Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group

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

LateReg
Posts: 674
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby LateReg » Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:17 am

AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:
LateReg wrote: Few things make me giddier than Lynch/Cole stating the line you keep harping on about ("not where it counts, buddy")


Few things make you giddier? That’s pretty strong language, pretty emphatic. So you’ll have no problem at all saying you’d be happy to do the same thing yourself if you were the show’s writer-director...

This is a very simple hypothetical. You’ve said few things make you giddier than a particular artistic choice. So please show us how sincere you are and reason to believe you’re not just 'loving' this TR moment because the man responsible was Lynch. If I came online to repeatedly state my ‘love’ or giddiness regarding a particular artistic choice I would have no problem whatsoever either imagining doing so in my own work or standing by my guns and saying I’d be happy to do the same.

It’s a perfectly simple and reasonable request. So say it loud and proud, brother: “If I, LateReg, were the writer-director of a TV drama watched by millions I’d be happy to write and include a scene where I mention that my cock can still get hard and then follow it up with a reaction shot from a gorgeous actress decades younger.”

If it helps maybe present this hypothetical to your partner. Ask them how they’d feel if you plonked yourself into a TV drama to tell the world that despite what they might be thinking, you can still get it up. If you want a larger sample size ask your children if you have any, or your closest friends. (And if one of them says e.g., “Oh yes, Daddy, I’d love it if you did that,” break off the relationship immediately. They do not have your best interests at heart, mate).

The real point being that, as outlined above, many of the TR defences in general just haven’t rung true. LateReg himself has usually been one of the more honest defenders of the show, which is why he’s been worth engaging with. Unlike the stalker who's just shown up.


This is another query that toes the line, so here's a three part answer.

Quite simply, yes, even on a surface level, I wouldn't hesitate to include the line in my own film. Perhaps I have a questionable sense of humor, but I think the line is amusing, Albert's disgruntled/unamused reaction is funny, and it's very un-PC (a good thing, imo).

To go a little deeper, within this piece, Lynch has consistently been playing on his persona and baiting the viewer, especially in regards to Tammy. I see this as part and parcel of that, especially in the way it shows both her and Albert's reactions.

But, in regards to my actual quote, that few things make me giddier, yes, that is true. But it is true precisely because it is Lynch who says it! But please hear me, it's not simply because it's my daddy saying it, but because of what happens over the remaining two hours. I wasn't giddy upon hearing it the first time (I simply thought it was a mildly amusing joke that I figured would get flack from those (wrongly, imo) hung up on the show's gender politics), but on subsequent viewings, knowing that Lynch has not gone soft as a filmmaker and will push us into the great unknown rather than give us a clean ending, it becomes a hilarious and ballsy portent as at that point the viewer is still hoping for closure and that everything will somehow tie together. I sometimes randomly think of the line and start cracking up - not because it's hilarious, but because it's a manifesto of everything I want out of a filmmaker, which is to keep pushing into uncharted territory, to not give two shits about a happy commercial ending, to dig through the muck and brain matter and leave things dirty and raw, etc. As a film fan it makes me ecstatic to know that a guy like that is still out there, and yes, if it wasn't Lynch, it might not carry as much weight, but why should it? It works both because of Lynch's history as an edgy filmmaker, and especially because of how hard he repeatedly pulls the rug out right after saying that. That's balls! "Not where it counts" = as a filmmaker, and Lynch stating that fits right in with the meta stuff and winking and communicating with the audience and talk about aging and defying death throughout.
Robin Davies
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 7:52 am
Location: England

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby Robin Davies » Tue Feb 13, 2018 12:06 pm

IcedOver wrote:
Robin Davies wrote:Where are these "cast and crew trailers"?
In the shot from the front of the car as Cooper drives Janey-E to the casino, before the cut to Dern at the bar, they pass what are clearly three cast trailers on the left of the screen. That's the way trailers are lined up on film sets.
Thanks. I never noticed that and I suspect very few others did. As has already been stated you can find continuity errors and things-not-meant-to-be-seen in almost any TV series, given that they are all made under constraints of time and budget . The Prisoner is riddled with them - and that's the greatest TV series ever made!
IcedOver
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 1:31 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby IcedOver » Tue Feb 13, 2018 12:25 pm

^^Yes, I'm not saying it's a huge deal, but I almost never spot goofs. The fact that I spotted several in this show confirms for me, maybe not some others, that not enough time and care went into crafting this show on page or on set, and the results are on screen.

