This is part and parcel of such an unprecedented and ambitious project, and I think for the most part, they've just about managed to make it work. I do think though that people occasionally need to guard themselves against the tendency to immediately jump to or construct whichever explanation will best vindicate the 'great artist' when any potential problems arise in the work- a lot is riding on the final episodes as to how it all works structurally, let's ride it out and then see how it fits together at the end of the day. My feeling so far, as it comes, is that they've handled it all pretty well, but there have been moments where it feels a little at sea structurally (not least in episode 12). The argument that it's just as Lynch intended it is (in my opinion) not an argument of great substance or relevance, and is actually somewhat tautological...
I very much agree with this post. When people were talking about the show sweeping the awards I was very confused. I love the show because it's 18 hours more TP than I ever expected, but it does seem that they might have bitten off more than they could chew, particularly with the editing. I'm guessing shooting was quite tight too based on some of the takes that have made the final cut, or maybe that's just Lynch's idiosyncracies.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
LateReg
Posts: 1044
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby LateReg » Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:34 am

alreadygoneplaces wrote:
Wonderful & Strange wrote:We can read the Shelly-Becky switchback scenes similarly. In the "present" we see Becky going nuts and almost killing her mother in her rage at Stephen's behavior.

Then we shift back a day or two to see that Shelly had tried to help Becky by giving her a piece of cherry pie, and we realize how this had zero effect on Becky's state of well being -- her mother's act of kindness had no real lasting power. The cherry pie had no magical effects that could make such dysfunction better.

This time shift criticizes what we had been taking at face value in the Dougie story line, and in Twin Peaks in general -- that there's any inherent goodness in material enjoyment. This almost seems to suggest that Dougie's current pie-glazed happiness is unsustainable.

So these time shifts can create interesting meanings when we read how they work with the stories themes and symbols. There's no reason to assume the laws of nature are actually being transgressed, even if such a thing is possible in Twin Peaks.


As much as I agree with your final point, that Shelly/Becky scene wasn't out of sequence, she had the grazes on her elbows from getting thrown off the car.

Personally, I'm not in the crowd that thinks L/F were expertly at ease with and in control of managing this vast multitude of plot threads and characters. It more comes across to me like they've desperately wrestled with all of this along with the often conflicting needs of major variables such as structure, rhythm, pace (on both an episodic and an overall 18-hour basis); which information needs to be withheld and revealed (and when), let alone the more minor timeline/continuity details. This is part and parcel of such an unprecedented and ambitious project, and I think for the most part, they've just about managed to make it work. I do think though that people occasionally need to guard themselves against the tendency to immediately jump to or construct whichever explanation will best vindicate the 'great artist' when any potential problems arise in the work- a lot is riding on the final episodes as to how it all works structurally, let's ride it out and then see how it fits together at the end of the day. My feeling so far, as it comes, is that they've handled it all pretty well, but there have been moments where it feels a little at sea structurally (not least in episode 12). The argument that it's just as Lynch intended it is (in my opinion) not an argument of great substance or relevance, and is actually somewhat tautological...


Either way, what Lynch has done here is a brand new thing. The editing of these later parts with an emphasis on theme rather than narrative is unlike anything else on TV. Sure, some shows will devote an entire episode to a certain character or subplot, but nothing like this, nothing so seemingly random and mood based in a show that is at once tightly structured/controlled and totally loose/wildly unpredictable. I'm sure the script was very manageable if kept chronological, and would have played fine in pure linear 18-hour movie form. For some reason Lynch opted to not do that. It may still have something to do with the plot (and may have been written this way for all we know), or it might have to do with disorientation, or it might have to do with prolonging the agony inherent in being so close to a resolution (Jack Rabbits Palace feels like it should have been visited by now, but time is passing more slowly than ever, and calling attention to itself doing so) which fits into the very nature of The Return and time itself. Regardless, I do think that Lynch is very in control of what he's doing with each individual part and the pacing across all 18 hours. I agree that it tends to feel at sea, but never on a rewatch for me, and never after the next piece of the puzzle has been revealed. And "at sea" tends to be Lynch's M.O. when it comes to The Return.
sewhite2000
Posts: 249
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2017 5:17 am

Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby sewhite2000 » Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:44 am

alreadygoneplaces wrote
"As much as I agree with your final point, that Shelly/Becky scene wasn't out of sequence, she had the grazes on her elbows from getting thrown off the car.

