Season 4? Or is it over after this?

General discussion on Twin Peaks not related to the series, film, books, music, photos, or collectors merchandise.

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

User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Lodge Member
Posts: 3136
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

Re: Season 4? Or is it over after this?

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Wed Dec 09, 2020 2:46 pm

Again, do Lynch and Scorsese and the rest have some responsibility to broaden their horizons when it comes to casting and even more so the specific types of stories they tell?
I do think these are two very different questions, and to the latter I would resoundingly say no. In fact, it can be very dicey terrain for an artist to try to write about a culture or issue he isn’t informed on. I don’t think he necessarily should be writing explicitly black characters or latinx characters or whatever (I mentioned this a few years ago when this issue was being discussed here, but see Stephen King’s well-intentioned use of black characters in The Shining, The Stand, etc., as a cringeworthy example of how white creators’ efforts to have a more diverse cast can go horribly wrong). I read a rumor that this was what happened to the Robert Johnson movie: that Lynch didn’t feel informed enough about the culture to do it justice (although I don’t know if this is actually true). In any event, the former question is tougher, but I will say it would be refreshing to see Lynch be more “color blind” toward the casting. He always says “the right person for the right role,” and I do believe Woody Allen has said the exact same thing when asked about this. One just wonders if there are “right people” who Lynch and Allen aren’t even considering or seeing because they’ve just decided the character is white from the outset. Lynch has said that a character can come into focus once he sees an actor, so it’s not like his views of the character are 100% set in stone from the get-go. Why should the character’s race be?

EDIT: Just for the sake of curiosity, I checked the episode script to verify that Col. Reilly, one of the few black characters on the original TP, was explicitly scripted as being black. This old-fashioned form of scripting and casting—assuming characters are white unless explicitly scripted as otherwise—just feels so wrongheaded, limiting, and counterintuitive to finding the “right” person. (I’m obviously making an assumption here about how Lynch casts—in fact, we all seem to have accepted that this assumption is correct—but based on the final result, I think it’s a reasonable assumption.)

Just want to add too that it’s always nice when this topic comes up that, despite passionate opinions, the debate never gets toxic or personal. That’s why these boards are among the few communities I really enjoy.
User avatar
Soolsma
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1297
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 12:28 pm
Location: Netherlands

Re: Season 4? Or is it over after this?

Postby Soolsma » Wed Dec 09, 2020 3:03 pm

Can you peeps create a separate thread for this subject? Don't get me wrong and no offense; I think it's an important global topic and it deserves a lot of attention and contemplation. However, when I come here to check for my dose of anticipation for a new Lynch project I don't want to dive head first into this discussion. My facebook feed and the news are already chock full of it.

But indeed, good job on keeping it civil. :)
Carrie Page: "It's a long way... In those days, I was too young to know any better."
LateReg
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1124
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

Re: Season 4? Or is it over after this?

Postby LateReg » Wed Dec 09, 2020 3:31 pm


I don’t believe that great art is in any way sabotaged by introspection. Lynch’s life and thoughts have certainly influenced his work, even as he draws from his subconscious. If he is influenced by the BLM movement to some degree, and starts seriously thinking about why the characters he envisions are almost exclusively white, then that is surely a good thing? Art is an expression of how one relates to the world, and a developing sensibility is an inevitable part of that.

I am wary of people who use the phrase political correctness and complain about diversity, but especially in this instance, when we are not talking about a cynical corporate mandate but the artist’s own inclinations. Was it ‘PC’ when Lynch made Fire Walk With Me, and decided to focus on the inner-life of a female sexual assault victim, rather than continuing to use her as a MacGuffin and a catalyst for the plot?

Good art is generally the product of open and inquisitive minds, and your suggestion that Lynch ignore the world and refuse to broaden his aesthetic seems entirely wrong-headed to me. It is that approach which leads to art becoming “boring, lame, and disappointing”.
I think these are great points that also somewhat simplify what I perceive to be Rhodes' point. Of course, as you say, great art isn't sabotaged by introspection. Quite the opposite, you're totally correct. But in this case, where you talk about the artist's own inclinations, some might make a similar statement to imply that introspection must lead to an evaluation of how he views race, which would then lead to a change in how he draws characters and casts actors that has to do with race. And if he doesn't, then he's somehow failed to progress. That's where I think this gets thorny. If he arrives there naturally, then that's great, but if no story emerges and he chooses to broaden his horizons in other ways, that's great too. To force something that isn't there out of some external pressure would not be good, and it would be unlike an artist like Lynch, which is all I see as Rhodes' point. After all, with The Return Lynch made what is one of his deepest, most thoughtful, most human works. It's not like the man hadn't progressed "where it counts."