As for this "not gone soft" line, I have no idea where the furor is coming from. I found it mildly amusing and nothing more. Certainly it's not Lynch explaining something about himself as a filmmaker; if anything, he's talking about his own verility. It's not as if he has ever been that edgy or risk taking; rather usually he has been pretty formal, which is why I don't buy into EVERY go nowhere narrative decision as part of some grand plan to subvert expectation. Many are just flawed decisions. It's just a throwaway line, though.
I DON'T FEEL GOOD!!!!!
LateReg
Posts: 674
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby LateReg » Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:19 pm

IcedOver wrote:^^Yes, I'm not saying it's a huge deal, but I almost never spot goofs. The fact that I spotted several in this show confirms for me, maybe not some others, that not enough time and care went into crafting this show on page or on set, and the results are on screen.

As for this "not gone soft" line, I have no idea where the furor is coming from. I found it mildly amusing and nothing more. Certainly it's not Lynch explaining something about himself as a filmmaker; if anything, he's talking about his own verility. It's not as if he has ever been that edgy or risk taking; rather usually he has been pretty formal, which is why I don't buy into EVERY go nowhere narrative decision as part of some grand plan to subvert expectation. Many are just flawed decisions. It's just a throwaway line, though.


Quick question just to clarify...you really think there's a 0% chance that what Lynch - an artist who values creating art in the majority of every waking moment of his life, as evidenced in interviews and books and documentaries - is getting at there when he's talking about "where it counts" is actually referring to his art life, which he values above all? You think there's a 100% chance it means his virility and only his virility? I'm just making sure that I understand you correctly.

Also which go nowhere narrative decisions do you view as part of the grand plan, and which don't you? Obviously I'm not asking for every examples, but just a few of each, if you have time.
User avatar
NormoftheAndes
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 4:00 am

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby NormoftheAndes » Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:15 pm

Where does this idea come from that a line Gordon Cole says has to represent something about Lynch as a filmmaker? He is playing a character in Season 3. What other lines in this are Lynch speaking to the audience through Cole? I can't remember others being cited. If there were other examples of this it would make more sense.

Cole has a dream with Belluci in it - this raises eyebrows that he's dreaming of a well-known sex symbol. Saying he's not gone soft where it counts is Cole partly mocking himself in his older age and also joshing with Albert - who he knows will not be impressed by such a claim.

I always took this comment as a wry statement on the male sexual urge, which was always there in Twin Peaks for sure - for good and for very bad! Isn't this line staged in such a way that Cole is well aware that it makes him look out of step with modern times? Its partly self-mocking but also possibly hinting that Cole knows a lot more than he lets on and knows what he's doing as FBI Chief.
User avatar
laughingpinecone
Posts: 725
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 6:45 am
Location: D'ni
Contact:

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby laughingpinecone » Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:31 pm

Anyone else in the "it's an intentional double entendre" camp? The way I see it, that conversation goes "You're losing your edge" / "Dude you're my right hand man and I've duped even you for 25 years, ya think?". Gordon follows up with an string of reveals that positions him as a mastermind with a much clearer view of the chessboard than Albert thought. He's still got it professionally. And also he saw an opening for a dick joke and ran with it, because he's that kind of person (like his buddy Milford before him, RIP)
I think it's in poor taste for the character given the circumstances, and so I would've shown more awkwardness in reaction to it, but I have no trouble accepting it as something the character would say, or that belongs in that moment.

Tbh I'd almost be more perplexed if 70yo David Lynch felt compelled to reassure the viewers that he's still got it artistically than if he felt compelled to brag about his virility?

