Part 12 - Let's rock (SPOILERS)

Discussion of each of the 18 parts of Twin Peaks the Return

Moderators: BookhouseBoyBob, Ross, Jerry Horne, Brad D, Annie

User avatar
Jonah
Posts: 1009
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:39 am

Re: Part 12 - Let's rock (SPOILERS)

Postby Jonah » Mon Jul 31, 2017 5:41 pm

wxray wrote:
Jonah wrote:Still thinking about that Audrey scene. ... It gives it a play-like feeling too. But, unlike in the Hitchcock movies, in this scene the characters barely even movie. Audrey has a little bit of physical movement putting on her jacket and her husband, Charlie, has some minor physical interaction with the phone. Otherwise, for a full 10 minutes and 30-something seconds, the two characters remain in the one position, talking. It has to be some kind of record.

So... On rewatching that scene. I'm starting to like it, kind of in a way you like bitter coffee. At first sip, you spit it out. Later, you enjoy the complexity of the taste.

I have a "candy eating" side of me when watching TV and Movies. That scene was not candy. Upon watching last night, I wanted candy (Candie?) and instead was put off and pissed, and went to bed and had a TP nightmare.

Now, after "sipping coffee," I'm falling into the camp that there is something really important here. The dialog is so stunted and frustrating. Sherilyn literally does not move her feet. For 10 minutes. This is Damn Unnatural. You expect her to take a step forward for her stare down. Nope. "Something's Wrong." And then of course we get the 30 second stare from Charlie at the end. Is he even breathing (yes, but that's it). I've come around to appreciate what Fenn gave, considering the restraints/constraints she was under.

And the other stuff just adds to it. The odd open panning shot. His desk directly in front of the only apparent doors. His impossible paper load. The piles of paper requiring numerous paperweights. The fireplace a little reminiscent of American Girl's fireplace.

Is it a dream? Coma? Trip to the black lodge? Hell, I don't know. It is something, and something I now want to come back to watch.

Regarding the Coma and current events (Billy): if people are visiting and talking around bedside, say the orderlies and nurses gossiping, it can get into conscience. Or maybe it is just an overnight dream. Or an Evil Cooper induced event. Or, Black Lodge Logic.

Then again, maybe it is just a shitty scene jammed in at the last minute by a P.O.'d director and actor. I don't know, but I will stay tuned to find out.

I've warmed to it a lot too. You know, with this new series, I often warm to it in retrospect - i.e. I enjoy thinking back on it, analysing, discussing it on here, but I still find I don't often enjoy the episodes very much (apart from a few scenes) while I'm watching them. I still haven't rewatched this series (as I've been rewatching the original one), but I had to rewatch Part 12 due to quality issues the first time I watched it. I think I might enjoy the new series more on a rewatch. I'm still mixed on it overall though, at the moment.
Rami Airola
Posts: 233
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:31 am

Re: Part 12 - Let's rock (SPOILERS)

Postby Rami Airola » Mon Jul 31, 2017 5:46 pm

AgentEcho wrote:I'm seeing a lot of comments that people pointing out that this is intentional shaggy-dog storytelling are "justifying" or just can't admit Lynch can make a mistake. I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. I certainly can't blame people for not liking it... I mean it wouldn't be fulfilling it's purpose if it didn't piss some people off. But if you're not seeing that Lynch is intentionally toying with expectations with the series you just aren't paying attention at this point. It's been constant throughout the show, but if it was only an interpretation before this episode, it should be unambiguously apparent now. There is literally no other reason for the scene to play out like it did, including the Jacoby segue, other than f***ing with the legion of fans who had demands and expectations tied to Audrey role in the new series, or for matter fans who had any expectations or demands story wise for the new series at all.


Even if this was all intentional playing with expectations, it still doesn't make the scenes be any better than what they are.
This kind of motivation does not make bad scene a good scene. Saying these scenes are playing with expectations don't actually say anything about the content of the scenes. It just says something about people watching the show, and not about the scene.

That in itself cannot be any kind of positive criticism towards a television show because it doesn't actually say anything about the quality of the show.

I think that toying with expectations can and should be done by making the unexpected still be interesting for the viewer. If it's not interesting, people are absolutely in the right to call it bad television. Some meta level motivations can't counter people's criticism about the content itself. Of course, there are viewers who feel this approach is what makes it interesting and that's fair. But still I think that if someone complains about the actual content and how it was done, countering it by trying to find some meta layers and intentions isn't a working as an argument against the criticism.

It is very much possible to make a long and slow scene with people talking nonsense interesting. It has been already proved in this show before. But not every scene with that style are necessarily as interesting. Sometimes things just fall flat no matter what the intentions are.
User avatar
The Gazebo
Posts: 279
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2017 3:34 pm

Re: Part 12 - Let's rock (SPOILERS)

Postby The Gazebo » Mon Jul 31, 2017 5:49 pm

Jonah wrote:Do you mean the one with him standing by the statue and the security guard? I just checked and it seems to be a couple of minutes.


