What is the general take on 'Who killed Teresa'?

[djerdap]

Just because something is ambiguous, doesn't mean that every explanation and interpretation is equally valid or interesting, or corroborated by enough evidence from the show/movie itself.

I don't think anybody here stated that Leland is alone on this. But to think the opposite is just way too simplistic and atypical of Lynch's work. Precisely the demonic possession is unambiguous in its simplicity. The others are claiming to be far more complicated than that, which is indeed characteristic of Lynch.

[NewtoTwinPeaks]

I can see why audiences would want to share leland's/wise's denial of what's going on - it's certainly an easier pill to swallow. I guess what I'd like to ask the people who think it's 100% cut-and-dried "the evil spirit made him do it" is what do you do with the part where leland (clearly established as leland by both performance and visual language of the film) says "I always thought you knew it was me"? Do you just, like ignore it? Because BOB's line right afterward is ambiguous (and horrifying) but leland's couldn't be more straightforward.

I agree that the level of leland's culpability is open to interpretation, it just seems to me that when you've had the wash your hands scene (and what it implies about Sarah's knowledge - she is emphatically not drugged), the banks blackmail plot, the myriad hints dropped by lynch especially during the show's run, AND THEN this line comes up and you are still unshaken in your belief in leland's innocence, you are doing an awful lot of work to avoid facing up to something.

That scene always confused me and wondered whether the entire intentions of the character were retconned between the show and the movie. It seems the two are trying to portray a different message. I have no issue with writers changing things but when it's such a huge plot point, it makes it difficult to rewatch as it feels the movie contradicts what the show was trying to say.

I believe Lynch also directed the episode where Leland dies in the show? When Leland is dying and speaking to Cooper, everything points to him not knowing what happened, so I wonder why Lynch went with that scene and then seemingly 'changed' things in the movie version.

Having said that, I do have an open mind in looking at things differently, especially as I wouldn't want to chalk something down to a retcon. Does anyone have examples from the show where there is implication Leland is aware of what he is doing or hints that he's more involved than the last scene may make it seem?

At the same time, for people that feel it was primarily Leland and Bob was there to 'help' him along, do you take Leland's last scene as him not wanting to believe it was him so he 'washes' his hands off the fact that he did know (while saying in the show that he didn't know)?

[tmurry]

I'm actually surprised so many people in this thread think there's only one way to look at this, and if you don't see it like that you're "boring", or "you're ignoring things", or you're even commiting disservice to rape victims (?). Considering this is a David Lynch film we're discussing (of all directors) I think it's kind of sad.

Hope you aren't talking about me

If you see a movie with Jesus telling the Good Samaritan story, you know that he is telling a parable. You could say Jesus is real but the Samaritan is not. But the story and the characters within it have been recognized as real by people who are not thinking in "true/false" terms and have had actual affect on the world. But what about Jesus? Is he real? He is played by an actor, working off of a script that someone wrote relatively recently, based on an account written 50 years after the principle agent died, as an account of something that could have maybe happened (though a bunch of Roman council members/religious leaders told us we have to believe it happened exactly that way) to a guy who probably existed but wasn't actually named Jesus in the first place. So when you look and say "that one - real, that one - made up." what are you saying? The realness lies in the strength of the story... its ability to effect humans.

Are you sitting down? Good. Leland is made up. He was made up by countless people, but for the sake of this let's say 3 most important people: David Lynch, Ray Wise, and you (whoever I am talking to). You are free to interpret this however and I don't like the talk of "right" and "wrong" explanations. I prefer language like useful/unuseful or strong/weak. I have found that considering Leland's actions as being of Leland's own volition is stronger and more useful, BUT this does not make Bob not real, like, at all. It is stronger for me to believe that too. But that doesn't make Leland not real.

