Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group

[Kilmoore]

Doesn't matter, my point is that I find the argument that everyone is as qualified to evaluate the merits of an artwork to be not thought through.

So what you're saying is that you are not qualified to evaluate the merits of TP:TR and therefore we should ignore you when you come to this thread praising how it's artistic?

[LateReg]

I've said it before, but I can't shake the feeling that this was just an opportunity for Lynch to visualize any old idea he'd been harbouring for a long time, and Twin Peaks was the convenient vehicle, no matter how unrelated these ideas were to the original universe he created.

I doubt that anybody would debate that. I actually don't have a problem with that. It's just him playing around in a very casual way.

As far as the whole dropped plotlines thing, it's really only when you get to the consequential plotlines and characters that I feel Lynch dropped the ball, and not intentionally. I highly doubt they planned to have Mr. C be such a flat character who barely goes anywhere, or to make the Woodsmen (especially Mr. Gotta Light) so totally memorable and promising only to leave them dangling and barely shown again in any important way. That episode pointed to such amazing things coming up, and I waited and waited, and it never came. Someone will probably say that was the intent, and maybe it was (the unlit cigarette, perpetual lack of fulfillment), but at the moment it just feels like not enough attention was paid to it, to Mr. C, to Sarah, and others.

Having said this, I still would take the total playfulness and casualness and idiosyncrasy of this show, flaws and all, over some of the new films I've been to lately. Man, such standard stuff, and these are films getting praise and awards. The last film I considered more than ten minutes after leaving the theater was "The Killing of a Sacred Deer" which I would recommend to you all; it was my favorite of last year -- dark and bizarre.

As for the idea mentioned of people liking his later works and not this, and vice versa, I think those films and this come from a similar place, so I don't know why fans would necessarily reject one and not the other. It's just a question of which one(s) do some similar ideas better. This show is better than "MD" (which, though I consider it his worst, his least sincere and most lazy film, I wouldn't say I "dislike"). However, I really hate the fact that some unwelcome identity shifting stuff from that film appears to have found its way to this show. I liked "IE" on first viewing, and my feelings for it have remained strong since. I both like and dislike "Return".

I don't think Mr. C ended up simply flat, and I do think his barely going anywhere was what was intended. We're seeing just a few days in the life of a character who has existed without us for 25 years. Like so many characters in The Return, the idea seems to be to drop the viewer into this exact moment in the life of this character, and to not force character arcs that couldn't possibly be glimpsed within that time span. If he appears flat, it's because this dead-eyed doppelganger no longer derives any pleasure from his evil, which seems intentional to me and fits one half of Kyle's portrayal of the character in episode 29. I've said before, but Mr. C feels like a part of Cooper, and among other things he is a demonstration of Cooper's single-minded determination. The dark and comical irony is that this single-minded pursuit instantly leads to Mr. C's downfall, just as it (arguably) previously led to Cooper's in episode 29 and leads to his once again in his attempts to save the girl in Part 18. Mr. C's story, like much of The Return, is existential in nature, and it works on that level. I think his storyline fits The Return perfectly. So once again, it's just a matter of believing that Lynch and Frost wanted everything to be the way it was, or that they only wanted certain things to be that way; I think they wanted everything to be exactly how it is. Whether they made the best choices is up to us, but there's no doubt in my mind they know exactly how Mr. C's storyline turned out. His storyline could have gone other places, but it didn't, and where it went makes perfect sense to me based on my understanding of the real story, which is that we're seeing most everything via shards of Cooper's psyche. As for the Woodsman, I don't think there's a question that Lynch/Frost intended them to only play a minor part. If they didn't intend this, they would have at least featured them later on, but that was clearly never the intention, and this also fits The Return's M.O., which is to get the audience speculating and dodge expectation entirely. For my part, I was dreading the speculation coming true that The Woodsman would invade the town, or whatever a lot of people were predicting. I think leaving them minor was the right decision.

I do really appreciate what you said about appreciating the flaws of the new one in some regards. Being totally objective about it, I do think that some people are so fed up with the current status quo Prestige TV landscape that they were more eager to embrace something as wild and playful and casual as The Return.

