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 »

Novalis wrote:
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.

(snip)

Finally, I have to ask -- what's the alternative? How would you have us enjoy it?
I wasn’t claiming that EVERYONE is doing this, or even all doing it in the same way, with the exact same language, or intensity, or whatever — so I’m not sure why you feel the need to insist that NO ONE is doing this. I think you’re mischaracterizing what I’m saying in the first premise.

But yeah, I really do think that this way of reading resemblances between scenes in TP is out there as this way that people are trying to read the show. And reading these forums over the course of the show, I’ve seen plenty of resemblances and equivalences pointed out, and often with some level of conclusion implied in it. And I guess the ones that stuck out as odd to me were the ones that really seemed to “iron things out into a simplified, everyday narrative” (which is a really good way of putting it).

Off the top of my head, some of the kinds of parallels noted, and the conclusions suggested, on this board have included:

-Sarah Palmer’s sweater is black & white + the Lodge floor is black & white = is Sarah Bob?

-Diane has black and white nail polish + the Black Lodge has black & white floors = is Diane from the Black Lodge?

-Coop was captivated by red shoes + Audrey once wore red shoes = Audrey will wake Coop up (ok, this one I think had something to it at the time)

-the French woman was moving weirdly + Lil in FWWM moved weirdly = the French woman is a secret FBI code to Albert

-Sonny Jim blinked slowly for a split second in one scene + beings in the Black Lodge blink oddly = Sonny Jim is from the Black Lodge

-Candie is gesturing in the air when talking to Anthony in the casino + Mike was gesturing in the air in the Black Lodge = is Candie from the Black Lodge?

This is the kind of stuff I find odd. And yeah, fine, these were all claimed with varying degrees of seriousness. And, fine some of these might be coded as “questions”. But the point behind what I’m saying is not really about how ALL people are responding to, or even that they’re claiming any of this with absolute certainty. To say that these are just “questions” is disingenuous semantics. Asking a question IS making a statement, staking a claim, has rhetorical weight. So even if these kinds of “theories” aren’t being claimed in terms of absolutes, this still remains a kind of frame through which, it seems, a lot of people are trying to process the show. Fine. But when people are pointing out these parallels with the suggestion that they’re hints, that are ultimately to explain or solve, is what I find interesting, but also really confusing.

And I’m curious why that is. And I’m curious partly because these kinds of observations about the show really make no sense to me in terms of Twin Peaks’ story-telling, cinematography, and so on. I don’t necessarily think it’s wrong — though some fan theories are beyond ridiculous (the all-time winner still being: the scientist in the glass box photo is Charlie standing on Audrey’s shoulders!) But I’ve just never gotten the sense that Twin Peaks has ever been a show that drops hints, or explains, in this way. When it comes down to it, I really do feel like these kinds of parallels are often noted with a kind of reductive conclusion in the mix. That they are to “explain” something, the characters, the mythology, etc.

As you say, this is at some level something with ALL filmmakers, their cinematic language, and so on. Definitely agreed. And of course we should be paying attention to that! Who watches anything by David Lynch and isn’t fascinated by his cinematic language? I love it to pieces, ESPECIALLY in the new Twin Peaks, where we can see so many elements of his work done since the first Twin Peaks being invoked in new ways. A lot of really interesting observations have been made between the new TP and Mulholland Drive, Lost Highway, etc. These are incredibly interesting — and maybe that’s because they speak to effect much more than to explanation. The elements of mystery (and mystery begetting more mystery) I also agree are so significant to this show. But I still don’t think that these things, broadly, is the direction that fan discussion necessarily takes. It doesn’t have to, to be sure.

I’m not trying to suggest there’s a right way to see things — and I said that quite literally. So to try to turn the question back on me (“how would you have us enjoy it?” — I don’t care, do whatever. But I can still ask why.) is weirdly defensive. There are plenty of alternative discussions about the show, and a lot of those alternatives are represented in the great discussions and observations people make right here on these boards as well.
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 »

Snailhead wrote:When the doppelganger killed Darya, I thought he was extremely cruel & sadistic. Pretty evil to me. And who knows what he did to Diane & Audrey, but it can't have been good.
Which brings up...

if DoppelCoop did violate Audrey, why did he do so?

