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

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

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

thedarktrees
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2016 6:30 pm

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

Post by thedarktrees »

somevelvetmorning wrote:So we have a woodsman that looks like he has recently been bleeding from his mouth and then we have this weird guy in the jail cell.

Just a coincidence?
Not sure I see the similarty -- but more than that, I really don't see WHY we would or should want to see a similarity. Not to take away from any of the discussions that people want to have about the show, or to say that it needs to be viewed in any particular way, but I really, really don't understand that massive rush of interpretation that tries to find parallels and equivalences between different scenes -- and then try to assume that that has cracked some code that the viewer is supposed to solve. I sort of get why and how that can be fun (that's the basic form of pop narrative puzzle solving popularized by the DaVinci Code and stuff like that, which pulls more generally from internet conspiracy theory-style associational argumentation).

But how and when has Twin Peaks ever suggested that we're supposed to look at its story and scenes in this way? Sure, filmmakers invoke parallels all the time, and sometimes for more and less specific purposes (aesthetic, narrative, etc). But I really don't understand how and why fan theorizing around Twin Peaks has gone down this path in such a hardcore way. Asking this honestly -- why exactly should we be so desperately hunting for parallels like this?
User avatar
mtwentz
Lodge Member
Posts: 2185
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:02 am

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

Post by mtwentz »

BGate wrote:
mtwentz wrote:
ravingnightmare wrote:15 episodes covered, no Dale Cooper.. Let that sink in for a while.
Not true: Dale Cooper showed up in Parts 1-3 (though no dialogue in Part 3).
Dale Cooper has been in every single episode. And I'm not talking about the Doppelganger.
I think what the OP meant was a self aware Cooper, not the one who believes he is Dougie Jones.

But yes, you are correct.
F*&^ you Gene Kelly
User avatar
sycamore
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 9:41 am

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

Post by sycamore »

BGate wrote:That said, are we supposed to know where those scenes (Evil Coop driving, the Convenience Store) are taking place in the show? Is it Washington?
It's only about 300 miles or less from Western Montana (where The Farm is located) to the area of Washington where a Twin Peaks is supposed to be. Could be anywhere but a reasonable guess would place the Convenience Store closer to Twin Peaks.
vicksvapor77
Great Northern Member
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 11:51 pm

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

Post by vicksvapor77 »

sycamore wrote:
BGate wrote:That said, are we supposed to know where those scenes (Evil Coop driving, the Convenience Store) are taking place in the show? Is it Washington?
It's only about 300 miles or less from Western Montana (where The Farm is located) to the area of Washington where a Twin Peaks is supposed to be. Could be anywhere but a reasonable guess would place the Convenience Store closer to Twin Peaks.
That was my thought as well, probably right on the outskirts of Washington. It's definitely worth noting that the Convenience Store was filmed in WA state.
User avatar
sycamore
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 9:41 am

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

Post by sycamore »

BGate wrote:
sycamore wrote:4th wall or oops?!: Just before arriving at the Convenience Store, as Mr C is driving, he passes a small white road sign. That sign says:
"ENTERING
CITY OF
SNOQUALAMIE"

Why was this exact snippet of video chosen in the editing room? (it's at the 11:30 mark)
Considering that you had to artificially brighten the image in order to be able to (barely) read it, I'm not sure I'd classify it as an oops.
Actually, it's not brightened, just zoomed in (which is giving the image the appearance of brightening). And just to clarify, I'm really not giving this any more weight than 'trivial'. I just thought it was something randomly fascinating to point out.
User avatar
Ashok
Great Northern Member
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2016 10:39 am
Location: Ohio
Contact:

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

Post by Ashok »

Wow sycamore, impressive spreadsheet.
"Whatever happened, happened." -Daniel Faraday
dkenny78
RR Diner Member
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 7:36 am

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

Post by dkenny78 »

As frustrated as I am that the 'real' Cooper has more-or-less been kept from us for the past 10+ episodes, saving his 'return' until the very end does allow them to avoid dealing (too much) with the baggage that comes with a 'man out of time' storyline. If he returned in episode 5 or 6, we'd undoubtedly have scenes of Coop acclimating to modern-day culture, technology, etc., which, entertaining as they could be, would take away from the drama of what Lynch and Frost are trying to achieve. By time Coop does come back, he'll likely be too ensconced in the final battle to deal with this sort of thing and his re-adjustment to society can happen offscreen after the series ends (if he gets a happy ending, that is!).