[Hartright]

Given TPTR is the epitome of postmodernism, anyone with any genuine intellect should dismiss it for the cultural irrelevance it is. It’s not art. It’s also possible to be objective about art (unless you’re a postmodernist, in which case any old crap can be called ‘art.’)

My values come from the Enlightenment. A is A. The world exists. Therefore TPTR is is nothing more than counter-Enlightenment, anti-Renaissance garbage. It’s the televisual equivalent of mediaeval imagery, designed to provoke fear and despair. It snuffs out the candle that lifts the darkness.

Bury it and salt the earth that covers it.

i

"Epitome of postmodernism" - I'm not sure about that - TPTR is a different kind of beast that what many would consider to be postmodern. I think there are quite a few people with "genuine intellect" who enjoy and find value in TR - are you positing this as a moral failing? If it is culturally irrelevant why has it provoked so much discussion in the media and elsewhere?

I'm not sure that you personally are the arbiter of what art is. I declare that it is art. It is quite some claim to declare that you are the person capable of being objective and people who disagree with you don't have access to the objective truth which you feel welling up inside.

I found TR to be strange, unique and ultimately very uplifting and inspiring - especially for someone like myself who claims to produce art on occasion.

I've really enjoyed reading this whole thread because I have some reservations about TR. But I do find the imperative to declare one's views in absolutes to be curious. If the gains of the enlightenment were under threat i think laying the blame at TR is slightly overstating your case.

[enumbs]

I love the Return, but have found most of the discussion on here quite respectful and well argued. This is with the exception of Gabriel's posts, which have been consistently rude, condescending, and utterly dismissive of any differing opinions. Anyone who liked the show is deemed a liar, a simpleton, or (especially pretentiously) some kind of enemy of art.

[Nighthawk]

I don't think Mr. C ended up simply flat, and I do think his barely going anywhere was what was intended. We're seeing just a few days in the life of a character who has existed without us for 25 years. Like so many characters in The Return, the idea seems to be to drop the viewer into this exact moment in the life of this character, and to not force character arcs that couldn't possibly be glimpsed within that time span.

I am actually quite surprised that they didn't film Mr. C. sleeping for 8 hours. Now THAT would have defied all expectations and gave a realistic story arc at the same time.

If he appears flat, it's because this dead-eyed doppelganger no longer derives any pleasure from his evil, which seems intentional to me and fits one half of Kyle's portrayal of the character in episode 29.

The character fell flat because his storyline fizzled out after some early promise. There was just no idea what to do with him, especially as the good Cooper wasn't properly setup as his archenemy. It's a mere conjecture that Mr. C. "no longer derives any pleasure from his evil". We don't even know if he ever did. Perhaps he only committed evil deeds because his goals, whatever they were, made them necessary. Bob, his inhabiting spirit, surely feeds on fear and pain, but how much of that transferred to Mr. C.? We don't know because 10 feature length movies worth of storyline wasn't enough to delve into such interesting and crucial concepts.

I've said before, but Mr. C feels like a part of Cooper, and among other things he is a demonstration of Cooper's single-minded determination. The dark and comical irony is that this single-minded pursuit instantly leads to Mr. C's downfall, just as it (arguably) previously led to Cooper's in episode 29 and leads to his once again in his attempts to save the girl in Part 18.

Mr. C. has, presumably, been at it for 25 years, so whatever he was doing certainly did not lead to an instant downfall. There is no indication whatsoever that he has somehow changed his MO during the course of TPTR although he certainly was single-minded. It took some rather elaborate entrapment, like feeding him false geographic coordinates, that put him on a path to destruction.

Mr. C's story, like much of The Return, is existential in nature, and it works on that level. I think his storyline fits The Return perfectly. So once again, it's just a matter of believing that Lynch and Frost wanted everything to be the way it was, or that they only wanted certain things to be that way; I think they wanted everything to be exactly how it is.