My theory is that Good Coop always wanted to have a relationship with her, but was barred by his ethical code from doing so. DoppelCoop, having no ethical code, was simply complying with the animalistic desires of Good Coop.
F*&^ you Gene Kelly
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 »

dkenny78 wrote: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.
Exactly. There are lots of TV shows where characters have gone MIA in what feels like a huge "game changing" event. Then the next season, or decades later in a Revival, the characters are magically back --- often reinstated at their old jobs with everything returned to the status quo. It's like the writers just don't know how to deal with the baggage of the character's missing time, so they just hand wave a large period of time away with one or two lines of lazy exposition. Fans end up feeling cheated of character development and things usually end up flying off the rails.

IMHO Dougie Coop pretty much gave Lynch a path to bring back Agent Cooper while avoiding every landmine that has sunk most of Twin Peaks own successors (or predecessors depending on how you want to look at it). It's tricky because if Cooper was TOO different from the Cooper we love, The Return could just feel like bad fan fiction. If he was too similar to the Cooper we knew, it could undercut the mystique of the Season 2 finale and do the franchise a huge disservice. I feel Dougie Coop really hit an wonderful balance of allowing Lynch to continue Cooper's journey in a way that was both very unique and also continuous and respectful of Season 2.
Last edited by Ashok on Wed Aug 23, 2017 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Whatever happened, happened." -Daniel Faraday
Mr. Strawberry
RR Diner Member
Posts: 294
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 10:17 pm

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

Post by Mr. Strawberry »

ravingnightmare wrote:Seeing glimpses of him in his old state of mind does not constitute something like: "we have seen him for the past x number of episodes". Wake up people. Stop accepting whatever is thrown at you. You all know exactly what I mean with my previous statement. Eh, this thread is dedicated for ep 15 so I'll stop ranting.
You want him to regain his memories and sense of self? He'll need his soul returned for that to happen. If he gets it back, perhaps there will be a glimmer of his former self, but it will come with the heavy burden of many heartless years.
User avatar
Nighthawk
RR Diner Member
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 3:49 am

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

Post by Nighthawk »

ravingnightmare wrote:Seeing glimpses of him in his old state of mind does not constitute something like: "we have seen him for the past x number of episodes". Wake up people. Stop accepting whatever is thrown at you. You all know exactly what I mean with my previous statement. Eh, this thread is dedicated for ep 15 so I'll stop ranting.
Criticizing Lynch's artistic choices does not go down too well around here, but of course I know what you are saying. If we were told, prior to season 3, that there would be at least 15 episodes worth of zombie-Cooper, then the audience would fail to turn-up. It was a real creative risk they took with the Dougie plot and I think it could have been handled better. I can see, however, how it wouldn't make sense to bring the old energetic, upbeat, and idiosyncratic Cooper back either. Perhaps having Cooper shifting between the Lodges and the real world, back and forth throughout the season, would have been a better choice. Have him struggle to return for good, but at least give more than fleeting glimpses that his personality is still there.
User avatar
Nighthawk
RR Diner Member
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 3:49 am

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

Post by Nighthawk »

mtwentz wrote:
Snailhead wrote:When the doppelganger killed Darya, I thought he was extremely cruel & sadistic. Pretty evil to me. And who knows what he did to Diane & Audrey, but it can't have been good.
Which brings up...

if DoppelCoop did violate Audrey, why did he do so?

My theory is that Good Coop always wanted to have a relationship with her, but was barred by his ethical code from doing so. DoppelCoop, having no ethical code, was simply complying with the animalistic desires of Good Coop.
I think it was obvious that Good Dale was attracted to Audrey, but that it would be immoral, and perhaps dangerous for him to pursue any intimate relationship. He actually told her the story of how Caroline died while he was supposed to be protecting her. He wasn't going to make the same mistake twice. DoppelCoop obviously would have no such qualms.
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 »

Nighthawk wrote:
mtwentz wrote:
Snailhead wrote:When the doppelganger killed Darya, I thought he was extremely cruel & sadistic. Pretty evil to me. And who knows what he did to Diane & Audrey, but it can't have been good.
Which brings up...

if DoppelCoop did violate Audrey, why did he do so?

My theory is that Good Coop always wanted to have a relationship with her, but was barred by his ethical code from doing so. DoppelCoop, having no ethical code, was simply complying with the animalistic desires of Good Coop.
I think it was obvious that Good Dale was attracted to Audrey, but that it would be immoral, and perhaps dangerous for him to pursue any intimate relationship. He actually told her the story of how Caroline died while he was supposed to be protecting her. He wasn't going to make the same mistake twice. DoppelCoop obviously would have no such qualms.
Yes and agreed, and I guess my point is, was DoppelCoop fulfilling the secret desires of Good Coop? Or was he just violating Audrey to spite Good Coop? I will be curious to know the answer, if one is given.
F*&^ you Gene Kelly
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Lodge Member
Posts: 3680
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

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

Post by Mr. Reindeer »

mtwentz wrote:Yes and agreed, and I guess my point is, was DoppelCoop fulfilling the secret desires of Good Coop? Or was he just violating Audrey to spite Good Coop? I will be curious to know the answer, if one is given.
The former would be most consistent with the Leland/Bob dynamic. Of course the doppelganger potentially changes the dynamic, but I don't think it's as satisfying a story if Mr. C doesn't isn't a manifestation of Coop's own inner darkness.
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 »

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.
Thread! I love that so much.

