laughingpinecone wrote:08661a99-244b-49e7-b7f3-40c3f5c2d1dd.jpg
Fenn says here that she cried when she read Audrey's original part, refused to do it, and had Lynch rewrite it. It's not exactly news but it's the first time I see it stated so clearly all in the same answer. So the theorizing around here seems pretty much confirmed? That she was originally meant to have scenes with the other Hornes, didn't do it, so they filmed in Washington writing around Audrey's absence, and when they eventually struck a deal Lynch wrote her a plot that had to match the fact that everyone in town acts like she's not there?
And her interpretation is that Audrey is not dead or in a coma but stuck inside a dream, that there's a light in her that hasn't gone out.
She also says that Lynch's direction was "this scene, do it like you did it 25 years ago", which she found frustrating because she's not the same person she was 25 years ago. Imho, it's a perfect direction if you want someone who is not the person they were 25 years ago to show the struggle in going back to who they were 25 years ago?
Apologies if this isn't an exclusive interview and you've all seen it fifteen times already, I haven't kept up with UK fest things and I was surprised to find a write-up in an Italian newspaper
Thank you so much for posting this! Is it asking you too much to translate each question and answer as best as you can for us? Really curious.
I think she was supposed to have Sylvia's part in the final product. She shot in Washington, which also jives with rumors at the time that Sherilyn's missed filming "with her family members," aka Johnny and her son Richard. Plus, Jan D'Arcy lives in WA so she's a super easy swap for Audrey in the scenes. No offense to Jan but did anyone care about Sylvia? I doubt she was originally in the script.
laughingpinecone wrote:08661a99-244b-49e7-b7f3-40c3f5c2d1dd.jpg
Fenn says here that she cried when she read Audrey's original part, refused to do it, and had Lynch rewrite it. It's not exactly news but it's the first time I see it stated so clearly all in the same answer. So the theorizing around here seems pretty much confirmed? That she was originally meant to have scenes with the other Hornes, didn't do it, so they filmed in Washington writing around Audrey's absence, and when they eventually struck a deal Lynch wrote her a plot that had to match the fact that everyone in town acts like she's not there?
And her interpretation is that Audrey is not dead or in a coma but stuck inside a dream, that there's a light in her that hasn't gone out.
She also says that Lynch's direction was "this scene, do it like you did it 25 years ago", which she found frustrating because she's not the same person she was 25 years ago. Imho, it's a perfect direction if you want someone who is not the person they were 25 years ago to show the struggle in going back to who they were 25 years ago?
Apologies if this isn't an exclusive interview and you've all seen it fifteen times already, I haven't kept up with UK fest things and I was surprised to find a write-up in an Italian newspaper
Thank you so much for posting this! Is it asking you too much to translate each question and answer as best as you can for us? Really curious.
I think she was supposed to have Sylvia's part in the final product. She shot in Washington, which also jives with rumors at the time that Sherilyn's missed filming "with her family members," aka Johnny and her son Richard. Plus, Jan D'Arcy lives in WA so she's a super easy swap for Audrey in the scenes. No offense to Jan but did anyone care about Sylvia? I doubt she was originally in the script.
Sure, gimme a sec! I'll post it in the articles thread!
You may have a point with the Sylvia swap. Gotta say, if you're right or close to the truth, I think I prefer the Audrey storyline we got. But I would've appreciated an Audrey who stood by her brother (especially if the specifics of how she'd have taken care of him would've been maybe less disastrous than Sylvia's... C+ for effort...)
Thank you so much! I prefer the Audrey storyline we got too because it gave Audrey a special (yet appropriately tangential) role, which she should have because of how important she is to the first season and how popular she is with the fans. I think she was probably upset because her scenes involved being tortured and beat up by her son, who himself was a product of Audrey's rape. Does that sound like something fun for an actress who adores her character and wanted a good life for her to do after 25 years? I can't blame her for being upset. The Audrey we got, while heavily damaged, was fairly confident and strong.