ETA yeah, roughly what normoftheandes said!
] The gathered are known by their faces of stone.
LateReg
Posts: 674
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby LateReg » Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:54 pm

NormoftheAndes wrote:Where does this idea come from that a line Gordon Cole says has to represent something about Lynch as a filmmaker? He is playing a character in Season 3. What other lines in this are Lynch speaking to the audience through Cole? I can't remember others being cited. If there were other examples of this it would make more sense.

Cole has a dream with Belluci in it - this raises eyebrows that he's dreaming of a well-known sex symbol. Saying he's not gone soft where it counts is Cole partly mocking himself in his older age and also joshing with Albert - who he knows will not be impressed by such a claim.

I always took this comment as a wry statement on the male sexual urge, which was always there in Twin Peaks for sure - for good and for very bad! Isn't this line staged in such a way that Cole is well aware that it makes him look out of step with modern times? Its partly self-mocking but also possibly hinting that Cole knows a lot more than he lets on and knows what he's doing as FBI Chief.


I agree with all of that - it is partly self-mocking and 100% intentionally out of step so I don't get furor over the line - except for the doubt about Lynch being represented as a filmmaker. The idea of Lynch the director of the series playing Cole the director of the FBI was reinforced by his appearance in Fire Walk With Me, and interpretations about that film abound based on his opening appearance...there's always been that meta-text and I'm actually surprised that this is even a debate. That's not to say anyone's wrong, but rather to say that I had always assumed it would be something we'd all be in agreement on since he cast himself in a role that contains the word "director." I know that in at least one of the recaps for Part 17/18, the critic interpreted the line in the same way I did. Edit: A quick google search reveals a lot of articles that interpret the line the same way, blurring the character and creator.

The whole thing is full of nods to the audience and lines that have double meanings in that way. I see them throughout, though off the top of my head I can't think of any other spoken by Lynch, unless you want to say that in an early conversation with Denise the whole thing about Lynch telling his fellow agents to fix their hearts or die was in reference to Twin Peaks being early to represent that type of character. I saw a lot of recappers think of that exchange as Lynch referencing Twin Peaks' status as ahead of its time in regards to Denise's role in the original series. Edit: I've always viewed Cole telling Albert in Part 4 that he doesn't understand any of this to be a sly wink, and we are supposed to think that if Lynch himself doesn't get it, then we're all in trouble. Similarly in Part 17, it's Lynch himself who delivers the lines that essentially retcon the whole series to reveal that Cooper and he had this plan all along. Of course it's Lynch who knows all along more than he's letting on. All of those things strike me as Lynch blurring the lines between his role as an actor and as a director.

And the dream with Belluci is a major instance of the "real world" impinging upon Twin Peaks' fictional world. That's major evidence of Lynch both playing Cole and playing Lynch at the same time; one foot in the real world, and one foot in the fiction. She literally asks the director of the film who the dreamer is, and one obvious answer is Lynch himself since it's his creation. Furthermore, Lynch sees himself as a young man in Fire Walk With Me, and it's almost something he doesn't remember. Earlier, he had the Laura Palmer vision in the hotel doorway. I've always seen that stuff as being partly about Lynch himself having these visions, as Twin Peaks keeps calling to him to return to it. That ties in to the idea of Tulpas, thoughtforms that develop a life of their own. The origin of the name Gordon Cole is revealed in Part 15 by way of Sunset Blvd, which as Mr. Reindeer has pointed out is one of the all time great and layered meta references. Etc.

Regardless, The Return seems to be in constant conversation with the audience, and that's a major part of the enjoyment I get from watching it. So in that regard, Lynch as Cole stating that line fits with everything else going on.

And you and laughingpinecone both bring up that its a double entendre about both his virility and his professional life...to me, that professional life is both director of the FBI and of the film. They're inseparable. Every time I see Cole I see Lynch, and I think that even if we're not 100% meant to, then our minds would still be making that connection. It's unavoidable for me. And as I alluded, I don't think he's "compelled" to remind viewers of his artistic prowess, but rather throw it in as a dark, portentous joke. But if I'm being completely honest, I think he would be proud of hanging on to his edge after all these years, especially in this industry, about which he has some clearly conflicted thoughts.
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 2059
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Tue Feb 13, 2018 7:04 pm