While some seem in a rush to call this trolling, as if it's about annoying them, or even just as if it's about them in some way, I don't think of it as trolling. It's a well established aesthetic whose subject is the production process, not the consumption cycle. It's one way that art can represent its own production process within the work produced. If it really has to be considered a joke, then if anyone is the butt of that joke it is the figure of the artist, not the consumer/viewer. This sort of Schlegelian - Tieckian romantic irony predates the internet by at least two hundred years (much longer if you stretch the definition). It's poetic, in a deep sense of the word.

Of course, this is just my view. If people want to feel that it's all about trolling them, that's their view and they are perfectly entitled to it.
As a matter of fact, 'Chalfont' was the name of the people that rented this space before. Two Chalfonts. Weird, huh?
User avatar
Ragnell
RR Diner Member
Posts: 338
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 5:50 am

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

Post by Ragnell »

Mr. Reindeer wrote:
mtwentz wrote:Yes and agreed, and I guess my point is, was DoppelCoop fulfilling the secret desires of Good Coop? Or was he just violating Audrey to spite Good Coop? I will be curious to know the answer, if one is given.
The former would be most consistent with the Leland/Bob dynamic. Of course the doppelganger potentially changes the dynamic, but I don't think it's as satisfying a story if Mr. C doesn't isn't a manifestation of Coop's own inner darkness.
Yeah. It seems to be an example of how Doppelcoop lacks the empathy and conscience of Cooper. Because even though Caroline was a factor, the real reason Cooper turned away Audrey was because she was a confused young girl and he felt he'd be taking advantage of her emotional vulnerability. She needed a friend more than she needed a sexual partner.

Doppelcoop lacks the ability to care about how his actions affect Audrey. End result? Look how messed up Audrey is now. Look at the son she has.

And honestly... My mind is just rejecting any suggestion Good Coop or Fully Merged Coop stay with Audrey if it turns out Doppelcoop is Richard's dad. It is way too uncomfortable for me, especially with the way identity is being explored. Doppelcoop has done way more damage to Audrey than Dougie did to Janey-E. This is not a neglected role Dale can fix by filling it properly, this is a ln act against someone's personal agency. A romantic or sexual relationship runs the risk of further traumatizing her. He stayed away before because she wasn't emotionally mature enough, I can't respect him going for it now.

And honestly, with his own trauma I don't think it'd be healthy for him. I think he's more likely to stay with Janey-E because the problem with Dougie was neglect, something Cooper can make up for in exchange for the emotional and domestic support Janey-E is used to providing. Or he goes to find Annie, who seems to have avoided Doppelcoop.

I don't think Good Dale should be held responsible or sent to jail for the Doppelganger's actions but I do think he has to and will respect the damage that was done, healing it where he can or at least not making it worse.
FredMadison
New Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon May 22, 2017 2:53 pm

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

Post by FredMadison »

I don’t know what I’m reaching for here. Just some thoughts. Triggered by this episode in particular.

What if the message of “the return” is simply: with all good removed from Cooper, we have “Evil Cooper” and conversely, with all evil removed from Cooper, we have “Dougie”. Both characters seem childlike in their ways. Unbalanced and insecure, certainly. Lost. What if the dreamer is Cooper (the balanced version of him) in the sense that he sees himself separated this way. A forced self-examination of sorts? Maybe this is a bit too obvious of an answer?

There are so many storylines and character arcs that seem parallel — storylines that all involve “twins” of sorts. Repetition. Brief glitches that reveal this. Storylines described as unlikable family connections. Uncles, sisters, brothers. People seemingly dreaming up realities or living in nightmares.

Within this “split view” of himself, perhaps the other characters in Cooper’s dream are therefore also split into crude caricatures. Naive or evil. The ones who seem to have their shit more together are certain law enforcement people. Is that simply because they’re impartial or somehow stronger or perhaps more morally driven? We also see splits and cracks in these characters of course.