Personally, I'm not in the crowd that thinks L/F were expertly at ease with and in control of managing this vast multitude of plot threads and characters. It more comes across to me like they've desperately wrestled with all of this along with the often conflicting needs of major variables such as structure, rhythm, pace (on both an episodic and an overall 18-hour basis); which information needs to be withheld and revealed (and when), let alone the more minor timeline/continuity details. This is part and parcel of such an unprecedented and ambitious project, and I think for the most part, they've just about managed to make it work. I do think though that people occasionally need to guard themselves against the tendency to immediately jump to or construct whichever explanation will best vindicate the 'great artist' when any potential problems arise in the work- a lot is riding on the final episodes as to how it all works structurally, let's ride it out and then see how it fits together at the end of the day. My feeling so far, as it comes, is that they've handled it all pretty well, but there have been moments where it feels a little at sea structurally (not least in episode 12). The argument that it's just as Lynch intended it is (in my opinion) not an argument of great substance or relevance, and is actually somewhat tautological..."

Thank you for this post! This mirrors my thoughts exactly, except you expressed it much more eloquently than I've been able to ...
LateReg
Posts: 1044
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby LateReg » Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:48 am

Rik Renault wrote:I very much agree with this post. When people were talking about the show sweeping the awards I was very confused. I love the show because it's 18 hours more TP than I ever expected, but it does seem that they might have bitten off more than they could chew, particularly with the editing. I'm guessing shooting was quite tight too based on some of the takes that have made the final cut, or maybe that's just Lynch's idiosyncracies.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk


I don't think it's going to win many "awards," but that is because this is not something the Emmy's, for example, would ever go for. It's too weird, too different...and a large part of that is due to the editing/pacing. That said, I don't think that's a sign of a deficiency of the show. The editing gives it its flavor and is another way it sets itself apart (some of the takes they ended up using also contribute to a looseness, which enhances this flavor). I love the way its edited, and how it fits into certain themes of passing time and taking time, and in that regard I do believe that it is exactly as Lynch intended.

As I've said before, I think The Return will do very well with more open-minded, film-oriented critics than awards bodies. For anybody looking for some kind of "objective" measure of its worth, that's where I'd be looking come year-end time, and into the future.
User avatar
Hockey Mask
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2015 3:31 pm

Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby Hockey Mask » Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:44 pm

I think Lynch will win an Emmy because of his name and resumé.
thedarktrees
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2016 6:30 pm

Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby thedarktrees » Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:51 pm

alreadygoneplaces wrote:
Wonderful & Strange wrote:
Personally, I'm not in the crowd that thinks L/F were expertly at ease with and in control of managing this vast multitude of plot threads and characters. It more comes across to me like they've desperately wrestled with all of this along with the often conflicting needs of major variables such as structure, rhythm, pace (on both an episodic and an overall 18-hour basis); which information needs to be withheld and revealed (and when), let alone the more minor timeline/continuity details. This is part and parcel of such an unprecedented and ambitious project, and I think for the most part, they've just about managed to make it work. I do think though that people occasionally need to guard themselves against the tendency to immediately jump to or construct whichever explanation will best vindicate the 'great artist' when any potential problems arise in the work- a lot is riding on the final episodes as to how it all works structurally, let's ride it out and then see how it fits together at the end of the day. My feeling so far, as it comes, is that they've handled it all pretty well, but there have been moments where it feels a little at sea structurally (not least in episode 12). The argument that it's just as Lynch intended it is (in my opinion) not an argument of great substance or relevance, and is actually somewhat tautological...



*thumbs up*

Great post and I think that really sums what seems to be going on with this show. It's a HUGE ambitious story they've tried to pull off here, and probably come up short in a few places in terms of continuity, cohesion, and so on. But so far, there's really nothing that has been so glaringly off that it ruins the drive of the story, its aesthetic, intrigue, etc. It's at least working well enough for me at this point, inconsistencies and all.
claaa7
Posts: 715
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 2:47 am

Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby claaa7 » Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:01 pm

this track from Dean Hurley's new Twin Peaks FX Soundtrack was credited in this episode.. anyone remember when it was featured?

LateReg
Posts: 1044
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby LateReg » Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:14 pm

The Return, like so many great works before it, is ambitious enough that its flaws don't really matter, or its supposed flaws become part of its charms. But even acknowledging any flaws, I don't see any relating to its cohesion. The entire thing seems entirely cohesive to me so far, with a tremendously satisfying ebb and flow, especially when watched as one piece. Small continuity errors never bother me (like a last name on an envelope not matching up to someone's name in the credits), and other than the small inconsequential ones I honestly haven't seen anything wrong with the continuity yet, though with all there is to take in I may have missed something.
bosguy1981
Posts: 615
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 3:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby bosguy1981 » Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:18 pm

Hey, remember Bailey Chase who was in the first two episodes as the state police detective who drops in on Mackley's questioning of Bill Hastings? What happened to that and what the hell was up with him? He seemed sneaky, right? Like there's something else going on there. And he took a real interest in being there to see the questioning of Hastings, but not do it himself.