My personal hope is that Audrey is actually in a coma, wakes up in the last episode, and she and Cooper finally get together as they face a world that they've been absent from for 25 years.
User avatar
sycamore
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 9:41 am

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

Post by sycamore »

Ashok wrote:Wow sycamore, impressive spreadsheet.
thanks. and by the way, anyone who wants to help with the 'unknowns' in the uncredited section at the end can post in the credits thread or message me.
somevelvetmorning
New Member
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 3:15 am

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

Post by somevelvetmorning »

thedarktrees wrote:
somevelvetmorning wrote:So we have a woodsman that looks like he has recently been bleeding from his mouth and then we have this weird guy in the jail cell.

Just a coincidence?
Not sure I see the similarty -- but more than that, I really don't see WHY we would or should want to see a similarity. Not to take away from any of the discussions that people want to have about the show, or to say that it needs to be viewed in any particular way, but I really, really don't understand that massive rush of interpretation that tries to find parallels and equivalences between different scenes -- and then try to assume that that has cracked some code that the viewer is supposed to solve. I sort of get why and how that can be fun (that's the basic form of pop narrative puzzle solving popularized by the DaVinci Code and stuff like that, which pulls more generally from internet conspiracy theory-style associational argumentation).

But how and when has Twin Peaks ever suggested that we're supposed to look at its story and scenes in this way? Sure, filmmakers invoke parallels all the time, and sometimes for more and less specific purposes (aesthetic, narrative, etc). But I really don't understand how and why fan theorizing around Twin Peaks has gone down this path in such a hardcore way. Asking this honestly -- why exactly should we be so desperately hunting for parallels like this?
For me, it has always been maybe not so much about solving a puzzle or cracking a code, as trying to decode the language of David Lynch and trying to understand the bigger picture. Looking at what we are being shown, just as much as at what we are being told. Season 2 left us with tons of questions (though the ending wasn't planned), as did Fire Walk With Me, and my guess is that when this season is over, there will still be a lot of unanswered questions, or at least that's what I hope for since that is what makes the world of Twin Peaks so magical.

To me, a possible connection between a woodsman with blood on his chin and shirt, and a weird person repeating what others say, who also has blood coming out of his mouth, would be pretty significant in understanding the true nature of the woodsmen.
User avatar
Taperecorder
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 7:53 am

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

Post by Taperecorder »

ScarFace32 wrote:It's funny that probably the two most successful actors on the show (Tim Roth & Jennifer Jason Leigh) are the worst. I honestly hate both of them now.
I actually really love them now! At first I thought they were just ok. Now though, I almost feel bad about how much I like them (on account of what they do).

Although I am still thrown off by how bad the CGI was when Chantal was doing her hit job. What was the point of making it look so bad?
-
As above, so below.
-
Manwith
RR Diner Member
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:04 pm

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

Post by Manwith »

Taperecorder wrote:
ScarFace32 wrote:It's funny that probably the two most successful actors on the show (Tim Roth & Jennifer Jason Leigh) are the worst. I honestly hate both of them now.
I actually really love them now! At first I thought they were just ok. Now though, I almost feel bad about how much I like them (on account of what they do).

