Part 15 - There's some fear in letting go (SPOILERS)

[Jacob]

Oh come on ! That's not a brief mention, that's THE mention of the scene, about someone who won't stop BANGING at the door ! It's not brief, it's something omnipresent from the beginning to the end of the scene. She's EVERYWHERE.

We don't have any idea what the Mother is in first viewing that part though. At the time the American Girl's statement is cryptic nonsense we can't make sense of. It's not something that hangs over the proceedings IMO until part 8 helps bring it somewhat into focus. We're projecting our own persona lnterpretation onto it even now by calling it "Mother", as the poster above says. But we have no ownership over the true nature of this creature or its potential arc significance, because even now we barely comprehend it.

But we don't need to know what the Mother is at this point (after Part 3) to understand she's introduced as a big threat ! That's all I'm saying.

I'm not - I'm saying you were apparently expecting it to play regularly on the show like a creature on Lost or whatever, but Lynch is evidently not into doing that. That doesn't mean he's wrong, it just means he made a different choice than what you would prefer. For me, the creeping hints of the Mother that we've had are more than enough given all the other horrors or antagonists seen thus far (Evil Coop, the Woodsmen, the sick folks in Twin Peaks, Richard, the occasional hint of BOB).

What makes you think I wanted Mother to be used like a creature on Lost ?! It's you that are applying narrative framework and are projecting your own persona interpretation !
I just said that I was disappointed that when we see Mother, it's with old footages ! I think it would have been better in Part 14 that Andy saw something else than Parts 1+8 footages, since the goal was to show that Naido was chased by Mother. I never said : oh, I wish Mother had taken human form on earth and was killing people on Twin Peaks. I wouldn't watch this show in the first place if I was.

[claaa7]

So I guess the theory that the scene of Hawk at Glastonbury Grove in ep 1 takes place In the future is debunked now. He was on the phone with Margaret.

I never understood why that theory was so strong. I know people thought it was strange that Hawk didn't mention it (onscreen anyway) to anyone, but I didn't find it that strange. I've been very critical of some of the narrative choices made in the new series, and you could chalk this down to being of the same ilk, but I never thought that particular oversight was a big deal. After all, he just saw a glimpse of the curtains and could have put it down to his imagination. Or it's possible a lot of people are aware of the curtains being there anyway. Harry saw them in Episode 29 - and saw Cooper's doppleganger and Annie emerge from them, so no doubt Frank and others would have heard about it too. So I didn't find it too peculiar that that scene of Hawk seeing them wasn't followed up on.

what i found strange about that scene was not so much the lack of mentioning of the curtains (which could easily happen off screen) but that Hawk suddenly was out in Glastonberry Grove in the middle of the night, searching for something that was supposed to happen there that night.. and also something that Margaret knew about and had relayed to him ("you're log and I are on the same page tonight...") + that the scene played on the fact that there would be a follow-up scene at Margaret's cabin where Hawk would tell her about his findings. but oh well...

[Madeleine Ferguson]

Too bad about the Jeffries date mixup. More TP date problems...

It is actually correct, the last time Cooper saw Jeffries was in 1989. In the original script for FWWM that scene takes place after the "one year later" point and after we have been introduced to Twin Peaks and Laura Palmer. So I assume that is when it was originally meant to take place, but in editing they decided to move the scene to the 1988-part of the film...

[Jonah]

So I guess the theory that the scene of Hawk at Glastonbury Grove in ep 1 takes place In the future is debunked now. He was on the phone with Margaret.

I never understood why that theory was so strong. I know people thought it was strange that Hawk didn't mention it (onscreen anyway) to anyone, but I didn't find it that strange. I've been very critical of some of the narrative choices made in the new series, and you could chalk this down to being of the same ilk, but I never thought that particular oversight was a big deal. After all, he just saw a glimpse of the curtains and could have put it down to his imagination. Or it's possible a lot of people are aware of the curtains being there anyway. Harry saw them in Episode 29 - and saw Cooper's doppleganger and Annie emerge from them, so no doubt Frank and others would have heard about it too. So I didn't find it too peculiar that that scene of Hawk seeing them wasn't followed up on.

what i found strange about that scene was not so much the lack of mentioning of the curtains (which could easily happen off screen) but that Hawk suddenly was out in Glastonberry Grove in the middle of the night, searching for something that was supposed to happen there that night.. and also something that Margaret knew about and had relayed to him ("you're log and I are on the same page tonight...") + that the scene played on the fact that there would be a follow-up scene at Margaret's cabin where Hawk would tell her about his findings. but oh well...