Semi unrelated: Sabrina confirmed to people at the UK Fest that Lara Flynn Boyle was asked to appear as Donna but she declined. Sabrina told some fans that she "didn't like the direction they were going to take the character." That strokes the fire of my other replacement theory, which was Gersten subbed in for Donna. Plus LFB apparently told that random girl who helped her move she "wasn't going to let Donna go out like that." I'm sure no one saved that post but I would love if someone did that could dig it back up. So Audrey became Sylvia and Donna became Gersten. It actually makes perfect sense when you think about the swaps logistically. Who cared about Gersten? No one.
BGate wrote:That seems plausible, although we know Lynch loves Alicia Witt. Then again she could have had a different role originally.
Imaginign LFB in those scenes is pretty
Well we know he loved her as a kid, doesn't mean he kept up with her at all in the last 25 years haha.
Right? I think it honestly makes sense given her unfortunate appearance. Maybe it was mean-spirited (or maybe it's just me thinking that could've been part of why they wrote her a "messy" part) and she saw through the meta bullshit and was like NOPE.
Anybody else recall Sherilyn complaining about black mold in an apartment where she was/is living? Sort of wondering if they used that for the Doris scene or just a coincidence.
vicksvapor77 wrote:Thank you so much! I prefer the Audrey storyline we got too because it gave Audrey a special (yet appropriately tangential) role, which she should have because of how important she is to the first season and how popular she is with the fans. I think she was probably upset because her scenes involved being tortured and beat up by her son, who himself was a product of Audrey's rape. Does that sound like something fun for an actress who adores her character and wanted a good life for her to do after 25 years? I can't blame her for being upset. The Audrey we got, while heavily damaged, was fairly confident and strong.
In my view, what an actor or an actress thinks it's fun to do with a role or how he/she thinks a role should be treated is secondary to what the creator/writer/director feels it should be done with it. So I don't care for Fenn's histrionics and would certainly abstain from justifying it; moreover, I deem her stance as steadfastly supporting "all things DKL does" and at the same time throwing a fit whenever he does it in a way that doesn't suit her fancy to be more than a bit hypocritical. In addition, Fenn has been very vocal and critical of the selfish behavior and behind-the-camera meddling of LFB back in '90-'91, assessing it as damaging for the show. Well now, it absolutely doesn't seem Fenn herself is immune to such self-serving behavior. The difference is, LFB was barely on the brink of maturity when she meddled with things that weren't for her to meddle with 25+ years ago; Fenn today is (supposedly) a grown and mature woman with experience who really should know better. For all the things I feel are fundamentally wrong with The Return, literally facing Fenn with a mirror is a stroke of genius, a brilliant piece of meta-commentary if ever there was one.
Not sure I buy the meta-commentary bit. My read on the Audrey arc was more a tribute than anything; the dancing scene was more iconic than the original, in my opinion. And the mirror shot was a mic drop of a closing scene for me, even if there was no resolution in the end.
Fully agreed in theory, I just really like the storyline we got, haha. So I just try to shut off the behind-the-scenes knowledge of how we got it. I don't think it's mean-spirited either, and it's all focused on her, unlike eg Shelly's plot which shares the spotlight with three or so other characters.
The main drawback for me is that it's vague enough that there will always be a chunk of the fandom that will make the entire world revolve around it, like all the "is the entire Roadhouse all about Audrey?" theorising.
So much I want to say, but will bite my tongue... or my typing fingers. In the end, from what I know everyone involved with the storyline was happy and thought it was improved. Ironically when I heard she was only filming for a brief period, I thought this was going to be Twin Peaks 90210 and was pleasantly surprised to find out, at least to me, she had one of the only successful arcs in the new series.
Audrey Horne wrote:So much I want to say, but will bite my tongue... or my typing fingers. In the end, from what I know everyone involved with the storyline was happy and thought it was improved. Ironically when I heard she was only filming for a brief period, I thought this was going to be Twin Peaks 90210 and was pleasantly surprised to find out, at least to me, she had one of the only successful arcs in the new series.
I just can't imagine how Fenn would have thought what she got was improved. I like it just fine; but for her to say what she originally got made her sad enough to walk away, and then to have her character literally trapped in limbo, broken and whining, away from all the other characters instead, does not in theory sound like any kind of improvement, especially when I attempt to think from the perspective of an actress who loves her character and knows what the character means to fans. I really want to know what the storyline was that this would be considered an improvement.