Is “the return” simply about the "true character" of Cooper coming together?
FredMadison
New Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon May 22, 2017 2:53 pm

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

Post by FredMadison »

FredMadison wrote:I don’t know what I’m reaching for here. Just some thoughts. Triggered by this episode in particular.

What if the message of “the return” is simply: with all good removed from Cooper, we have “Evil Cooper” and conversely, with all evil removed from Cooper, we have “Dougie”. Both characters seem childlike in their ways. Unbalanced and insecure, certainly. Lost. What if the dreamer is Cooper (the balanced version of him) in the sense that he sees himself separated this way. A forced self-examination of sorts? Maybe this is a bit too obvious of an answer?

There are so many storylines and character arcs that seem parallel — storylines that all involve “twins” of sorts. Repetition. Brief glitches that reveal this. Storylines described as unlikable family connections. Uncles, sisters, brothers. People seemingly dreaming up realities or living in nightmares.

Within this “split view” of himself, perhaps the other characters in Cooper’s dream are therefore also split into crude caricatures. Naive or evil. The ones who seem to have their shit more together are certain law enforcement people. Is that simply because they’re impartial or somehow stronger or perhaps more morally driven? We also see splits and cracks in these characters of course.

Is “the return” simply about the "true character" of Cooper coming together?
And extending on that, are either Coopers's interactions with others simply in the context or capacity of that specific character? With Evil Coop everything is misery and no hope for any kind of way "out". A criminal on the run, always looking over his shoulder, with nobody to trust. If Evil Coop contacts Diane via text messages is that just what it looks like to Normal Cooper in his messed up "self-examination" dream? In the old series it was Good Coop talking to Good Diane, presumably. Are we just seeing what Evil Coop talking to Evil Diane is in this case?
whoisalhedges
RR Diner Member
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2017 6:09 pm

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

Post by whoisalhedges »

Mr. Reindeer wrote:
mtwentz wrote:Yes and agreed, and I guess my point is, was DoppelCoop fulfilling the secret desires of Good Coop? Or was he just violating Audrey to spite Good Coop? I will be curious to know the answer, if one is given.
The former would be most consistent with the Leland/Bob dynamic. Of course the doppelganger potentially changes the dynamic, but I don't think it's as satisfying a story if Mr. C doesn't isn't a manifestation of Coop's own inner darkness.
Exactly.

At first I was hostile to the notion of Shit Dale being Richard's father - precisely because in TPTR, DoppelCoop has always been so purposeful and deliberate in his actions. He doesn't seem to be one who would act out of animal lust; and he didn't seem to have a reason to destroy Audrey. Hell, if she was in a coma, if nobody even knew what happened (I imagine, even now - the Sheriff and Chief Deputy are talking about Cooper, and NOT talking about arresting him for rape - everyone probably assumes Richard is JJW's) there wouldn't even be any garmonbozia to collect!

But this is now. We remember episode 29. DoppelCoop is in charge now, but BOB was in charge then. And though, yes, he liked his garmonbozia, he DID act out of animal lust.

I suppose we shall see.
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Lodge Member
Posts: 3680
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

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

Post by Mr. Reindeer »

whoisalhedges wrote:At first I was hostile to the notion of Shit Dale being Richard's father - precisely because in TPTR, DoppelCoop has always been so purposeful and deliberate in his actions. He doesn't seem to be one who would act out of animal lust; and he didn't seem to have a reason to destroy Audrey. Hell, if she was in a coma, if nobody even knew what happened (I imagine, even now - the Sheriff and Chief Deputy are talking about Cooper, and NOT talking about arresting him for rape - everyone probably assumes Richard is JJW's) there wouldn't even be any garmonbozia to collect!

But this is now. We remember episode 29. DoppelCoop is in charge now, but BOB was in charge then. And though, yes, he liked his garmonbozia, he DID act out of animal lust.

I suppose we shall see.
Yeh, DKL has consciously placed reused footage of giddy Episode 29 doppelCoop alongside the more dour 2017 version, so he has presumably thought about the transformation. It definitely fits with the series' themes of aging, but a lot of this thematic stuff (Coop's duality, death and aging) has been pretty between the lines this far.
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 »

speedbeatz wrote:Question: now that we've been shown pieces of it, is it safe to assume the entire Jeffries scene from the Missing Pieces is relevant/"canon" to the series?
If so, shouldn't we be taking "at Judy's, in Seattle" into account when speculating about who Judy might be?
I am still hoping JJL/Chantal turns out to be Judy. I am probably so far from the mark but she's the only one who makes sense in my head. So far.
-
As above, so below.
-
Post Reply