Differing Views on The Return

[Jonah]

Speaking of big theories in general, while I do find most of the theories interesting, I honestly don't believe Lynch (and often Frost) think that deeply into the story the way people dissect them. At least not consciously so. I think Lynch operates on emotion and gut instinct and pure artistic visuals much of the time, muttering to himself later "so that's what I meant by that". And has anyone ever read Frost's less than kind take on Mulholland Drive where he said something like "I promise you he wasn't intending it to mean that" or "he doesn't think along those lines", something like that - I don't have the direct quote. To me, while slanting negative and said during a time they'd fallen out possibly, it still felt quite true to me. I don't think Lynch sits down for example and says "Naido is a representation of this and that with a touch of that" and "if I position this guy with the green glove here and angle the camera that way, it will clearly represent the juxtapositioning of dark values against cheesy video games which will clearly be a takedown of sorts of progressivism and a criticism of video game culture" or "this diner sequence will be a message about American culture, road rage, absent uncles, and connect back to that other uncle" or "Billy is a symbol for this and that, and mentioning him here and replaying the scene with extras there will make it clear Billy exits/doesn't exist/is a metaphor for abandonment and the psyche", etc. etc. I just don't think Lynch's mind works like that. I think he comes from a gut place - maybe he connects it later or maybe some of these things are his intention but if so from a more primal/unconscious place.

Writers often throw things in and connect them later and I can so relate to his "ah, so that's what I meant by that" comment because often I'd be operating from another plain entirely, one that is not dissecting or analysing deeper meaning, but some of it comes through anyway. So, yeah, I do think a lot of these critiques and analysis could be valid and are often fascinating to read, but sometimes they're just blue curtains and Lynch was not thinking they represented the sea or the inner self or anything else. But I suppose whether he intended these meanings or not doesn't mean they do or don't exist as the whole "death of the author" idea that mtwentz (I think?) mentioned. That's valid too. So the deeper meanings could very well be valid. I'm just not as onboard with saying Lynch (or even Frost, though I do think he does more planning and research) intended X to be Y and also related to A and be a commentary on Z.

[Jonah]

I forgot about Naido. Turning out to be a white woman with a bad haircut, and I guess an iconic reunion between Machlachlan and Dern from Blue Velvet, which was never iconic in the first place (compared to him and Rossillini) … I recently watched That whole green glove scene again. It’s highly entertaining, but not for the reasons intended. Like Plan 9 From Outerspace good.

That's an odd coincidence - we were both typing separate posts and both mentioned the green glove scene! Lol. Clearly because it is the most riveting scene in all of Twin Peaks.

Good point about Naido - I do think that was awkward in this day and age especially. I'm not saying every work has to be "woke" but it's hard not to see issues with diversity now these days and that stood out. Same with Jade. I'm sure Brad's mentioned this before. But the only black woman in the cast is a prostitute and has gratuitous nude scenes. The actress is great - but it still didn't sit very well with me. Not sure this would have been noticed as much in 1990 - but then again we also wouldn't have seen her nude. And maybe these things should be looked at more as I think enumbs indicated. But that's probably for another thread.

[Audrey Horne]

Frost and Lynch are great guys, and were juggling a lot. It’s easy to sit back and criticize- running a tv show ain’t easy. But I think it probably would’ve been to their benefit to have someone occasionally speak up along the way during the creative process. A lot of things are hard to catch when they are both in the zone.

When is the gag order up on this thing? The grapevine and even the behind the scenes doc gives some insight, and no one dislikes these guys, but there are more stories that are equally as fascinating as the second season production drama. I did a convention a few times with a bunch of the actors during 2017 and them comparing notes on how they filmed was more thrilling than the actual show.