Oh sorry, I meant that whole indoor scene both upstairs and downstairs after he comes home. Or do you only count one scene = one room?
User avatar
Jonah
Posts: 1009
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:39 am

Re: Part 12 - Let's rock (SPOILERS)

Postby Jonah » Mon Jul 31, 2017 5:50 pm

Yeah, like one take (or at least what appears to be one take) where there's no cut or change of location.
User avatar
The Gazebo
Posts: 279
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2017 3:34 pm

Re: Part 12 - Let's rock (SPOILERS)

Postby The Gazebo » Mon Jul 31, 2017 5:52 pm

AudreyHorne wrote:What scene are you talking about? The scene at the beginning of Part 6 with Dougie and the statue takes a bit under 2 minutes :D


I've avoided ep 6 like the plague, so my mind is a bit hazy on this :)
User avatar
Jonah
Posts: 1009
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:39 am

Re: Part 12 - Let's rock (SPOILERS)

Postby Jonah » Mon Jul 31, 2017 5:52 pm

Some pretty wild theories springing up on Reddit (not sure if they've also appeared here?) about Diane maybe being possessed by the LMFAP. Someone posted that the way she says "let's rock" and enters through the red curtains and that we also hear a sound effect in this scene associated with the LMFAP. Not sure what to make of any of these theories (or the Audrey one). But I'm enjoying them. Reminds me of when the LOST theories were in full force.
User avatar
alreadygoneplaces
Posts: 147
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 5:05 pm

Re: Part 12 - Let's rock (SPOILERS)

Postby alreadygoneplaces » Mon Jul 31, 2017 5:59 pm

counterpaul wrote:
Love or hate a scene on its own merits, but how much time it takes up out of the whole is completely irrelevant, except in the sense of you feeling like your own personal time has been wasted. Fair enough on that one. But know that any scene that got cut/shortened would just make the whole TPTR project shorter. Now, you can argue that would be a good thing. That's a matter of taste. The only things I'm arguing against are the claims that (1) there's only X hours left and Lynch is running out of time to tell the story or (2) that Lynch is padding this out to fill a demand for 18 episodes when they only wrote a script for 9. Both of those claims are false.


I'm fully with you re: complaints about a 9 hour script stretched being baseless, but I think the other claim you mentioned is a lot more complex:

(1) there's only X hours left and Lynch is running out of time to tell the story


Sure, it's a given that the final cut will be exactly as Lynch intended, but that doesn't mean how effectively the story is told isn't subjective.

If someone says Lynch is 'running out of time', that doesn't necessarily mean that they picture him being tied to an 18 episode limit, writing it episode by episode, and only towards the end realising he has to rush it or abandon characters or plot lines. Some might think that, but I certainly don't. It's totally valid to watch a 3 hour film, and subjectively feel that it didn't allow enough time to develop its ideas or follow through on everything it set out to do. Saying the director intended it to be precisely that long doesn't really matter, in this instance. This is no different. I still have hope that once the show is finished, it will all feel cohesive (on its own terms- however fragmentary it ends up). But counting the remaining hours and worrying we mightn't end up with something as focussed as we'd hoped isn't unreasonable.

I'm more surprised that you'd say the amount of time a scene takes up out of the whole is irrelevant, given how fluent you obviously are in the cinematic language- how rhythm, pacing, structure etc shape meaning, affect, interpretation. It's these issues that are being unpacked when we use terms like 'running out of time'. I've really enjoyed reading your posts on the forum (reminding me at times of Walter Murch's writing) and I find this view hard to reconcile with others you've expressed... Apologies if I've misunderstood your point here.
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 2895
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

Re: Part 12 - Let's rock (SPOILERS)

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:04 pm

Major Briggs wrote:Guys, something I was wondering. In The Secret History of TP, Tammy comments that the blue rose files are above her level of clearence. Now, in the series timeline, she's officially a Blue Rose agent. So by the series timeline, shouldn't the dossier have already been found by now? I wonder if this is denifite proof that Lynch really couldn't care less about Mark's book.