Although I am still thrown off by how bad the CGI was when Chantal was doing her hit job. What was the point of making it look so bad?
Lynch might be trying to intentionally remind you that you are watching a TV show. I don't know *why* he is doing that, but similarly when he had the guy sweeping for a minute and a half the intent to me seemed to be to make the audience go *WTF, why is Lynch doing this to us* and remind us we are watching a TV show.
Manwith
RR Diner Member
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:04 pm

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

Post by Manwith »

Another example of trolling the viewer and reminding them they are watching a TV show, from Keith Uhlich's writeup:
"Get Gordon Cole," says DeMille, referring to the property master played by an uncredited Bert Moorhouse in Wilder's film, and also, extra-narratively, to Cooper's own boss, played by Lynch himself. That's the memory cue Dougie needs, and he's soon crawling on the floor toward an electrical outlet into which he sticks the non-pronged end of a fork. Janey-E screams as the lights flicker and Cooper/Dougie collapses. This seemingly fulfills the implied prophecy of Part 3 of the new series: Recall that the life-size outlet through which Cooper travels has, at different points, the numbers "3" and "15" above it, likely corresponding to the episodes in which Cooper becomes Dougie and then, here, becomes Cooper again.
User avatar
Taperecorder
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 7:53 am

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

Post by Taperecorder »

Manwith wrote:Another example of trolling the viewer and reminding them they are watching a TV show, from Keith Uhlich's writeup:
"Get Gordon Cole," says DeMille, referring to the property master played by an uncredited Bert Moorhouse in Wilder's film, and also, extra-narratively, to Cooper's own boss, played by Lynch himself. That's the memory cue Dougie needs, and he's soon crawling on the floor toward an electrical outlet into which he sticks the non-pronged end of a fork. Janey-E screams as the lights flicker and Cooper/Dougie collapses. This seemingly fulfills the implied prophecy of Part 3 of the new series: Recall that the life-size outlet through which Cooper travels has, at different points, the numbers "3" and "15" above it, likely corresponding to the episodes in which Cooper becomes Dougie and then, here, becomes Cooper again.
Huh. Huh! I never put the 3 and 15 together like that. Thanks!
-
As above, so below.
-
User avatar
Novalis
RR Diner Member
Posts: 431
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:18 pm

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

Post by Novalis »

thedarktrees wrote:
somevelvetmorning wrote:So we have a woodsman that looks like he has recently been bleeding from his mouth and then we have this weird guy in the jail cell.

Just a coincidence?
Not sure I see the similarty -- but more than that, I really don't see WHY we would or should want to see a similarity. Not to take away from any of the discussions that people want to have about the show, or to say that it needs to be viewed in any particular way, but I really, really don't understand that massive rush of interpretation that tries to find parallels and equivalences between different scenes -- and then try to assume that that has cracked some code that the viewer is supposed to solve.
There's a couple of false premises here as far as I am concerned:
  • that the pointing out of parallels always forms part of an interpretive strategy
  • that the assigning of value or significance to these parallels can be understood as suggesting an authorial intent to communicate something to the audience
I think the first premise -- that there is a 'massive rush of interpretation' involved when drawing parallels between scenes -- is patently false. Sometimes people are just pointing out aesthetic resonances between sequences: how they echo or appear to respond to each other, as one might do when analysing musical structures like call-and-response, or visual rhythm in paintings such as the way two groups of pikesman hold their weapons at similar or complementary angles despite being in positions that cannot see each other. And so on. I don't see anyone attaching cosmic importance to these aesthetic concordances, just describing them in order to appreciate them in a social setting where they can be further noted, inventoried, and discussed.

The second premise -- that commenters believe that there is a pre-existing intent on the part of the director to embed an encoded message which must be cracked by decoding such parallels, is, as far as I can see, also false. I see people noticing equivalences and occasionally supplying confirmation and expanding on them, even -- though rarely -- citing close confidants and interviewers of Lynch like Martha Nochimson on artistic methods of representing Lynch's alleged views on the universal connectedness of consciousness. But as yet I've yet to see people suggesting that we as an audience are supposed, en bloc, to arrive at certain conclusions about the identity of characters, in accordance with the writers' wishes. Sure, there are speculations, but the context clearly marks them up as such, not as definitive declaratives in the form (look at me I solved it!) S is P. There are plenty of suggestions, tagged as such by tantalising questions (e.g. 'just a coincidence?') but no assertoric propositions. Again, these can be read, with very little charity needed, as forms of appreciation of the work, just as the identification of patterns and underlying convergences in any artwork function as interesting ways to describe what is shown or heard. And insofar as these patterns occur with any regularity they do then form a stylisation or formal positivity that is very useful to talk about as it becomes widely recognised as a characteristic of the artist(s) in question, one of the ways to create discourse about them.
thedarktrees wrote: I sort of get why and how that can be fun (that's the basic form of pop narrative puzzle solving popularized by the DaVinci Code and stuff like that, which pulls more generally from internet conspiracy theory-style associational argumentation).