[mtwentz]

Speaking of big theories in general, while I do find most of the theories interesting, I honestly don't believe Lynch (and often Frost) think that deeply into the story the way people dissect them. At least not consciously so. I think Lynch operates on emotion and gut instinct and pure artistic visuals much of the time, muttering to himself later "so that's what I meant by that". And has anyone ever read Frost's less than kind take on Mulholland Drive where he said something like "I promise you he wasn't intending it to mean that" or "he doesn't think along those lines", something like that - I don't have the direct quote. To me, while slanting negative and said during a time they'd fallen out possibly, it still felt quite true to me. I don't think Lynch sits down for example and says "Naido is a representation of this and that with a touch of that" and "if I position this guy with the green glove here and angle the camera that way, it will clearly represent the juxtapositioning of dark values against cheesy video games which will clearly be a takedown of sorts of progressivism and a criticism of video game culture" or "this diner sequence will be a message about American culture, road rage, absent uncles, and connect back to that other uncle" or "Billy is a symbol for this and that, and mentioning him here and replaying the scene with extras there will make it clear Billy exits/doesn't exist/is a metaphor for abandonment and the psyche", etc. etc. I just don't think Lynch's mind works like that. I think he comes from a gut place - maybe he connects it later or maybe some of these things are his intention but if so from a more primal/unconscious place.

Writers often throw things in and connect them later and I can so relate to his "ah, so that's what I meant by that" comment because often I'd be operating from another plain entirely, one that is not dissecting or analysing deeper meaning, but some of it comes through anyway. So, yeah, I do think a lot of these critiques and analysis could be valid and are often fascinating to read, but sometimes they're just blue curtains and Lynch was not thinking they represented the sea or the inner self or anything else. But I suppose whether he intended these meanings or not doesn't mean they do or don't exist as the whole "death of the author" idea that mtwentz (I think?) mentioned. That's valid too. So the deeper meanings could very well be valid. I'm just not as onboard with saying Lynch (or even Frost, though I do think he does more planning and research) intended X to be Y and also related to A and be a commentary on Z.

This is actually part of the fun of it. Because Lynch has always been over interpreted to some extent. Or at least with this kind of work, there is the danger of over interpretation.

Even with Kubrick's films, you see a lot of over-interpretation. It's fun- if you ever get the chance, watch Rob Ager's Youtube channel on film analysis. He does Kubrick and a bunch of other directors.

[Brad D]

Since this is a frustration thread-I’ll lean into that sentiment. When I look back on the Return, my one true problem is that the damn thing just keeps expanding while refusing to really go anywhere or say anything. It feels like Mr. C, and perhaps what’s happening at the sheriffs station is the spine. And everything else just meanders to the point where I question if it means anything at all, or if Lynch and Frost are just filling time with brief culdesacs. And then, the high noon at the sheriffs station is capped off with an erasure of everything we even thought we knew. Part 18 has its own spooky vibe, and on its own, works for me. It was also saddled after part 17 which pretty much turned the tables on my hopes for the Return. The feeling I had at the end of 17 is beyond disappointment, which was the inverse of what I felt at the end of 16.

Also-I know we get into it about nostalgia and pie and coffee, but really - I wish the story had just built on the world that came before it. Take that mythology and go somewhere in the vein Deer Meadow did in FWWM. (Some of you will say part 8 did that - but it’s implications on the original story and ultimately the character of Laura Palmer soured me) I guess that’s why I enjoyed Mr. C so much. He was really the one compelling story that truly continued out of the original series. Seeing Dale leave the lodge was a true high-something I do love. But after that? I don’t know. I get it it - you can’t go home - so why call it TP anyway?

And yeah, Audrey was a huge disappointment. When the Return was announced, I assumed that character would be a very significant chess piece on whatever plot was coming. Relegating her to a private vacuum is a very bitter aftertaste I can’t kick. To think she just had one scene originally says quite a lot about how Lynch and Frost approached this from square one.

[Jonah]

And yeah, Audrey was a huge disappointment. When the Return was announced, I assumed that character would be a very significant chess piece on whatever plot was coming. Relegating her to a private vacuum is a very bitter aftertaste I can’t kick. To think she just had one scene originally says quite a lot about how Lynch and Frost approached this from square one.