There's been a lot of examples of that this season I think. Things being build up and never paying off - or paying off strangely or in an underwhelming way. The whole Indian heritage mystery turned out to be a coin and bathroom door. The whole Jacoby shovel thing turned out to him only being on an informercial. A lot of bizarre choices. Was the "there's fire where you're going" thing ever followed up on properly either?

[Xavi]

Didn't read the whole thread, so maybe this has already been mentioned, sorry beforehand. Anyway, Audrey really seems to suffer from what they used to call a "locked-in syndrome."

What do I remember from Sunset Blvd? Well, that factually it was a story told by a dead person. Talking of such, this episode 15 ( 7 + 8 ) represented love and death to the extreme. And did you notice that Jeffreys "lived" at number 8.

[Mr. Reindeer]

I''m hoping to get a better idea of why recasting is considered such a no-no. Especially in Bowie's case. I'm really, really surprised not have seen anyone share my wish that Jeffries had been recast. I also would have loved a recast old woman and grandson. Although I guess that still could happen, however doubtful.

Speaking for myself, recasts pull me out of the world and make suspension of disbelief more difficult. Film is a visual medium, the visuals should reflect a believable reality. Like poor special effects, a character suddenly looking totally different reveals a distracting crack in the reality. I can look past it, it's not a deal-breaker for me. But I prefer it when creators avoid them.

Besides that, so much of what we love about these characters comes from the performer's presence. Coop aside, pretty much all the characters on the original show -- Harry, Ben, Ed, Pete -- are essentially archetypes, not the type of complex, fleshed-out characters you see on some other premium cable dramas. What makes them memorable and fascinating all these years later are the tics and choices those specific actors bring to them. I can't imagine why I would want to see anyone else playing those roles; it wouldn't even be the same character. Using Harry as an example: the only reason I gave a damn about his friendship with Coop is the unbelievable chemistry MacLachlan and Ontkean had. Simply slotting Forster into the role wouldn't have worked, gifted as he is. Harry honestly isn't that specific a character on the page. Only Ontkean can bring the guy we knew in the original series to life. Forster would have been a different "strong silent type" sheriff who happens to have the same name. The resonance to the prior friendship with Coop wouldn't be there. We're much better off letting Forster create his own version of that type of character without the baggage of trying to imitate or pay tribute to someone else's performance. I truly believe DKL feels this way as well, since he has avoided recasts whenever possible, and often seems to equate the character with the actor (e.g., using the characters' names on set, writing characters for specific actors like Frank Silva and Catherine Coulson, and in several places blurring the line between character and actor -- Doc Hayward living in Middlebury where Warren Frost was living, incorporating David Patrick Kelly's Deadhead look into the character by making Jerry a stoner, giving Sarah Palmer creepy material that feels less like a natural evolution of the original character than a progression of the DKL/Zabriskie working relationship post-Peaks).

I do think there's a bit more leeway with Lodge entities, and they might well shift appearances or "evolve." However, I find it much more thrilling to see DKL using what others might view as a limitation or unfortunate circumstance to create something weird and memorable like the Evolution of the Arm. I find that so much cooler than doing the predictable/easy thing and casting a lookalike little person.

In the case of Jeffries, a big part of the character's appeal, and the reason he endures in the collective fan consciousness despite his very limited screentime in FWWM, is the fun of the fact that he is played by an incredible musician/celebrity that many of us love and admire (doing an absurd dialect). Now, I can anticipate your reply: another huge part of the character's appeal is his mystique, the mysterious circumstances surrounding his brief reappearance, and his links to the mythology. And I understand that you want to see those aspects of the story explored. But we ARE getting that. DKL is having his cake and eating it too by delving into the mystery of Jeffries without having to deal with the baggage that comes from recasting a role that was played memorably by a major major star. I really can't comprehend why you would prefer a lookalike doing an impression over the twisted, visual solution DKL came up with. I love the fact that Jeffries's time in the spirit world has robbed him of his humanity and turned him into....something else. It adds another layer of otherworldiness to the character. Honestly, as much as I wanted to see Bowie again, the more I thnk about it, I find this approach to the scene MORE effective than if Jeffries had just been talking to Coop in corporeal form.

[douglasb]

I never understood why that theory was so strong. I know people thought it was strange that Hawk didn't mention it (onscreen anyway) to anyone, but I didn't find it that strange. I've been very critical of some of the narrative choices made in the new series, and you could chalk this down to being of the same ilk, but I never thought that particular oversight was a big deal. After all, he just saw a glimpse of the curtains and could have put it down to his imagination. Or it's possible a lot of people are aware of the curtains being there anyway. Harry saw them in Episode 29 - and saw Cooper's doppleganger and Annie emerge from them, so no doubt Frank and others would have heard about it too. So I didn't find it too peculiar that that scene of Hawk seeing them wasn't followed up on.

what i found strange about that scene was not so much the lack of mentioning of the curtains (which could easily happen off screen) but that Hawk suddenly was out in Glastonberry Grove in the middle of the night, searching for something that was supposed to happen there that night.. and also something that Margaret knew about and had relayed to him ("you're log and I are on the same page tonight...") + that the scene played on the fact that there would be a follow-up scene at Margaret's cabin where Hawk would tell her about his findings. but oh well...

There's been a lot of examples of that this season I think. Things being build up and never paying off - or paying off strangely or in an underwhelming way. The whole Indian heritage mystery turned out to be a coin and bathroom door. The whole Jacoby shovel thing turned out to him only being on an informercial. A lot of bizarre choices. Was the "there's fire where you're going" thing ever followed up on properly either?

The slightly odd thing about the Log Lady scenes is that they - to a greater or lesser extent - just seemed to duplicate themselves. Her very first appearance felt very much like a farewell. This episode ramped up the feels but what did it actually add?

[Ross]

Too bad about the Jeffries date mixup. More TP date problems...

It is actually correct, the last time Cooper saw Jeffries was in 1989. In the original script for FWWM that scene takes place after the "one year later" point and after we have been introduced to Twin Peaks and Laura Palmer. So I assume that is when it was originally meant to take place, but in editing they decided to move the scene to the 1988-part of the film...

I know that the scene takes place in 89 in the script. But in the movie it takes place in 88 when Desmond disappears during the Banks investigation. Certainly the final movie is more canon than the script?

[Wonderful & Strange]

I'm always amazed when people tell Lynch what would be the "proper" thing to do. It sounds like people have been reading a dusty book on etiquette.

[Novalis]

My biggest question after this episode is this: why was Sheriff Truman sitting alone in the dark in the conference room staring at an image of a fish on his laptop screen and gently stroking the keyboard?

[mickeyfickey]

I never understood why that theory was so strong. I know people thought it was strange that Hawk didn't mention it (onscreen anyway) to anyone, but I didn't find it that strange. I've been very critical of some of the narrative choices made in the new series, and you could chalk this down to being of the same ilk, but I never thought that particular oversight was a big deal. After all, he just saw a glimpse of the curtains and could have put it down to his imagination. Or it's possible a lot of people are aware of the curtains being there anyway. Harry saw them in Episode 29 - and saw Cooper's doppleganger and Annie emerge from them, so no doubt Frank and others would have heard about it too. So I didn't find it too peculiar that that scene of Hawk seeing them wasn't followed up on.

what i found strange about that scene was not so much the lack of mentioning of the curtains (which could easily happen off screen) but that Hawk suddenly was out in Glastonberry Grove in the middle of the night, searching for something that was supposed to happen there that night.. and also something that Margaret knew about and had relayed to him ("you're log and I are on the same page tonight...") + that the scene played on the fact that there would be a follow-up scene at Margaret's cabin where Hawk would tell her about his findings. but oh well...

There's been a lot of examples of that this season I think. Things being build up and never paying off - or paying off strangely or in an underwhelming way. The whole Indian heritage mystery turned out to be a coin and bathroom door. The whole Jacoby shovel thing turned out to him only being on an informercial. A lot of bizarre choices. Was the "there's fire where you're going" thing ever followed up on properly either?

I don't think we've seen the last of the shovels from a payoff standpoint.

[mickeyfickey]

My biggest question after this episode is this: why was Sheriff Truman sitting alone in the dark in the conference room staring at an image of a fish on his laptop screen and gently stroking the keyboard?

If you magnify and zoom in on his reflection by 430 percent you will see something amazing!!!

[Deep Thought]

My biggest question after this episode is this: why was Sheriff Truman sitting alone in the dark in the conference room staring at an image of a fish on his laptop screen and gently stroking the keyboard?