Bob is pretty f*cking real, as real as murder, violence, and rape is real. Realer than the lies people tell themselves. The fact that Bob is an epiphenomenon (in my view) doesn't mean this manifest pattern-as-character doesn't exist. Humans do not process the world out there in a clinical, rational way. We are haunted by spirits - the idea of the father, the image of the damned there but for the grace of god go I, the specter of the innocent - these things are much realer to us than sand or a hydrogen atom or gravity. The idea of the ouroboros is realer than a Benzene atom. The world is a complex web of interacting symbols. I sound like Carl Rodd or Denis Hopper.

Leland did all these things. He was possessed by Bob when he did just as I am possessed by a nameless spirit of indignant anger when I yell at a telemarketer. I have not given that spirit a name and a face, but if I did I would be performing a kind of magic that would, maybe, allow me to control the forces within me a little better, or maybe complete their control of me. Bob is a part of Leland AND a part of a collective unconscious full of archetypes that manifest in all of our behavior AND a real character in these entertainments we hold so dear. Levels, man. They are all true at the same time.

[Dalai Cooper]

I can see why audiences would want to share leland's/wise's denial of what's going on - it's certainly an easier pill to swallow. I guess what I'd like to ask the people who think it's 100% cut-and-dried "the evil spirit made him do it" is what do you do with the part where leland (clearly established as leland by both performance and visual language of the film) says "I always thought you knew it was me"? Do you just, like ignore it? Because BOB's line right afterward is ambiguous (and horrifying) but leland's couldn't be more straightforward.

I agree that the level of leland's culpability is open to interpretation, it just seems to me that when you've had the wash your hands scene (and what it implies about Sarah's knowledge - she is emphatically not drugged), the banks blackmail plot, the myriad hints dropped by lynch especially during the show's run, AND THEN this line comes up and you are still unshaken in your belief in leland's innocence, you are doing an awful lot of work to avoid facing up to something.

That scene always confused me and wondered whether the entire intentions of the character were retconned between the show and the movie. It seems the two are trying to portray a different message. I have no issue with writers changing things but when it's such a huge plot point, it makes it difficult to rewatch as it feels the movie contradicts what the show was trying to say.

I believe Lynch also directed the episode where Leland dies in the show? When Leland is dying and speaking to Cooper, everything points to him not knowing what happened, so I wonder why Lynch went with that scene and then seemingly 'changed' things in the movie version.

Having said that, I do have an open mind in looking at things differently, especially as I wouldn't want to chalk something down to a retcon. Does anyone have examples from the show where there is implication Leland is aware of what he is doing or hints that he's more involved than the last scene may make it seem?

At the same time, for people that feel it was primarily Leland and Bob was there to 'help' him along, do you take Leland's last scene as him not wanting to believe it was him so he 'washes' his hands off the fact that he did know (while saying in the show that he didn't know)?

No, lynch was gone by then - he directed the reveal but not the wrap-up, the former leaning way more toward leland being involved in (at least present for) the murders imo

[djerdap]

I believe Lynch also directed the episode where Leland dies in the show? When Leland is dying and speaking to Cooper, everything points to him not knowing what happened, so I wonder why Lynch went with that scene and then seemingly 'changed' things in the movie version.

The episode was directed by Tim Hunter. Lynch had very little to do with the execution of that episode, and I think it shows in pretty much every second.

[tmurry]

That scene always confused me and wondered whether the entire intentions of the character were retconned between the show and the movie. It seems the two are trying to portray a different message. I have no issue with writers changing things but when it's such a huge plot point, it makes it difficult to rewatch as it feels the movie contradicts what the show was trying to say.

It's not just a river in Egypt. If you focus on that scene with the idea that he is in denial and cross it with the idea that acceptance and contrition are necessary for salvation, is it any wonder that Leland strides the halls of purgatory saying "It wasn't me. I didn't kill anybody" like Pilate washing his hands for all eternity?

[Driftwood]

I'm actually surprised so many people in this thread think there's only one way to look at this,

that's the exact opposite of what I said in my first post in this thread but sure pal

[Gabriel]

While I tend to think the TV show somewhat exonerated Leland in his final 'earthly) scene and the movie rebalanced it, I look on BOB as almost a disease whose attacks come and go, but damage the host physically and mentally, regardless. It's a given that a father generally loves his daughter deeply, is cautious about her boyfriends and can be upset if she acts against him wilfully with intention to hurt. BOB, as the 'infection,' takes all these instincts and feelings and pushes the negative aspects to a level that is dangerous. So Leland molests his daughter, is psychopathically obsessional about her 'lovers,' inflicts humiliations on her (bad girl eating him up in the diary) and ultimately kills her.

Teresa Banks (who looks like his Laura) allows Leland to act out his obsessions more freely and, perhaps if there's guilt involved, to use her as a vessel to take out his obsessions away from his daughter.

More importantly, is Teresa the first woman he's used to play out his sick fantasies and was the blackmail the trigger that started the killing or had he killed other women before, not using the subsequent future method of delivery of the body? The very specific method of the delivery of the body – wrapped in plastic and floated down the river with a piece of paper under the fingernail – displays a pattern and perhaps a desire to be caught.

Leland was clearly a very sick man and, seeing a BOB infection as a metaphor for his sickness, the placing of the piece of paper was Leland trying to warn people about BOB, one letter at a time, perhaps because the BOB part of him wouldn't understand the meaning.

Ultimately, though, when Teresa blackmails Leland, I suspect it's Leland who really panicked and I suspect Leland killed Teresa with little 'help' from BOB. He'd almost been caught out by the planned threesome and on some level knew that he'd be found out sooner or later.

When Cooper is possessed, BOB might well feed on Cooper's old school beliefs in justice, decency and morals. How would that affect Coop? Perhaps, Coop would disregard protocol without guilt, beat up suspects, make deals with criminals, become a badass. Coop has long had special abilities and it's his strong moral beliefs that have allowed him to focus his extrasensory gifts for the good. Shorn of those controls, a psychically gifted, corrupt lawman could be a dangerous foe indeed.

[Snailhead]

^ That is my general take on the situation. Nice post.

The one thing that kind of muddies the waters for me in FWWM is that when Leland is in the parked car with Laura (after the encounter with the One-Armed Man), it almost seems as though the flashbacks to murdering Teresa's could be BOB showing those memories to Leland for the first time. Kind of like how in Episode 16, BOB "pulled the ripcord". But yeah, ultimately, I think there's just enough abstraction to prevent a clinical breakdown of those kind of scenes. Which is a good thing - it adds to their power.

[Manwith]

The discussion here is far too literal. It's clear that Bob is a metaphor for child abuse as a social ill. Leland was abused as a child by that man he met who asked if he wanted to play with fire, and does it to his daughter. Possesion by Bob is a metaphor for those victims of child abuse who grow up to perpetuate it with the next generation. Laura breaks the chain of inter generational abuse by not letting herself be posessed.

The show and movie depict the metaphor differently but there is no Bob as a seperate entity from Leland on any metaphorical or meaningful level. I guess what i'm saying is arguing about a metaphorical concept like Bob who is stated to represent "the evil that men do" is kind of pointless. The thing literally happening is a guy abusing his daughter. The Bob posession stuff can be viewed as magical realism or abstract art.

To keep the show going after the case was solved the writers used other storylines with Bob that don't fit so well but the show was no longer about what it used to be about.

[tmurry]

It's clear that Bob is a metaphor for child abuse as a social ill... The show and movie depict the metaphor differently but there is no Bob as a seperate (sic) entity from Leland on any metaphorical or meaningful level.

This is textually untrue, even if your point didn't include an apparent logical contradiction (how can he be a metaphor for child abuse as a social ill but not exist on a metaphorical level separate from Leland?). Bob is seen by others before and after Leland's death. There is a picture drafted. My take (as I ruminated on above) is that Bob is an archetype in a collective unconscious and this is real as an image and the associated mental programming, which has an effect on the people involved and the world. He exists in Leland's unconscious (above the convenience) store but "escapes" into the world from there (the whole point of that FWWM scene). I think this escape is a metaphor but that metaphor is real because archetypes are real in that they are aspects of our conscious apparatus that are as much a part of our reality as a desk or a pack of smokes, and that that reality is collectively shared. But you can hardly blame people for taking the Frost route and deciding the the metaphor/archetype manifests as literal due to an aspect of the local mystical field. This is all rearranging the deck chairs - all of it is made up and the grounding of the work is a negotiation between your horizon and the horizon presented to you (Iser). They can believe your metaphor bit and that Bob exists in some way at the same time. It seems a stronger work that way.

[I'm the Muffin]

The discussion here is far too literal. It's clear that Bob is a metaphor for child abuse as a social ill. Leland was abused as a child by that man he met who asked if he wanted to play with fire, and does it to his daughter. Possesion by Bob is a metaphor for those victims of child abuse who grow up to perpetuate it with the next generation. Laura breaks the chain of inter generational abuse by not letting herself be posessed.

The show and movie depict the metaphor differently but there is no Bob as a seperate entity from Leland on any metaphorical or meaningful level. I guess what i'm saying is arguing about a metaphorical concept like Bob who is stated to represent "the evil that men do" is kind of pointless. The thing literally happening is a guy abusing his daughter. The Bob posession stuff can be viewed as magical realism or abstract art.

To keep the show going after the case was solved the writers used other storylines with Bob that don't fit so well but the show was no longer about what it used to be about.

While Bob is a metaphor for abuse, he is clearly ALSO a separate entity from Leland. Based on the text of the film, there's abundant evidence that we ARE meant to take Bob as a possessing spirit literally (and that's setting aside the fact that dismissing all of the show post-Leland as not canon is arbitrary). Metaphor and reality are not mutually exclusive in Lynch's worlds. "We live inside a dream"....

And Bob is not 'stated' to represent the evil that men do, Albert speculates that maybe that's what he is.

[Manwith]

While Bob is a metaphor for abuse, he is clearly ALSO a separate entity from Leland. .

Mark Frost was apparently inspired by ghost stories that sprung up around a real murder.

'http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... Peaks.html

Bob can be seen as the ghost story explanation for the "real" events of a man murdering his daughter. You don't have to view him literally at all is my point. The character seems to me to work best when taken as a metaphor.

I think Lynch probably is aware of the metaphor and simultaneously providing both a literal and metaphorical viewing to the story, but they are "one and the same". An explanation of Leland and Bob as two separate entities might seem satisfying at times, but isn't intended to entirely work because Lynch will pull the rug out from under you and shout "one and the same!"

[Manwith]

But you can hardly blame people for taking the Frost route and deciding the the metaphor/archetype manifests as literal due to an aspect of the local mystical field.

I like the Frost "X-files-esque" stuff a lot I just don't know that I find it very useful where it interacts with the Leland stuff. The Leland centric stuff strikes me a working better as a more abstract metaphor.

When Twin Peaks is doing wackier stuff about girlfriends being kidnapped by occultist lunatics escaped from asylums, the metaphorical "Lynch-like" reading probably doesn't work as well.

[Gabriel]

Watching Episode 18 at the mo. The Twin Peaks Post headline states 'LELAND PALMER LAID TO REST' with a subheading of 'Town Mourns.' Other than the headline, the story is given equal space next to 'Milford Marries A 5th Time.' It begins to make me wonder whether news of Leland's culpability was suppressed. Coming from the UK, I'd expect to see headlines like 'Paedophile Local Killer Buried!' with the subheading of 'Leland Palmer Laid To Rest Next To Daughter He Brutally Murdered' with sidehelpings of 'How Many People Did Local Child Molester Kill?' and 'Child Rapist Now Linked To Four Murders!' and, to cap things off, 'HE Killed Laura Palmer!'

Instead, the whole town seems to have developed collective amnesia!