There are people who will say Audrey was never that significant or not meant to be that significant. This post will make me sound like an Audrey/Fenn fanboy yet I'm not necessarily the biggest Audrey fan at all (I don't dislike her at all, but I gravitated more to Laura and some of the others) and I don't mind Annie, but if you look back through the original series, it's clear just how important Audrey became as the story progressed - and was continuing to become until behind the scene drama caused this to derail in mid Season 2. I mean, Cooper rescuing her from One Eyed Jack's seems like a dry run in retrospect for rescuing her from the Black Lodge and the red curtains behind her when she's on the phone there seem to be foreshadowing her ultimately ending up trapped in the lodge (which may have happened in The Return). (As for Annie - I like her a lot and think they did a good job with her otherness and strangeness and she was a decent replacement for that part of the storyline, but I don't think the stakes are quite as high as they would have been with Audrey.)

You know, Fenn gets a lot of flack for her recent behaviour/postings on social media but to the best of my knowledge she never caused any trouble during the original run - and not all that much during The Return, just standing up for herself and some grumblings about sexism on social media. Yeah, she also stood up for herself and quite rightly refused to participate in the Miss Twin Peaks beauty pageant and yeah, she turned down a role in FWWM, but apart from those minor things I never heard anything negative about her back in the day (and think the recent stuff has been blown out of proportion - her social media postings may be a bit off the wall but they're really her own business imo - yes, I know, I know, they're public but still). Anyway, I feel really bad for her that she got caught between the egos and drama of two other actors who were in a relationship and ended up getting the arc of her character axed because of that. True, maybe it wouldn't have been the right move to have Cooper end up in a relationship with Audrey given how young she was (though Annie wasn't much older and the actress, Heather Graham, was actually much much younger than Fenn) but they still could have followed that story of Audrey ending up in the black lodge without them consummating the relationship or even imply Cooper giving in to the temptation and pursuing Audrey led to her - and then him - getting trapped there. Anyway, fast forward 25 years after that happening Fenn and then she's offered one, maybe two scenes where she's playing the owner of a beauty salon who was raped by Bad Coop and now assaulted by her son. No wonder she balked at that.

So her importance in the original series seems clear - and it's strange because she wasn't even meant to be in the pilot originally, but despite being added late her character began to take on more and more importance, imitating Cooper's detective as she became her own teen detective on the trail of Laura's killers in the first season, infiltrating secret lairs, hiding in closets, etc. Strangely, again, despite being shoehorned into The Return late in the process due to her initial reluctance with the first storyline and then appearing in a new somewhat arbitrary and sidelined role, her importance again began to rear its head, more subtlety and insidiously this time, almost despite itself, as if the story itself was demanding to be included. It's no coincidence she and Coop both "wake up" (her more than him) in Episode 16. It seems a shame her story was then dropped again as finding a way to connect her into the story with Coop in 17/18 would have been ideal.

I think now as things stand she, Laura, and Cooper are the three most important and unresolved characters, and maybe that was always the way it was meant to be - Cooper caught (not in a trite triangle but as an aspect of the deeper story of his journey) between two women, one in the real world (or some other level/realm), the other in the spiritual one, his spirit divided and confused between them.

[mtwentz]

To me, Audrey was resolved at the end. She is either stuck in some ethereal place, or she is stuck in a hospital or asylum.

I don't think it really matter Audrey she is stuck, but the fact that she is living in some type of delusion or dream (perhaps) give a key clue to understanding the entirety of The Return.

[Jonah]

Respect your opinion but disagree strongly. First of all, as you pointed out, we don't know where she is, it's an either/or situation. Secondly, the impact of all of this on her character and her life is not explored at all, nor what led to her inclusion in the "dream", what the "end your story" means, what "this feels like Ghostwood" means, her connection to Billy, her connection to Cooper (both versions), etc. I mean, not everything has to be explained or even resolved, that's fine, but I don't know how you could view her arc as being even close to resolved. I mean, it may very well be over, but it's far from resolved imo. And I think she could be key in helping Cooper in any new iteration, which would be a nice reverse of the trope of him saving her.