I don’t necessarily share LateReg’s interpretation of that line, but there has certainly been a lot of metatext to Gordon’s character from the beginning. It seems strange that anyone would debate that. Him being Cooper’s boss mirrors his mentorship of Kyle (and Laura Dern and Chrysta Bell, in the new show), and certain elements of Gordon on the original show played as DKL imitating mannerisms of Kyle’s portrayal of Cooper, which in turn was modeled in part on DKL. In the new show, it sometimes felt like DKL was straight-up playing himself — Gordon sketches in his downtime in DKL’s distinctive style, the Bellucci scene was shot right by the Paris studio where DKL produced a series of lithographs (and a short documentary) a few years ago, he sees Laura Palmer outside his hotel room (Gordon’s character never had any particular connection to Laura, but we know DKL feels a strong connection to the character). Gordon’s parting “Be thinking of you, Coop” seems like a very obvious meta-statement from creator to character. Cooper’s awakening, a major plot point, arises from another famous film director, Cecil B. DeMille, saying Gordon’s name, in the context of trying to make a comeback film and getting the “old team back together.” All of this seems pretty obviously like DKL inserting himself into the narrative in winking ways, particularly in light of the references to stories and curtain calls, and the blurring of the line between film and reality in Mulholland Drive and INLAND EMPIRE. I do think his womanizing and sexual quips are intentional parts of playing with his public persona as well.
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 2059
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Tue Feb 13, 2018 7:28 pm

N. Needleman wrote:I didn't call you a victim, and I have no interest in telling you how to feel. You can do whatever you want. But I do think you're being taken for a rather trollish ride. I also have no interest in saving you from anything - I just think it's a waste of time and an ugly, frustrating scene to watch. So I don't. You want to continue to think you're being engaged with honestly, go for it. I'll be back when the noise cessates.


Fair enough. I look forward to your full-time return. May the road rise up to meet your wheels.
LateReg
Posts: 674
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby LateReg » Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:03 pm

Mr. Reindeer wrote:I don’t necessarily share LateReg’s interpretation of that line, but there has certainly been a lot of metatext to Gordon’s character from the beginning. It seems strange that anyone would debate that. Him being Cooper’s boss mirrors his mentorship of Kyle (and Laura Dern and Chrysta Bell, in the new show), and certain elements of Gordon on the original show played as DKL imitating mannerisms of Kyle’s portrayal of Cooper, which in turn was modeled in part on DKL. In the new show, it sometimes felt like DKL was straight-up playing himself — Gordon sketches in his downtime in DKL’s distinctive style, the Bellucci scene was shot right by the Paris studio where DKL produced a series of lithographs (and a short documentary) a few years ago, he sees Laura Palmer outside his hotel room (Gordon’s character never had any particular connection to Laura, but we know DKL feels a strong connection to the character). Gordon’s parting “Be thinking of you, Coop” seems like a very obvious meta-statement from creator to character. Cooper’s awakening, a major plot point, arises from another famous film director, Cecil B. DeMille, saying Gordon’s name, in the context of trying to make a comeback film and getting the “old team back together.” All of this seems pretty obviously like DKL inserting himself into the narrative in winking ways, particularly in light of the references to stories and curtain calls, and the blurring of the line between film and reality in Mulholland Drive and INLAND EMPIRE. I do think his womanizing and sexual quips are intentional parts of playing with his public persona as well.


Honestly I think the line in question is just as much not open to debate, but that's just me; I really don't think that it could just be a throwaway about virility, regardless of how self mocking and baiting it may be, not with all the other meta text throughout, and I've found it easier than I expected to find others who referenced the line in the same way at the time it aired. I really appreciate you fleshing out these ideas as I wrote what I wrote in a hurry and kept haphazardly editing to add to it (I'm not even sure if you had read everything I ended up adding). I also really appreciate the capitalizing of INLAND EMPIRE, hee hee hee.