And then he was never seen again after that first autopsy scene where the Janey-E/Dougie ring is found in his stomach. Hmmm.

Think maybe that's who is texting with Diane? His significance hasn't really been explained yet but I have to believe there's more to him than meets the eye.
User avatar
JohnPalSki
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2015 2:51 pm
Location: Buffalo, New York

Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby JohnPalSki » Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:53 pm

I'm with you that Chase seemed like he was going to stick around in the story for longer/more significance.. but I thought he just seemed really stoic. It was weird. I'm curious to see whether there's more to come with him.
At this point, I feel pretty confident that Diane is either aware that her texts are coming from DöppelCoop (with or without a middle person).. or is somehow involved in a conspiracy to thwart whatever it is that the Blue Rosers are moving toward.
I really think Diane is up to something, and I can't wait to see what it is....

bosguy1981 wrote:Hey, remember Bailey Chase who was in the first two episodes as the state police detective who drops in on Mackley's questioning of Bill Hastings? What happened to that and what the hell was up with him? He seemed sneaky, right? Like there's something else going on there. And he took a real interest in being there to see the questioning of Hastings, but not do it himself.

And then he was never seen again after that first autopsy scene where the Janey-E/Dougie ring is found in his stomach. Hmmm.

Think maybe that's who is texting with Diane? His significance hasn't really been explained yet but I have to believe there's more to him than meets the eye.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
John Pal
---------------------
"Don't expect a turkey dog here."
Calderon
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 3:35 pm

Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby Calderon » Thu Aug 10, 2017 2:03 pm

Hockey Mask wrote:I think Lynch will win an Emmy because of his name and resumé.


I think Lynch will win an Emmy because of the greatness of Season 3.
User avatar
Troubbble
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 4:55 am

Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby Troubbble » Thu Aug 10, 2017 2:26 pm

sewhite2000 wrote:If Major Briggs requested Hastings to get coordinates for him, then I assume he didn't know where those coordinates would lead?

Anybody have a firm grasp on what exactly is at these much-talked-about coordinates? A portal to the Black Lodge? Are the coordinates (the ones shown to Diane, anyway) Glastonbury Grove? I don't know why Evil Coop is desperate to get to such a portal. I thought he didn't want to go back in the Black Lodge! Maybe because he could bring something else evil out of it?


In the (presumed) flash-forward at the beginning of Part 1, the Giant tells Cooper "It is in *our* house now."

Guessing there's a doorway to the OTHER lodge in Twin Peaks, and the Doppelganger (or Bob) wants in.
User avatar
Rudagger
Posts: 323
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 6:29 pm

Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby Rudagger » Thu Aug 10, 2017 4:45 pm

I see some debate about the time jumping in this episode.

I'm pretty sure it was just some difficult editing decision made when cutting it into 18 parts. Sometimes thematic stuff is more important, sometimes you want very eventful stuff to all happen in the same episode (ala Part 11). I imagine that was the most difficult aspect of cutting this thing down. And so, that's how you get stuff like Bobby/Ed that chronologically would've been a few parts ago, but, for whatever reason just didn't fit. I think if there's one thing this show would've especially benefitted from being on say Netflix, rather than Showtime, is the ability to have highly various runtime lengths for each part, so, it would've given the freedom to have a 40 minute part, and a 1 hour ten minute part, with various frequency (obviously cable shows are able to do this on the high end, but, not usually on the low end, I'm not sure I've ever seen a premium cable series that is billed as hour-long drop below the fifty minute mark). I do find it a bit odd that they didn't just ADR Bobby's "today" into "yesterday", or something. But, Lynch probably just didn't care that much and figured it unimportant (since we're able to suss it out anyway).

I've enjoyed both of these past two parts on rewatch when I know the cadence and am not stressing about how much time is left, but, they did make for some underwhelming initial viewing, in my opinion, if just because we're in the home stretch and it feels a bit odd to just now be seeing low-key Ed/Norma stuff (which while great, I think would've played better 10 parts ago, when there was a bit less urgency). I think that's also an aspect that would've played better with the binge model, as each hour becomes a bit less precious. I mean, I do love being able to chew on each episode for a week, don't get me wrong, but there are obviously pros/cons to each release style.

Return to “Parts Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests