Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group

[Gabriel]

Well let's hope if things continue in the vain of E7 you won't have much complaining to do!

Out of interest, how do you rank David Lynch's films?

Difficult one. Time and circumstances and mood can affect these things. I can also like one film more than another, even though, objectively, I can be aware that the film I like less is a better film. I mean, The Fabulous Baker Boys is my favourite movie, but I don't think it's the best movie I've ever watched.

On trying, I can only group in a couple of tiers, in no particular order of preference:

Like

Blue Velvet (1986) – blew me away. Saw it it after a Twin Peaks, the TV show and WaH. A tightly-plotted thriller; meticulously shot. It's like Kubrick, but wears a warm heart on its sleeve.

Wild at Heart (1990) - my first Lynch movie. Watched it when I was 17, when first broadcast on Sky Movies. It's tied in with all sorts of adolescent, hormonal memories and goodness knows what else and has loads of Twin Peaks people in it. Like the book as well. Only discovered the other day that there are five more Sailor and Lula stories along side the Perdita Durango one I already knew of. The omnibus is now on order.

Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me (1992) – need I say more? I'd watched everything to date by then, except Eraserhead. The TV show aesthetic clashing with filmmaker Lynch was bound to be spectacular. I think it's the best TV show to cinema transition ever made.

Lost Highway (1997) – it's nuts and purely my own opinion, but I always felt comfortable with it existing in the same world as Twin Peaks, with Mystery Man being another Lodge inhabitant. At the end of the movie, I figure he's shape shifting again.

Dune (1984) – more to do with loving Frank Herbert's books. The film is a compromised mess with the whole middle section hacked out, but is often spectacularly beautiful, capturing the poetic qualities of Herbert snr's books, which are so obviously missing from John Harrison's more prosaic TV version. Interestingly, I felt Greg Yaitaines' Children of Dune showed strong influences from the Lynch film.

The Straight Story (1999) – a beautiful story, wonderfully acted. It's kept simple and consequently is some of Lynch's best ever work.

The Elephant Man (1980) again shows Lynch's warmth and affection for outcasts and oddballs. Tremendous cinematography by Freddie Francis and again shows Lynch as a master of filmmaking craft.

I love all the above equally, to a greater or lesser extent. There's a lot of discipline at work in them – many of the films have such a constant stream of beautiful imagery that you could grab stills off random shots and frame them. Also, there's a great warmth and love of humanity at play amidst the ugliness. No matter how dark things get, there's a lot of heart in there too. The bleakest is probably Lost Highway, which shows his gradual move into nihilism.

And it's the nihilism that spoils the below for me. Eraserhead feels like a student film and I can let that one slide. Mulholland Drive takes an intriguing, if slightly mean-spirited TV pilot and bolts on 45 minutes of material that feels undisciplined and like Lynch took the money he was given and splurged it on whatever took his fancy. Inland Empire was a three hour experimental camcorder job. It's got great moments, but feels undisciplined and kind of like he threw a load of mud on a wall and wanted to see what stuck.

Dislike

Eraserhead (1977)
Mulholland Drive (2001)
Inland Empire (2006)

I almost feel that Lynch's joy in life began to drain away from the moment he imprisoned Dale in the Black Lodge. After The Straight Story, I've felt his work has become nihilistic, joyless and misanthropic, as well as undisciplined. And that's why I struggle with the new show, perhaps: I want the Lynch who made Twin Peaks and The Straight Story, not the Lynch who made Inland Empire and Mulholland Dr. Maybe he no longer exists, but I feel like Luke calling out to the good in Darth Vader, in this case trying to break through the cynicism I now see in Lynch's work. I believe in my favourite filmmaker; I just think he can do better and want him to do better.

Edited for typos.

[Gabriel]

I think being off key is a huge part of what's going on here. It doesn't feel quite like anything else, and so some of us don't know what to do with it. I sometimes don't know what to do with it. But I see it as being something fresh and new, Lynch realizing the fullest, broadest potential of himself, or as Nevins said, he's evolved to a more extreme version of himself. That's what it seems like to me. But as for the interviews, I thought those were perfectly off key. A news parody, intentionally.

Yes, I think it's turning all the fans into more extreme versions of themselves too. Next time there's a Twin Peaks convention, all the attendees will have turned into peculiar-looking trees!

[mlsstwrt]

Yeah, it's hard to know what to make of stuff that is off but is intentionally off. Bad acting being a big one. Even those who love The Return have by and large been very critical of Chrysta Bell. Why is her bad acting just plain bad whereas others' bad acting has been intentionally bad so it's really good?

People talked about how those of us criticising The Return should bear MD in mind where everything didn't really come together until the last 40 mins or so. The big difference for me was that MD absolutely gripped me even BEFORE the 'reveal'. I don't know why it did or why I didn't find Naomi Watt's over the top sunniness silly but I couldn't take my eyes away from the screen. Whereas with The Return it just hasn't held my attention in the same way (I'm talking up to but excluding Part 7 which I'm going to watch in a couple of hours). so even if everything comes together beautifully I don't think I'm going to be posting, saying 'Boy was I wrong'.

It's the same with The Usual Suspects. The twist was brilliant but I'd thoroughly enjoyed the movie UP TO the twist. The twist just turned a massively entertaining movie into a genius one. I'm not sure if something that bores you can be made retroactively good by virtue of threads being pulled together beautifully later on. And I'm not convinced that even if everything eventually comes together wonderfully in The Return it's going to make the first few episodes more watchable.

This isn't really intended as a criticism, more a refutation of the argument that as long as Lynch gets us to an amazing destination, then the journey will have been a great one.

And don't get me wrong, I don't need things wrapped up in a nice package. I'm judging The Return by the effect it has on me, not on its internal logic.

[krzhuva]

Anyway, I like the show and follow it with interest, but being honest with myself, it IS a "like the show for what it is."

Yeah, my issue all along has been that it's felt like a 'Lynchworld' TV show, featuring Twin Peaks. Ep 7 was the first time I really felt I was watching a new episode of Twin Peaks itself.

The interesting thing about the reception of episode 7, is that the people who loved every part of the Return loved this episode even more, specifically due to the plot moving along more, and a more familiar TP feeling being present.

And these things were exactly the elements 'the disappointed' bunch were told should not matter. That caring about plot was poor man's criticism, that you didn't understand Lynch if plot and character were part of a good show to you, and that one shouldn't be looking for stuff that made the original run work.

Yet when we do get some of that, they are over the moon because of it.

Strange....

In conclusion, I think it shows us that it's not about 'getting Lynch' vs 'not getting Lynch', but more about where you set the bar.

Well, not true. I loved every part (the 6th part most of them all!), but was a little underwhelmed by the new one exactly because of how procedural, obvious and, I guess, markfrostian it sometimes felt. It was still a very nice part, but it lacked some of that artsy fartsy magic.

[Mallard]

Anyway, I like the show and follow it with interest, but being honest with myself, it IS a "like the show for what it is."

Yeah, my issue all along has been that it's felt like a 'Lynchworld' TV show, featuring Twin Peaks. Ep 7 was the first time I really felt I was watching a new episode of Twin Peaks itself.

The interesting thing about the reception of episode 7, is that the people who loved every part of the Return loved this episode even more, specifically due to the plot moving along more, and a more familiar TP feeling being present.

And these things were exactly the elements 'the disappointed' bunch were told should not matter. That caring about plot was poor man's criticism, that you didn't understand Lynch if plot and character were part of a good show to you, and that one shouldn't be looking for stuff that made the original run work.

Yet when we do get some of that, they are over the moon because of it.

Strange....

In conclusion, I think it shows us that it's not about 'getting Lynch' vs 'not getting Lynch', but more about where you set the bar.

I have enjoyed the whole series up tp this point, but by the end of episode 6 (my least favorite so far) I told my wife, "This story is eventually going to have to quit expanding horizontally and start moving forward." I think deep down, a lot of the fanbase was starting to feel the same way. Epsiode 7 was, for me personally, just what the doctor ordered.

[Hockey Mask]

Even those who love The Return have by and large been very critical of Chrysta Bell. Why is her bad acting just plain bad whereas others' bad acting has been intentionally bad so it's really good?

I actually don't understand why she is being singled out. There are many intentional stilted performances but I don't really think she has been one of them.

[boske]

Even those who love The Return have by and large been very critical of Chrysta Bell. Why is her bad acting just plain bad whereas others' bad acting has been intentionally bad so it's really good?

I actually don't understand why she is being singled out. There are many intentional stilted performances but I don't really think she has been one of them.

She gave an interview recently where she stated that she too was surprised at how TP was supposed to walk away from Cole and Albert during the "blue scene". She was meant to act that way, it was in the script. I wish we should all be critical of how the character was set up and not of her as the actress.

[Gabriel]

I actually don't understand why she is being singled out. There are many intentional stilted performances but I don't really think she has been one of them.

Actually, I'm not sure it's so much that she's stilted, but that she seems a bit... self conscious. Like she knows there's a camera next to her.

When she's looking at the pictures, you can almost imagine, off set, there's someone shouting at her:

'OK. Turn your head a bit more. That's it dahling! Now look at that photo! Look harder! It's confusing you. Now you're seeing the reversed finger. You're fascinated. Yes, more! You're fascinated! Ooh! You're slaying me! Grab those photos! Grab 'em for dear life. Stare at those photos! Ooh! Cooper's so baaaaaad! That's it! More! More!'

I think she's fine, but it's a lot to ask of a relatively inexperienced (afaik) actress.

[Hockey Mask]

I actually don't understand why she is being singled out. There are many intentional stilted performances but I don't really think she has been one of them.

Actually, I'm not sure it's so much that she's stilted, but that she seems a bit... self conscious. Like she knows there's a camera next to her.

When she's looking at the pictures, you can almost imagine, off set, there's someone shouting at her:

'OK. Turn your head a bit more. That's it dahling! Now look at that photo! Look harder! It's confusing you. Now you're seeing the reversed finger. You're fascinated. Yes, more! You're fascinated! Ooh! You're slaying me! Grab those photos! Grab 'em for dear life. Stare at those photos! Ooh! Cooper's so baaaaaad! That's it! More! More!'

I think she's fine, but it's a lot to ask of a relatively inexperienced (afaik) actress.

I'll watch for that next viewing. I may need you to call me and provide the "dahling" voice for maximum effect.

[Agent327]

Well, not true. I loved every part (the 6th part most of them all!), but was a little underwhelmed by the new one exactly because of how procedural, obvious and, I guess, markfrostian it sometimes felt. It was still a very nice part, but it lacked some of that artsy fartsy magic.

I'm sorry but "Not true" does not apply simply based on your own experience. I am talking about the general consensus which is extremely evident.
I never said "all".

I respect that you have a different opinion than most, but that doesn't disprove my point.

[Gabriel]

I'll watch for that next viewing. I may need you to call me and provide the "dahling" voice for maximum effect.

No problem 'sweetie!' Just watch something that Dickie Attenborough pops up in!

I've done a bit of amateur acting in friends' semi-pro (and pro) short films down the years and I can see that self consciousness in my performance. I can definitely see it a bit in Miss Bell's work. Like I say, it depends on how big her role is. I mean, Sofia Coppola wasn't terrible in The Godfather Part III and would have been fine in a lesser role, but she just didn't have the experience to play such a massive part opposite people like Al Pacino and Andy Garcia. Given the size of the role, especially if you've read the book, it's asking a lot.

[Agent327]

She gave an interview recently where she stated that she too was surprised at how TP was supposed to walk away from Cole and Albert during the "blue scene". She was meant to act that way, it was in the script. I wish we should all be critical of how the character was set up and not of her as the actress.

Well, the walk was obviously scripted / instructed.
I don't think it's meant to be a commentary on her character, as much as a light moment commenting on how guys often are. No more than that.
Of course podcasts made a big deal out of it, and many even hinted that Lynch has a sexist problem with women. That is to be expected from today's social justice based criticism.

I noticed how Chrysta Bell has a really over the top, soft 'seductive' way of speaking and behaving when the first cast interview teaser came out. It just seems she is doing the same thing in her role, so that part doesn't seem to be scripted.

That said, I personally wouldn't single her out. She seems fine. What she does works for me, as a quirky character trait that we haven't quite seen in others.

[Venus]

The World Spins.

Get me a Lynch megaphone, 'WE HAVE A STORYLINE PEOPLE!'. About time. What a relief. I don't know about a golden shovel but it's definitely had a partial colonic. It's got a way to go but it was a much better episode and let hope it continues. I never want to ever go back to an episode 6. I fear they will have lost the vast majority of the viewing public by this point though who haven't stuck around for the narrative to improve.

It sounds like I'm the only one who cheered when Diane said fuck you to Tammy Preston (it was funny). I also thought Diane's friend was about to reappear and say to Albert and Gordon sitting on the couch, 'Fellas, don't drink that coffee. There was a fish in the percolator'.

I wonder if the roadhouse budget would stretch to a scissor action broom.... If you don't know what that is, look it up.

[mlsstwrt]

Watched Part 7. Predictably it was my favourite so far. i say predictably because I'm clearly one of those fans who, shock horror, wants to see some kind of continuation of the original and much more of the original characters.

It still doesn't have the magic of the original for me. It's kind of weird to see them actively investigating Laura's murder again. I mean don't get me wrong, that is the storyline that I've always loved the most but it's still a solved murder. Not complaining here, just stating the obvious which is that it was always going to be very difficult to create the same palpable excitement of the original.

Diane wasn't anything like I pictured her. I didn't like the character (Venus, we've finally found something to disagree on!) but again, can't really complain about that!

Thought actually Richard Beymer was looking good. I'd scene a couple of screen captures of him before The Return aired and he looked much worse.

Am hanging in there anyway. Still don't fine myself actively excited about the next episode but maybe that's because I'm old and jaded.

[LateReg]

I think being off key is a huge part of what's going on here. It doesn't feel quite like anything else, and so some of us don't know what to do with it. I sometimes don't know what to do with it. But I see it as being something fresh and new, Lynch realizing the fullest, broadest potential of himself, or as Nevins said, he's evolved to a more extreme version of himself. That's what it seems like to me. But as for the interviews, I thought those were perfectly off key. A news parody, intentionally.

Yes, I think it's turning all the fans into more extreme versions of themselves too. Next time there's a Twin Peaks convention, all the attendees will have turned into peculiar-looking trees!

That's pretty good.