And to add to that and what you said, there's also the obvious and arguably central motif to Twin Peaks, which is duality and doubles. Lynch/Cole is central to that, especially in The Return.
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 2059
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:24 pm

I’m still not quite sure what to think of the “not where it counts” bit, but there’s definitely a lot going on there. First we have avowed pacifist Albert having gunned down a person, a colleague (are tulpas an exception to his philosophy?). I’m not passing judgment on him — it was self-defense — but it’s a MAJOR character moment that is entirely glossed over. Is this meant to be a subtle subtext we ponder (as many hardcore fans have), or did L/F simply forget that Albert had that monologue in season 2?

Then we have to consider the fact that, while Albert broke his code, Gordon in contrast couldn’t bring himself to defend himself or his colleagues. I appreciate LateReg’s stance that DKL was asserting his artistic/professional edge with this line. But the reality of the scene onscreen is that Gordon’s line of work involves making tough calls, and killing people if necessary (a different kind of “shooting” than DKL does). Again, without passing judgment or getting into my own moral or political beliefs...Albert put aside his personal belief system and did the job he signed up for. Gordon failed professionally, and would have died along with his colleagues if the other two hadn’t stepped up...in Albert’s case, at great personal, spiritual and philosophical cost. In Gordon’s case, this seems like a massive professional failure. He let down his subordinates, and followed it up with a dick joke. I have trouble seeing that moment as a professional victory lap for the actor/director David Lynch because it’s such a moment of professional failure for the character of Gordon.

Add to all of this the weird delivery of the line, which is a complete throwaway. It’s not a self-congratulatory “mugging at the camera” moment; he mutters it in a subdued sort of ashamed delivery, almost as if forced to do so at gunpoint. It sort of reminds me of Sean Connery’s line reading in the 007 movie Thunderball, when he drops his deceased dance partner into a chair and says to bystanders, “She’s just dead,” then visibly cringes at his own terrible pun as he turns away (the Bond parallel isn’t entirely out of place given that Gordon shares screentime with two of James’s recent love interests over the course of TP:TR). And then we have Tammy/Bell grinning at the line, as if to say “ohhh Gordon,” of course at DKL’s direction.

Sorry if this was all a bit rambling, but my ultimate point is that that one stupid dick joke is actually an incredibly layered, complicated moment. And I can’t come over to your interpretation on this one, LateReg, just because so much that’s going on in that moment seems to work against it. By the same token, I do think there’s more to it than simply chauvinistic braggery, if only because of the odd line reading.
LateReg
Posts: 674
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby LateReg » Wed Feb 14, 2018 12:27 am

Mr. Reindeer wrote:I’m still not quite sure what to think of the “not where it counts” bit, but there’s definitely a lot going on there. First we have avowed pacifist Albert having gunned down a person, a colleague (are tulpas an exception to his philosophy?). I’m not passing judgment on him — it was self-defense — but it’s a MAJOR character moment that is entirely glossed over. Is this meant to be a subtle subtext we ponder (as many hardcore fans have), or did L/F simply forget that Albert had that monologue in season 2?

Then we have to consider the fact that, while Albert broke his code, Gordon in contrast couldn’t bring himself to defend himself or his colleagues. I appreciate LateReg’s stance that DKL was asserting his artistic/professional edge with this line. But the reality of the scene onscreen is that Gordon’s line of work involves making tough calls, and killing people if necessary (a different kind of “shooting” than DKL does). Again, without passing judgment or getting into my own moral or political beliefs...Albert put aside his personal belief system and did the job he signed up for. Gordon failed professionally, and would have died along with his colleagues if the other two hadn’t stepped up...in Albert’s case, at great personal, spiritual and philosophical cost. In Gordon’s case, this seems like a massive professional failure. He let down his subordinates, and followed it up with a dick joke. I have trouble seeing that moment as a professional victory lap for the actor/director David Lynch because it’s such a moment of professional failure for the character of Gordon.

Add to all of this the weird delivery of the line, which is a complete throwaway. It’s not a self-congratulatory “mugging at the camera” moment; he mutters it in a subdued sort of ashamed delivery, almost as if forced to do so at gunpoint. It sort of reminds me of Sean Connery’s line reading in the 007 movie Thunderball, when he drops his deceased dance partner into a chair and says to bystanders, “She’s just dead,” then visibly cringes at his own terrible pun as he turns away (the Bond parallel isn’t entirely out of place given that Gordon shares screentime with two of James’s recent love interests over the course of TP:TR). And then we have Tammy/Bell grinning at the line, as if to say “ohhh Gordon,” of course at DKL’s direction.