But how and when has Twin Peaks ever suggested that we're supposed to look at its story and scenes in this way? Sure, filmmakers invoke parallels all the time, and sometimes for more and less specific purposes (aesthetic, narrative, etc). But I really don't understand how and why fan theorizing around Twin Peaks has gone down this path in such a hardcore way. Asking this honestly -- why exactly should we be so desperately hunting for parallels like this?
I refer you to what I already wrote: when it becomes obvious that an artist -- be it film director, writer, sculptor or whatever -- uses and reuses various forms it becomes convenient to approach his or her work through those forms. Yes, lots of filmmakers use resemblance and syntactic patterning in their films (and are frequently discussed in these terms). Every filmmaker develops their own 'cinematic language' so to speak. And part of the enjoyment of their works, for me at least, is learning to listen to and spot that language, and to demonstrate some kind of competence with it in a social setting. I don't think anyone here is doing anything different, let alone 'desperately hunting' meaning.

On the question of meaning vs. meaninglessness, there has been a lot of debate which I think misses the point. Mystery, which is something Lynch always highlights as important in his works, depends a great deal on his use of floating signifiers: symbols and sequences and sometimes objects that in themselves mean nothing, but which acquire great significance owing to their location within the overall scheme of things. The obvious example is the classic plot-device or MacGuffin which serves no other purpose than to drive characters motivations, such as Rosebud in Citizen Kane. No-one really cares what is it in the end, and the reveal is actually completely anti-climactic: the point is that a floating signifier like this accrues Manna-like meaning because of all the motivations and strivings it can drive. Who killed Laura Palmer was, for the original run at least, something like a MacGuffin or floating signifier; when it was finally (and reluctantly) answered, new floating signifiers had to be invented, like Earle; the Blue Rose was a floating signifier in FWWM, at least for the first half of that film. The Return is literally packed with floating signifiers. These things occupy and infuriate us, not because we truly believe we can uncover some thoroughgoing truth by means of which everything will neatly fall into place, but because they are significant in themselves without, in the end, bearing much in the way of meaningful content. Every time one is demystified and appears in its meaningless banality, every time there is an autopsy on a Teresa Banks figure (who we all wondered about throughout the original run) or an exposition scene about the Blue Rose (which we've all wondered about since FWWM), there has to be a new mystery (e.g. Lois Duffy, the Experiment, etc.) In this kind of climate, in which there is a premium on the preservation of a certain level of mystery, then speculation is absolutely natural and indeed necessary. If people weren't wondering why scene x mirrors scene y, there would be something terribly wrong with this process -- the writing and the art of it would have failed. I don't see any of that activity, however, as representing some frenzied scurrying to iron things out into a simplified, everyday narrative. Maybe there is an element of enthusiasm or interested investment in getting to the next floating signifier, to inventory and collect it, to become further fascinated and fixated, but not in order to explain everything, still less to pin the whole down to a single explanation in which all mystery evaporates. I certainly don't think any of this behaviour and way of consuming (in which I myself am deeply involved) is deeply at odds with the product, and I really can't see what harm it does or how it intrudes on anyone else's enjoyment.

Finally, I have to ask -- what's the alternative? How would you have us enjoy it?
Last edited by Novalis on Wed Aug 23, 2017 12:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
As a matter of fact, 'Chalfont' was the name of the people that rented this space before. Two Chalfonts. Weird, huh?
User avatar
Methedrome
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 12:40 pm

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

Post by Methedrome »

As I mentioned in the theories and speculation thread, I am predicting the last episode will have the real Cooper used as a vehicle that will tie all these plot lines, characters, etc. together through a series of shots and clips a la the back half of Mulholland Drive.
Post Reply