Of course one can believe that, but Occam's Razor says that they simply got lost in the complexity of their own creation.

[chromereflectsimage]

I don't think Mr. C was ever suppose to be Cooper's 'archenemy' He represents Cooper's will/desire, a part of Cooper. That's why he is not an all out superhero villain.

[Mr. Reindeer]

I don't think Mr. C was ever suppose to be Cooper's 'archenemy' He represents Cooper's will/desire, a part of Cooper. That's why he is not an all out superhero villain.

Cooper: “What I need and what I want are two different things, Audrey.”
Mr. C: “I don’t need anything, Ray. I want.”

If we take Mr. C’s words not as cliché supervillain bragging but as literal fact, is DougieCoop then the other half, pure need with no want? He needs others to do pretty much everything for him and doesn’t seem to desire much. Coffee and pie seem to trigger desire in him when he sees/smell them, and he enjoys sex but doesn’t pursue it. Otherwise, he just wanders through life contentedly letting others help him.

[chromereflectsimage]

I don't think Mr. C was ever suppose to be Cooper's 'archenemy' He represents Cooper's will/desire, a part of Cooper. That's why he is not an all out superhero villain.

Cooper: “What I need and what I want are two different things, Audrey.”
Mr. C: “I don’t need anything, Ray. I want.”

If we take Mr. C’s words not as cliché supervillain bragging but as literal fact, is DougieCoop then the other half, pure need with no want? He needs others to do pretty much everything for him and doesn’t seem to desire much. Coffee and pie seem to trigger desire in him when he sees/smell them, and he enjoys sex but doesn’t pursue it. Otherwise, he just wanders through life contentedly letting others help him.

Yes, you can look at it this way. The active side is Mr. C, Dougie is the passive observer. IMO, It goes back to Lynch's Hindu beliefs, the Upanishads (Where the 'We Live Inside a Dream' quote comes from) talks about two birds on a tree. It's a parable of the two parts of the soul, one bird who eats the fruit, and the other who observes. It's called the Tree of Jiva and Atman if you want to look it up.

The Woodsman in part 8 is the Rakshasa, known to drink blood from people's skulls through his palm.

[Audrey Horne]

I think the creation of Mr. C was a stroke of brilliance, and very mad at myself that over the twenty five years plus it was never a route that crossed my mind in how to deal with the Coooer possession for storytelling. We had spilt so much internet ink theorizing how the story would continue with Coooer in the Leland position, and how it could sustain the appeal of Peaks if our protagonist was stuck in that role. Because the stakes have already been raised to their highest with that cliffhanger and once it’s resolved (Cooper saved) anything last that would seem like an epilogue.

By physically making anti Cooper a separate entity we now have an active story, and not just stuck in theory and existentialism, and we can have Cooper still potentially be our beloved hero on the move. And in simple active story terms, an active good guy and bad guy. Basic easy bullet points to tell a linear story structure. Hero must stop villain.

So far so good. The initial first few parts work like gang busters for me in this concept. Mr. C (even the name is the height of Peaks essence, MYSTERY) is strong and in control and wants something. And is the anti Cooper (wants vs needs) and can even outsmart the biggest, deadliest mystery of Peaks, the Lodge. This is great story structure, and gives us a clear linear spine for a season with enough to build many characters orbiting in their own stories around it.

However, as dynamic as the character is, things begin to fall apart for me fairly quickly around the middle episodes where I feel we are spinning our wheels. And it’s a matter of ambiguity of what Mr. C wants. And is indicative of what I feel is the biggest problem with the whole season.... everything is ambiguous. “Wants” is such a strong word and calls for strong definition. Mr. C’s want of the coordinates is fine and strong for the McGuffin... basically I need the key to open the door... but then the definition of the key keeps changing or how it works or even if he wants to open the door or get away from the door. What’s behind the door is fine to be kept as a mystery, but the actions along the way have to be clear for building suspense. The character behavior with him is fantastic (as with all the characters) but the structure is muddled, so instead I feel we are only watching acting exercises throughout the whole series.