Sorry if this was all a bit rambling, but my ultimate point is that that one stupid dick joke is actually an incredibly layered, complicated moment. And I can’t come over to your interpretation on this one, LateReg, just because so much that’s going on in that moment seems to work against it. By the same token, I do think there’s more to it than simply chauvinistic braggery, if only because of the odd line reading.


Very, very interesting. Admittedly I hadn't considered all that you point out, but I don't think that it necessarily negates my reading of just that single line, which can stand separately. But for now I can only say that taking your analysis of the scene, my version of the line reading could make even more sense. Cole has failed, and as Albert suggests has gone soft in his old age. Lynch, however, exists separately from Cole, and has not gone soft. Where it counts is as a creator, not as a mere character who couldn't pull the trigger. So it's almost as though Cole is failing in that moment so the real Lynch can please stand up, which he does, revealing all he's been holding back from the audience and then pulling the rug out, despite not being able to pull the trigger. That said, I've also always viewed Cole's admission that he couldn't pull the trigger to actually be Lynch stating that he just didn't have the heart to kill one of his characters with his own hand, which could be viewed as a contradiction of my reading of the line in question...or could be considered minor compared to undertaking this kind of massive film at age 70 and mercilessly end the series with no consolation.
Kilmoore
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby Kilmoore » Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:40 am

I've completely lost track of this thread now. So I'll just throw in my two cents randomly.

One thing I liked about S3 was Gordon Cole, and Albert. If Cole hadn't been in the original, it would have felt really weird to shoehorn Lynch in front of the camera, but since he was, it would have been just as weird leaving him out. It was well established in the original and FWWM that Cole and Cooper were close, and that Cooper disappearing didn't come as a complete surprise to Cole. I was very keen to follow Cole and Albert in their investigation of Cooper. Too bad it led to nowhere and nothing they did in S3 mattered at all.

As for the "not where it counts"-quip... Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And, opposing, sometimes a penis joke is just a penis joke.
AnotherBlueRoseCase
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby AnotherBlueRoseCase » Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:07 am

To sum up for the profoundly disappointed and our remaining fans of the show.

– As Mr R says, just because the cult of Lynch exists does not mean that every TR fan is a cultist. Nevertheless the cult marches on. The overall point has been not to denigrate individual cultists (not unless they denigrate me first) but to see what the poverty of their defences reveals about the flaws of the show itself, which after all are the subject of this thread.

– It’s never easy or pleasant to be told you’ve been blinded by fan-worship. But many such posts have by now been made in this thread, so if fans keep returning they know what they’re in for. Perhaps some sense that their upset is trying to tell them something, like junkies at NA meetings they disdain (pain is concentrated information). Bit much, though, to then object to mention of junkies and addiction/denial.

– Many TR fans acknowledge that Lynch fan-blindness exists but deny that this has anything to do with them. I’ve been in this position myself, I’d say. If it seems I’ve been saying I’m above fan-blindness I should correct that now. One of the many side-benefits of TR’s awfulness was that it showed how love for FWWM made me overrate Lynch’s other works.

– It’s pretty hard to demonstrate such blindness in someone else in any direct way. You can’t reach into a fan’s psyche and identify some kind of wall of denial, or a halo around their vision of the Master. So if we sense that certain defences of the show don’t ring true we have to work indirectly, e.g. with analogy.

First let’s acknowledge the extreme weirdness and wackiness of some of the things they’ve been defending (this matters, because one tendency has been to present our objections as somehow weird and wacky). Now let’s try an analogy, one that I hope everyone but the usual crank will understand as light-hearted.

Imagine Sir Alex Ferguson coming out of retirement to manage Man Utd again, except this time round he uses press conferences to describe his sexual dreams and to inform us that despite what we may have thought, he isn’t an oyster-in-parking-meter softie. If you’re watching this in a Liverpool-supporting pub and the guys next to you in Utd scarves say Sir Alex is making them giddy with admiration, you might suspect those scarves played a part in this. NB your reaction is not what’s weird or wacky here, (and NB these fans aren’t necessarily called Reg or Reindeer).