Perhaps she was the one "dreaming" much of the original series and The Return along with Laura - though I'm not crazy about them continuing with the dreams/dream metaphors if they do continue the show. I feel like we've explored that enough. I was happy with just the dialogue allusions to "dreams" in the original series such as Maddy's "I feel like we stepped into a dream" and I feel they really overplayed it in The Return right up to the ending. It was effectively done for the most part but the "it was all a dream" trope is such a reviled one that even touching upon it in a new way or trying to explore a deeper or more meta version of it is still skating a bit too close to the ice. They just about made it work in The Return - but would be happy if they dropped it now for any new iterations.

[missoulamt]

That sort of anti-nostalgia feeling can be felt throughout the show but it doesn't feel like a purely conscious decision. Yes, I'm sure a certain measure of it was intended and by design, but much of it comes across as a form of distaste and/or indifference from the creators. I'm sure many will disagree or argue all of that is part of the carefully structured brilliance of The Return or tell me I didn't get it - as whenever a criticism is floated on here that is usually the response. Don't want to appear snarky - as I said, I enjoy reading most of the comments - but let's face it, most of the time any genuine criticism of the show presented on here is responded to in one or both of those ways. FYI telling people they don't "get" something really is very condescending.

Very well put, Jonah.

[missoulamt]

At the end of the day, there are so many storylines which have no connection with the world of TP whatsoever, so why call it TP in the first place? The Mitchum brothers, the Fusco brothers etc etc. So much airtime. Amusing taken as episodes on their own, with a strong Lynch vibe, but what do they have to do with TP? Then you might as well have labelled Mulholland Drive TP. MH includes the same type of amusing / off the wall episodes. Billy Ray Cyrus as the pool guy and so on.

The inclusion of Andy and Lucy (and other old timers) seemed more like a case of filling the TP quota. The warmth from the original wasn't there. Rather, they appeared completely lobotomized.

[Brad D]

What did Audrey really do in The Return? Have a dream and wake up? I'd much rather Audrey have done some, I dont know, real things. I guess the character is resolved, likely in an institution.. but overall, a huge meh.

[rocketsan]

Can’t EVER get over the stupid green glove….

[Brad D]

I am much more against the idea of BOB being truly destroyed than the green glove. But combining them both… yeesh. I’d rather the sprinklers have gone off again.

I also am just not a fan of the black orb. Either re-cast BOB or just have Mr. C as BOB’s true heir apparent or vessel.

[AXX°N N.]

I'm not sure I interpret BOB as being ultimately destroyed. Frost has co-signed to the sentiment that Part 17 is an ending, 18 a beginning, and maybe he views BOB as conclusively ended. But the way the shards float up and kind of just phase through the ceiling always left me with a lingering, eerie impression. Maybe that was Lynch's addition. Has this been discussed anywhere?

As for the interesting discussion over the last few pages about the cynical tone, Audrey being in limbo, and a general lack of love for the character from the creators... I'm not sure I agree that because a character ends up somewhere miserable, it means it was done to punish the character/viewer, or that it signifies lack of love on the author's part. Love in reality is something that can be simultaneous to disappointment, a mother can love a son even as he's spiraling into some kind of pit, temporary or permanent.

At the same time, I don't think that because someone dislikes the way Audrey/others are utilized, that they're not getting something. You can agree with my above statement in theory and not like how it worked out in Audrey's case in practice. And in the same vein, I don't think it's true that just because something doesn't resonate with you, it must mean malcontent on the part of the creator toward either you or the character.

EDIT: typo

[missoulamt]

Yes, the whole green glove scene stomped all over the old TP mystique and left it for dead. A sad moment.