This goes back to me feeling Frost and Lynch overthought the entire structure, made it far too convoluted so in the end, nothing stuck, merely only watching masterful moments of directing and wonderful nuances from gifted actors. If they had done the opposite, start with a simple story structure as their base then they can find all the interesting and more complicated colors within that structure instead. This felt more like a first exercise in stream of consciousness to cull imaginative ideas without the next step of discipline in streamlining it.

[chromereflectsimage]

I feel like what Mr. C wants is never defined out right because it's the same thing Cooper wants, as it's his own desires.

In Part 18, Cooper goes to Judy's looking for Carrie's address, another version of coordinates.

Mr. C wants to find the Ace of Spades, and asks Jeffries who is Judy. Gordon says him, Desmond, Jefferies and Cooper put together a plan to find Judy.

I see it like I do Inland Empire, if you put the various illusions together and see the overlaps, you can get some sort of idea what his life the past 25 years were. It's just not outright shown the reality like the end of Mulholland Drive, but rather like Inland Empire shown as multiple threads and there to be deduced. Although I will say part 18 feels like an integration of the threads of Cooper we saw.

Example: Dougie and Mr. C both have car bombs put under the bottom of their cars. Mr. C kills the guy, Dougie its the carjackers who blow up cause they infiltrated the car and are the bad guys. It's the same situation seen through active and passive lenses.

[Audrey Horne]

Yes, I would agree. But the point for me there has to be a little more definition of the superficial level for a solid objective to then delve into what that solid objective really represents.

Dorothy wants to get back home to Kansas, but within that objective there are a million themes, interior character motivations we can dissect.

Acting is doing instead of being. What is the character actively doing instead of their state of being. We will get into their state of being, but it is hard for a character, actor to play a concept instead of practical actions. One can’t play happy or sad or a state of loneliness as a stand alone thing. One can’t play I’m looking for my desire because it’s too nebulous. One can play I’m looking for the coffee filters to make the coffee but Fred died too days ago and that’s on my mind so I’m sad while I do the action. So that’s kinda what I mean when I say the definition of what Mr. C wants needed to be more defined on a basic level, and then of course can go in a million directions on what that practical thing truly represents.

[mtwentz]

Yes, I would agree. But the point for me there has to be a little more definition of the superficial level for a solid objective to then delve into what that solid objective really represents.

Dorothy wants to get back home to Kansas, but within that objective there are a million themes, interior character motivations we can dissect.

Acting is doing instead of being. What is the character actively doing instead of their state of being. We will get into their state of being, but it is hard for a character, actor to play a concept instead of practical actions. One can’t play happy or sad or a state of loneliness as a stand alone thing. One can’t play I’m looking for my desire because it’s too nebulous. One can play I’m looking for the coffee filters to make the coffee but Fred died too days ago and that’s on my mind so I’m sad while I do the action. So that’s kinda what I mean when I say the definition of what Mr. C wants needed to be more defined on a basic level, and then of course can go in a million directions on what that practical thing truly represents.

I'm not sure telling what Mr. C is after would have added to the suspense. In fact, it was, in my view, the core mystery of the entire TP:TR. the original Twin Peaks mystery was, "who killed Laura Palmer", followed by "What is the Black Lodge". I would argue the central mystery of FWWM is 'what is the owl cave ring'. So I think what Mr. C is after is the central mystery of The Return, especially once Cooper is finally released from the Black Lodge at the end of ep. 2.

But there are a whole lot of other little mysteries sprinkled throughout e.g. what the Fireman's pronouncements mean, what did Laura whisper, who killed Ruth and Major Briggs etc. And I do think those multiplicity of other little mysteries kind of confuse the plot and make it overly complex for a mainstream audience and even some of us longtime Peaksters. There is a part of me, like you, that does pine for the simplicity of Season 1 and Season 2. On the other hand, I think Lynch's and Frost's view was, 'been there, done that'.

But I still contend that without hiding Mr. C's endgame and making it a surprise revelation (although technically, it was never fully revealed, but it can be inferred) you give away the main thread of suspense.

[The Gazebo]

As far as the whole dropped plotlines thing, it's really only when you get to the consequential plotlines and characters that I feel Lynch dropped the ball, and not intentionally. I highly doubt they planned to have Mr. C be such a flat character who barely goes anywhere, or to make the Woodsmen (especially Mr. Gotta Light) so totally memorable and promising only to leave them dangling and barely shown again in any important way. That episode pointed to such amazing things coming up, and I waited and waited, and it never came. Someone will probably say that was the intent, and maybe it was (the unlit cigarette, perpetual lack of fulfillment), but at the moment it just feels like not enough attention was paid to it, to Mr. C, to Sarah, and others.

I can relate to waiting in vain. The Woodsmen, if introduced in the original series, would probably have ended up equally iconic to Bob. For me, it was the lack of follow-up to Sarah Palmer at the store and Hawk's visit to her house. If I'm not mistaken, that was episode 12, and I was giddy as hell. I really, really thought we were about to head into a masterful last 6-7 hours that would redeem and justify anything I had problems with earlier on. If I had been asked there and then to place a bet on the overall quality and enjoyment come September, I wouldn't have hesitated to go all in. Instead, the episode kind of fizzled out, and after about 20 minutes of episode 13, I finally gave up, letting apathy, scorn, sarcasm - and a bit of depression - take over. As for Mr. C, that was a real disappointment. Such a thrilling opening, before going on to become a run-of-the-mill villain, more interested in coordinates than being a threat to our beloved town or its people.

Having said this, I still would take the total playfulness and casualness and idiosyncrasy of this show, flaws and all, over some of the new films I've been to lately. Man, such standard stuff, and these are films getting praise and awards. The last film I considered more than ten minutes after leaving the theater was "The Killing of a Sacred Deer" which I would recommend to you all; it was my favorite of last year -- dark and bizarre.

I have a love-hate relationship with The Return. I love the scenes - hate the show. To me, it kind of resembled one of those flu-ridden, feverish dreams, where there is no escape, no progression - just the same things over and over again. I still enjoy rewatching the odd scene on Youtube, but I have absolutely no intention of watching the whole thing again. That being said, with the tumult of the opening month-infighting behind us, I am genuinly happy for the ones who would watch this over and over again. I wish I could derive some pleasure of watching Dougie massage dandruff-infested shoulders, but I can't.

As for the idea mentioned of people liking his later works and not this, and vice versa, I think those films and this come from a similar place, so I don't know why fans would necessarily reject one and not the other. It's just a question of which one(s) do some similar ideas better. This show is better than "MD" (which, though I consider it his worst, his least sincere and most lazy film, I wouldn't say I "dislike"). However, I really hate the fact that some unwelcome identity shifting stuff from that film appears to have found its way to this show. I liked "IE" on first viewing, and my feelings for it have remained strong since. I both like and dislike "Return".

Well, I have to admit that I've not yet seen IE. I have never been a Lynch fanboy (and I don't mean that in a derogatory sense), so I've pretty much been 'pick and choose' with regards to his works.

[chromereflectsimage]

This is how I put it together, though feel free to add your interpretations.

Basically I think what happened was Cooper went with intention of going undercover and bringing down the bad guys (shown as Dougie uncovering the mole in the insurance company), BUT then he got corrupt (as shown by Dougie befriending mobsters, even when Cooper 'wakes' he says the Mitchums have hearts of gold. Red flag). He also has/had a son at some point too, as both Mr. C and Dougie did, though I do think he left his family (like Dougie ended up doing once he got his memories and Cooper's sense of 'will' back.) I feel like part 18 fits this version of Cooper of the pieces put together.

[The Gazebo]

This felt more like a first exercise in stream of consciousness to cull imaginative ideas without the next step of discipline in streamlining it.

You've nailed it. I have no idea why the concept of coherent storytelling is frowned upon by some apologists of The Return. Nor why being in daytime Vegas is such a necessary and natural progression of the story, and according to some, moving out of Twin Peaks was the only way they could have continued the story.