Two fish. The third piece of Briggs' message. K743/FISH/FISH/FI

[LateReg]

What a lovely scene with Ed and Norma. I so often brace myself for the worst on this show! First when I saw Nadine purposefully striding toward the gas station, shovel in hand, I thought oh crap, she's about to kill Ed! Does she still have super-strength? Then when Norma seemingly brushed off Ed to talk to Walter, I was also bracing myself for the worst: maybe Walter was going to propose and Norma was going to accept, or maybe just as Norma was about to tell Walter off, Ed was gonna sock him and Norma would recoil from Ed. It was extremely cathartic for me when none of that happened, and instead we saw Norma's hands reaching into the frame for Ed, eyes closed, and he begins to smile.

(Also, I hope this ends speculation that Ed is possessed because his reflection moved by itself for a fraction of a second)

I know you don't like extreme speculation so let me just say neither do I. But what that scene seemed to me was that Big Ed practically closed his eyes and willed Norma into his arms. I think it's probably "real" but at the same time that was where my mind went, that it was so perfect and dreamlike. All in all, one of Lynch's greatest scenes.

[alreadygoneplaces]

.. on recasting ..

Thanks for the post which helps highlight the complexities of these issues. Your anti-recast stance certainly makes a lot of sense, though perhaps one of the reasons I remain more open to them is I seem to attach far less importance to consistency/continuity between S1/2, FWWM and The Return, and that's an entirely personal thing. For instance, I couldn't have accepted Moira Kelly as Donna if the change had happened halfway through S2, but it wasn't an issue for me in FWWM- I saw it as a (relatively) clean slate where these things can happen. It felt strange in the first scene, but I got used to it very quickly (and ultimately thought the Donna character actually seemed to make more sense when played by Kelly). That's still an extreme example- it seems more reasonable that when starting up again after all this time, that a 25 year old cameo could be recast without rocking the boat.

On the whole, I look at it on a case by case basis... on Truman, I think they made the right call, for all the reasons you discussed. On MfAP- yes, it was probably the right decision to evolve the form- I definitely wouldn't have recast another little person*. I deliberately stayed well clear of all promo material/interviews etc leading up to the Return, wanting to go in fresh, and I didn't know MJA wasn't going to be appearing until after the premiere. I remember beforehand wondering if it would be better without MfAP and the Giant, since I thought it would feel jarring for those characters to have aged. Struycken is so perfect in his role this time around, however, I'm now just pretending in my mind that this is how he always looked.

*Perhaps controversial, but I actually think that MJA's performance as MfAP and how much he brought to the role deflects attention away from a questionable conceptual decision on the part of the creators

But Jeffries... the Bowie thing is the big one. Some people see the Bowie-factor as all the more reason why he can't be recast, where I see the complete opposite, to the point where I'm actually finding it hard to think of a character more re-castable in all TV history. If I can repurpose one of your quotes... Like poor special effects, a character being David Bowie reveals a distracting crack in the reality. I can look past it, it's not a deal-breaker for me. The cameo in FWWM worked, the scene was explosive, but to me it was excellent in spite of it being Bowie, rather than because of it. He played his part well, but while, say, Ontkean might be iconic as Harry, Bowie could never be iconic as Philip Jeffries, he is iconic as David Bowie- we had to make that leap to accept him in this role in the first place.

I really can't comprehend why you would prefer a lookalike doing an impression over the twisted, visual solution DKL came up with.

That's the thing, I never said I'd prefer a lookalike doing an impression. I would have rather they'd just cut their losses on Bowie and treated the Jeffries character as a blank slate. Give him a southern accent if you want. I was more interested in the potential of the character than the image of David Bowie. I suppose the ideas I had in mind about where they could have gone with it are my problem, but the final outcome feels unsatisfying by comparison. And we still did get an audio impersonation, after all.

I love the fact that Jeffries's time in the spirit world has robbed him of his humanity and turned him into....something else. It adds another layer of otherworldiness to the character. Honestly, as much as I wanted to see Bowie again, the more I thnk about it, I find this approach to the scene MORE effective than if Jeffries had just been talking to Coop in corporeal form.

Fair enough. I certainly didn't hate this integration of Jeffries- this is just one of the areas I'd gotten my hopes up high after the early phone call to Cooper in E2. Seeing a lot more of Jeffries would have been wonderful, and it feels like we were probably meant to have done. For what it's worth, I would have gone for Peter Weller for a recast Jeffries...

Film is a visual medium

This doesn't detract from the point you were making, but still have a pedantic reflex response to this statement which (as a soundie) rubs me the wrong way. Audiovisual medium!