Well, Mark's book was written after the series script was done, and was released 6 months after shooting wrapped. I like the book a lot, but TP:TR came first; the book was an idea Mark had after the show's story was already set out. Traditionally, it's the job of a tie-in book to fit itself into the TV show's storyline, not vice versa; and given the production timeline, Mark had every opportunity to make the book fit what we see in the show. I think it's a bit unfair to blame DKL for any discrepancies. Why would he alter the story he and Mark spent years writing together to retcon in forced references to a tie-in book? (And I really doubt Mark would have asked him to.)
Last edited by Mr. Reindeer on Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:03 pm, edited 6 times in total.
User avatar
nick1218
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 8:56 am

Re: Part 12 - Let's rock (SPOILERS)

Postby nick1218 » Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:05 pm

Rami Airola wrote:
AgentEcho wrote:I'm seeing a lot of comments that people pointing out that this is intentional shaggy-dog storytelling are "justifying" or just can't admit Lynch can make a mistake. I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. I certainly can't blame people for not liking it... I mean it wouldn't be fulfilling it's purpose if it didn't piss some people off. But if you're not seeing that Lynch is intentionally toying with expectations with the series you just aren't paying attention at this point. It's been constant throughout the show, but if it was only an interpretation before this episode, it should be unambiguously apparent now. There is literally no other reason for the scene to play out like it did, including the Jacoby segue, other than f***ing with the legion of fans who had demands and expectations tied to Audrey role in the new series, or for matter fans who had any expectations or demands story wise for the new series at all.


Even if this was all intentional playing with expectations, it still doesn't make the scenes be any better than what they are.
This kind of motivation does not make bad scene a good scene. Saying these scenes are playing with expectations don't actually say anything about the content of the scenes. It just says something about people watching the show, and not about the scene.

That in itself cannot be any kind of positive criticism towards a television show because it doesn't actually say anything about the quality of the show.

I think that toying with expectations can and should be done by making the unexpected still be interesting for the viewer. If it's not interesting, people are absolutely in the right to call it bad television. Some meta level motivations can't counter people's criticism about the content itself. Of course, there are viewers who feel this approach is what makes it interesting and that's fair. But still I think that if someone complains about the actual content and how it was done, countering it by trying to find some meta layers and intentions isn't a working as an argument against the criticism.

It is very much possible to make a long and slow scene with people talking nonsense interesting. It has been already proved in this show before. But not every scene with that style are necessarily as interesting. Sometimes things just fall flat no matter what the intentions are.


well said
User avatar
garethw
Posts: 436
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:48 pm
Location: Deep River

Re: Part 12 - Let's rock (SPOILERS)

Postby garethw » Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:10 pm

crash_and_burn wrote:
garethw wrote:
crash_and_burn wrote:
It's standard spelling for the short-hand vernacular usage of "Have you got a light?"


But it's not short hand - that was my point.



"Gotta go" = "Got to go". That's a contraction. When people speak, they don't enunciate the word "to".

"Got a light" is exactly how it is written and spoken, so there is no contraction. If it's really meant to mean "got a light", it's wrong.


Well, I know my vernacular and so does the Oxford English Dictionary, so I regretfully need to inform you, that you are wrong.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gotta


The OED documents all kinds of misuses of the English language.

It also contains an entry for "could care less", which is equally illiterate.

You know who is not illiterate? Mark Frost.

Gotta go!
Last edited by garethw on Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Esselgee
Posts: 352
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 9:44 am

Re: Part 12 - Let's rock (SPOILERS)

Postby Esselgee » Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:12 pm

If those Entertainment Weekly covers had featured the actors/characters that had the highest appearance time in TPTR, who would have been on those covers instead of 10 that are actually on there?
User avatar
Jonah
Posts: 1009
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:39 am

Re: Part 12 - Let's rock (SPOILERS)

Postby Jonah » Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:27 pm

Esselgee wrote:If those Entertainment Weekly covers had featured the actors/characters that had the highest appearance time in TPTR, who would have been on those covers instead of 10 that are actually on there?

Kyle McLachlan (only one that's the same)
David Lynch
Miguel Ferrer
Robert Forster
Michael Horse
Naomi Watts
Laura Dern
Kimmy Robertson
Harry Goaz
Chrysta Bell

(Edited based on comment below. I'd originally had Don Murray, Richard Beymer, Jim Belushi, and Robert Knepper on this list.)
Last edited by Jonah on Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:49 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 2895
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

Re: Part 12 - Let's rock (SPOILERS)

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:32 pm

Esselgee wrote:If those Entertainment Weekly covers had featured the actors/characters that had the highest appearance time in TPTR, who would have been on those covers instead of 10 that are actually on there?


Sounds like a question for LostInTheMovies. ;)

My unscientific guesses, in descending order of screentime: Coop, Hawk, Janey-E, Gordon, Albert, Andy, Lucy, Bobby, Dave Macklay, Frank, Tammy, Jacoby, Bushnell, Diane, Richard, the Mitchums, Constance.
User avatar
wxray
Posts: 396
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 5:04 am

Re: Part 12 - Let's rock (SPOILERS)

Postby wxray » Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:43 pm

Albatross jerky ... since 1942.
jerky.JPG
jerky.JPG (9.8 KiB) Viewed 4107 times


Manhattan Project ... since 1942. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project
User avatar
mtwentz
Posts: 1883
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:02 am

Re: Part 12 - Let's rock (SPOILERS)

Postby mtwentz » Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:46 pm

Robert Ontkean?
"Dougie is COOPER? How the Hell is this!?"

Return to “Parts Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests