Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group

[yaxomoxay]

It's interesting watching the fan reaction, as a study in semiotics. But also baffling, the lengths people are going to, to ascribe a deeper meaning to this shallow, meaningless nonsense.

I don't know if you have received the memo or not, but no one elected you as the authority on what we should find higher meaning on, and what is nonsense.
I found deeper meaning in the scene where Bushnell understands Cooper's scribbles as I explained in the Episode 6 post. Others hated it, and didn't find anything about it.
Last time I went to Italy I was in Rome and I found myself in front of the Pietà. I had tears coming down my eyes. A guy next to me said, in Italian, "tutto qui?" (That's it?). Is either one of us an idiot or nonsensical? No. I am a devout Catholic and saw something. He probably just saw a nicely carved piece of stone. Both of us use art for our own purposes, based on our experiences, beliefs, and expectations.
Your post is somewhat offensive, there is no reason to belittle people who find meaning in things and enjoy coming together to analyze them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wAtChLaR]

It's interesting watching the fan reaction, as a study in semiotics. But also baffling, the lengths people are going to, to ascribe a deeper meaning to this shallow, meaningless nonsense.

I don't know if you have received the memo or not, but no one elected you as the authority on what we should find higher meaning on, and what is nonsense.
I found deeper meaning in the scene where Bushnell understands Cooper's scribbles as I explained in the Episode 6 post. Others hated it, and didn't find anything about it.
Last time I went to Italy I was in Rome and I found myself in front of the Pietà. I had tears coming down my eyes. A guy next to me said, in Italian, "tutto qui?" (That's it?). Is either one of us an idiot or nonsensical? No. I am a devout Catholic and saw something. He probably just saw a nicely carved piece of stone. Both of us use art for our own purposes, based on our experiences, beliefs, and expectations.
Your post is somewhat offensive, there is no reason to belittle people who find meaning in things and enjoy coming together to analyze them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

somewhat offensive? they are obviously a typical internet troll..YES i said troll

[baxter]

I think it's almost impossible to judge works by older artists fairly. I'm fascinated by it actually, particularly with music. If our relationship with the artist has been shaped by 40 years of our own experiences, and pop songs take us to moments of our youth, it is very hard indeed to unwrap that context from the work in front of us. If the artist changes, their work isn't as good as their early stuff. If they don't, they're stuck in a rut. What makes me like a song by a certain artist that punches through my cynicism, but another artist can release a retro number that leaves me cold?

Reviews of older musicians' work follow some sort of periodic pattern. Initially they ride the wave that got them their initial success, then they fall out of fashion, then suddenly the people writing the reviews are kids who hate their Dad's music, then suddenly those kids get old enough to have studied enough pop music to know that their own favourite bands were ripping off the masters, and lo and behold the original artist releases "a stunning return to form". My hunch is that that cycle is more or less unrelated to the actual music the artist puts out, but I've never done an academic study.

McCartney is an odd example: the only consensus would be that his post-Beatles output doesn't match his Beatles output. On mass, that's clearly true (but there's a Beatles-quality album hidden in every 5 solo albums probably). However, every Macca solo record or Wings record has been accused at the time of being patchy and half-arsed, and he has recently ridden the "critical upswing". To my (musician) ears, his recent output is stronger and more focussed than his 80s and 90s work, and more consistent than most of his 70s albums. How a new McCartney song could objectively be compared to the Beatles is a very complicated question though- apart from the youth/nostaglia complication, recording technology alone changes the results completely.

Back on topic, TPTR is stronger than Inland Empire in my view, but probably only because I really want to see these characters (I liked IE incidentally). I also prefer it to MD, but it's very similar, and I think its very similar to the series that MD would have been if commissioned.

I've been watching Hitchcock's films in order recently, and have only reached 1931 so far. Did the audience of RIch and Strange pine for the days of The Lodger? Did fans of the 39 steps watch Psycho and think that Hitch was way past his prime and going for cheap shocks? Some probably did. In reality, his work changed through the expanded scope of the medium, better recording technology and a completely different cultural context. How do we know Lynch hasn't done the same?

[The Gazebo]

I guess what's still very important to keep in mind with TPTR is that even back in the day during the original run of seasons 1+2, Lynch was totally being Lynch and wanted to take this vision of his and use it to actually BREAK run-of-the-mill television. Right now in 2016/17, (1) there's no "typical" conservative TV show anymore because many are already doing their own thing (which might be, at least partly, thanks to Twin Peaks) and (2) what we HAVE airing nowadays has changed a huge LOT. Therefore, if one wants to break NEW barriers and bring real ART into the world of TV nowadays, one has to be even MORE extreme/weird/crazy and what some might call "pointless" or lacking the obvious.

At least that'd be my personal interpretation of why this doesn't resonate as much with some.

It will be interesting to see. The original TP shattered the ceiling. I'm not sure if writers/directors see this and think "Yes, this is the future!". To me, this feels like an experiment (and experiments usually have flaws) more than a revolution and breaking of barriers. But just to contradict myself, I could see someone potentially take certain aspects from this show and develop their own ideas. I think more and more people are sophisticated enough to be receptive to slow-paced storytelling. This particular version of it, though, is probably too ambitious. It has far too many minor characters, tries to be too epic, lacks emotional depth and a compelling storyline. Not to mention the blatant trolling from the director. The telling-us-to-be-patient scenes are not bold and genius. It's become predictable and tedious, like with the French girl. As soon as Albert entered the room, you knew what was coming, and that it would take a while. It's one thing knowing you have to be patient to enjoy the full story - we don't need hours and hours of television telling us to wait for it.

[baxter]

I really think the French girl was just zany humour. It really reminded me of On the Air. The problem is that those who found it funny (myself included) love how stretched out and ridiculous it is, and those who don't are just bored for 5 minutes.

The casino scene in Part 3 seems to have entertained some people, but I was in the opposite camp for that. Point made after two jackpots, time to cut away. I didn't even laugh the first time he went "hellooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo".

[wAtChLaR]

I think it's almost impossible to judge works by older artists fairly. I'm fascinated by it actually, particularly with music. If our relationship with the artist has been shaped by 40 years of our own experiences, and pop songs take us to moments of our youth, it is very hard indeed to unwrap that context from the work in front of us. If the artist changes, their work isn't as good as their early stuff. If they don't, they're stuck in a rut. What makes me like a song by a certain artist that punches through my cynicism, but another artist can release a retro number that leaves me cold?

i don't know about this..i think it depends on the artist/genre....some of the best work from my favorite bands that are not mainstream were their latter works...a maturity...polished...the same as i feel about Lynch as an auteur....for me this season is phenomenal...but i understand that not all will agree with that

[The Gazebo]

I really think the French girl was just zany humour. It really reminded me of On the Air. The problem is that those who found it funny (myself included) love how stretched out and ridiculous it is, and those who don't are just bored for 5 minutes.

I absolutely loved the waiter/Cooper scene in season 2. I could watch that all day. However, back then these kinds of scenes were used sparingly, to good effect. I don't mind long, slow scenes, it's just that you can smell some of them from a million miles away. The lady outside Ruth Davenport's apartment, for example. It becomes a cliché, which adds nothing to the overall story. If that lady or the French girl were to have some significant role, then this could be a great introduction to their personalities. As it is, they are just time wasters.

[baxter]

yeah, for sure. I have the same thing with some bands, and I also tend to view Lynch's career as a progression with some elements held fixed.

I guess I also tend to be less critical than some. If something new by an artist doesn't move me as much as earlier work, I think "oh, they've gone somewhere else" rather than "they're completely rubbish and past their prime". The latter would require an objective standard by which to judge their work, and my argument is that we don't have that.

Mind you, I also spend far too much effort on crap albums, listening to them until they become good!

[wAtChLaR]

I guess I also tend to be less critical than some. If something new by an artist doesn't move me as much as earlier work, I think "oh, they've gone somewhere else" rather than "they're completely rubbish and past their prime". The latter would require an objective standard by which to judge their work, and my argument is that we don't have that.

yes the artists i tend to admire most are those who reinvent without losing their initial draw...i really don't think we'll get a season 4...but i bet we get an amazing new film...

[mtsi]

I wonder how much more we would all appreciate the show if it was as culturally accepted as it was in 1990? I think being part of a club, as it were, is a huge component of how one feels about something... Especially a piece of art. Your thoughts?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[baxter]

An interesting question. I missed TP on the first viewing, and saw it at the age of 13 or so when it was repeated on Bravo in the UK a few years later. So to me it was always a cult thing that I would bang on about in the school yard which nobody had seen. This makes the new series at one with the old in my head- both are cultish items.

[The Gazebo]

I wonder how much more we would all appreciate the show if it was as culturally accepted as it was in 1990? I think being part of a club, as it were, is a huge component of how one feels about something... Especially a piece of art. Your thoughts?

Excellent question I think it depends on the individual. Some like being part of accepted mass movements, while others enjoy the smaller, underground, not-tainted-by-commercialism tribes, where you feel you have some kind of special knowledge or insight that the majority of people lack (the moment things become too popular with the mainstream, that feeling of being among the chosen few may disappear). Twin Peaks post-FWWM has been somewhat in the latter category, and Season 3 is definitely that. Strangely, if this show was a mainstream success, I would probably dismiss it a lot easier, not because the show itself would be worse, but because I would assume that it doesn't offer any profound insight worth experiencing. The fact that it still is a small-ish show which requires a certain investment makes me (want to) appreciate it more. A bit snobbish and elitist, but I know I'm not alone in thinking like this ("Yeah, I loved their earlier albums, but now they have become too mainstream"). Of course, being the same hypocrite as so many of us humans are, if the shoe is on the other foot, and my own artful interests are considered too mainstream by some, I may frown upon those snobbish, elitist w**kers. The confirmation bias is strong in all of us, I think.

[mtsi]

Great points!

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[LurkerAtTheThreshold]

I don't know how the popularity would affect me. It certainly made me feel bad when this aired and everyone seemed to love it and I hated it. It wasn't a reaction to it being popular because it was still pretty much only Twin Peaks fans, hardly a mainstream audience. I just didn't resonate like everyone else seemed to.

One thing I know, is that I was very hyped that the show could be the same water cooler phenomenon as the original series. I suspected some sort of whodunnit and I was discussing the remnants of clues from the old series with friends before the new series aired.
As soon as it aired though, suddenly I had nothing much to say about Twin Peaks anymore. It certainly didn't create engaging conversation

[wAtChLaR]

I don't know how the popularity would affect me. It certainly made me feel bad when this aired and everyone seemed to love it and I hated it. It wasn't a reaction to it being popular because it was still pretty much only Twin Peaks fans, hardly a mainstream audience. I just didn't resonate like everyone else seemed to.

One thing I know, is that I was very hyped that the show could be the same water cooler phenomenon as the original series. I suspected some sort of whodunnit and I was discussing the remnants of clues from the old series with friends before the new series aired.
As soon as it aired though, suddenly I had nothing much to say about Twin Peaks anymore. It certainly didn't create engaging conversation

i appreciate this and respect this opinion....it just makes me very sad