But the guys seem clued-up, know their football and Utd history, so you find yourself wondering how this press conference can be making them not deeply embarrassed on poor Sir Alex’s behalf, but giddy with admiration. Are they having you on? Well, they seem to be genuinely loving the conference and every time your mates scoff these guys jump in to tell them with straight faces that they’re mistaken. Not only this but they strongly deny that supporting Utd has anything to do with their giddiness and seem unhappy at the suggestion. They just love managerial announcements of sexual dreams and hard-ons at press conferences for their own sake. All this taking place in a Liverpool-supporting bar, remember (maybe because the many Utd bars nearby seem fairly empty).

So eventually you offer them ways to show their support for Utd played no part in their giddiness. If that was Graeme Souness describing his sexual dreams at a press conference you wouldn’t be taking the piss? If you yourself were the Utd manager you’d be up there telling the world in general and that hot reporter in particular that you can still rise to the occasion? Can you tell us of any other septuagenarian football manager as gangsta rapper press conferences that have filled you with admiration?

Easy to see why these questions might go unanswered for a while and also miff these Utd fans, because they bring them face to face with their potential delusion, and that’s not pleasant, especially if they’ve been coming into this Liverpool bar for many months to inform everyone how great a team Utd are and how Sir Alex is still a genius and a hero, when you’ve been watching Utd players stot around like Dougie, trip over their bootlaces, paint the corner flags gold, lick the grass dry etc and not only win no trophies but blow up the Utd trophy cabinet and deny the Munich crash ever happened.

– There is always a disparity in the anger and honesty shown by the two sides when a turkey’s called out as such online, and in fact in any debate where one side cannot argue from the facts and instead has to resort to (one more time) straw men, ad hominems and selective blindness. They haven’t been the focus recently but straw men in particular are highly revealing. In any area of life, if one side keeps misrepresenting the other’s case way more than vice versa it is extremely unlikely they’re in the right overall. (Mr Reindeer and LateReg were worth debating because they virtually always responded to what people actually said, not some misrepresentation or complete reversal).

There are certain patterns in fan defence of turkeys, this is just a fact, and when repeated regarding a particular work they actually end up undermining it. That’s what I’ve been driving at. This won’t bother the average grunter or crank, of course, who’s more concerned with (what they imagine as) momentary pointscoring. The better TR fans know all this fine well, of course, but then become curiously blind to it when defending him with the halo.

I’ll be away from the web for a while now to get some proper writing done, so won’t respond to the calm, considered responses that may follow, or to any creepy princess/pea stalkerish shite that so dismally makes my point for me (there's your next siggy, dude). Tara from Malaga airport.
Lynch on Trump, mid-2018: "He could go down as one of the greatest presidents in history."
User avatar
The Gazebo
Posts: 279
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2017 3:34 pm
Location: Norway

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby The Gazebo » Thu Feb 15, 2018 12:11 pm

F*ckin hell, you still all here? Go out and enjoy the northern hemisphere spring.

Just one quick comment about Lynch's "not where it counts" statement. If it is about his own filmmaking, then it just goes to show that the Return was never about Twin Peaks in the first place. He misspelled a letter in his 2014 tweet. It was supposed to read: "That guy you like is going to come back in style." And boy, did he go all out to celebrate his own persona, his favourite actors and leave the legacy of Twin Peaks down a toilet more filthy than the one in Trainspotting. I don't care if this show is on the "Best of year"-lists among Lynch aficionadoes in the American press - unless someone picks up the mantle and couples the best aspects with actual storytelling and non-irrelevant characters, this show is going to fade into obscurity very quickly.

There. Now go out and do some good to your friends and family instead of wasting time on pseudo-intellectual nonsense like "Do we really live inside a dream?", or "What would Blavatsky feel about Major Briggs ascending to a higher level of consciousness?".

Peace, my friends :D

Return to “Season 3 (2017) The Return (Spoilers)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: janbanan and 5 guests