You must admit that in these days there are a lot of decisions that do come across as empty or forced, the result of the phrases that you admit you are wary of. You make an excellent point about FWWM. When Lynch made FWWM, it seemed bold; when Tarantino made Kill Bill, it also seemed bold - I don't recall anyone referring to it as PC in those times, but I do remember some ridiculous acquaintances saying that they couldn't take women seriously in an action role. Today, I feel one can easily sniff out the real from the fake. And almost all of the fake is definitely "boring, lame and disappointing." All's I'm saying is this is indeed a two-way street.

Edit: Sorry, just saw Soolsma's request to maybe put this in a separate topic.
User avatar
Stavrogyn
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2020 2:22 am
Location: Croatia

Re: Season 4? Or is it over after this?

Postby Stavrogyn » Wed Dec 09, 2020 3:49 pm

I guess Soolsma is right: we should take this to another thread. I would be terribly disappointed if I came here and saw so many new posts, only to realize they have nothing to do with rumours about the new Lynch project. (Even though I would love to continue this discussion elsewhere; as the great Nic would say: "I'm in!")
Hell yeah, it could (possibly) be done better. I want a deepfaked Frank Silva. BOB is the scariest villain of all time and I want him back damnit :').
Yeah, BOB is a great villain, but... isn't he dead? And more importantly, at this point, I don't really think Twin Peaks needs a villain in a classic sense - not if you don't consider the dreariness of everyday life as villainous.
All those years living the life of someone I didn't even know. - Knight of Cups (2015)
User avatar
Stavrogyn
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2020 2:22 am
Location: Croatia

Re: Season 4? Or is it over after this?

Postby Stavrogyn » Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:48 pm

Self-improvement and PC is fantastic when it comes to ones personal life, but when it comes to art, it makes me feel mweehhhh. Boring, lame, disappointing.
I just have to agree with you on this. I'm not a filmmaker or anything myself, so I can't talk about that, but I am a writer and I would never ever compromise my vision. I actually had a discussion with a friend telling me that a writer writes for the public and not for himself, which is so utterly absurd that it is not even worth it to try and prove otherwise.
All those years living the life of someone I didn't even know. - Knight of Cups (2015)
User avatar
JackwithOneEye
RR Diner Member
Posts: 125
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 2:26 pm

Re: Season 4? Or is it over after this?

Postby JackwithOneEye » Wed Dec 09, 2020 6:35 pm

It would be fantastic if Lynch gave more roles of depth and prominence to people of color in whatever he is doing next. It doesnt have to be all out PC, but Jade the prostitute, the comic relief cop in the Las Vegas scenes is a little minstrel-y, the homeless woman in Inland Empire, and so on, there's def. room for improvement.
Please.... :?

It seems so innocent. Let's include more people of colour. Let's not make the prostitute a black woman. Let's write empowering roles for females.

But this is such a slippery slope. Before you know it, artistic choices are based upon irrelevant factors. Arya Stark who must kill the Knight King because it is feminist and badass and woke (although it doesn't make any sense, and it is clear that Jon is the person with a personal history with this villain). The actress playing Jade being perfect to play Jade, but not chosen for that role because it stigmatizes black women. (Sidenote: disproportiantely many prostitutes ARE ethnic minorities)

"It doesn't have to be all out PC". Glad to hear you say this, but it still IS all out PC what you are saying. So no, this is not fantastic. I was always glad that Lynch was one of the few artists who had the guts to make beautiful arts without worrying about this utter BS that is so characteristic of nowadays Hollywood.

you don't need to be so prickly in reply. I get what you're saying.
enumbs
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2015 4:44 pm

Re: Season 4? Or is it over after this?

Postby enumbs » Wed Dec 09, 2020 7:10 pm


I think these are great points that also somewhat simplify what I perceive to be Rhodes' point. Of course, as you say, great art isn't sabotaged by introspection. Quite the opposite, you're totally correct. But in this case, where you talk about the artist's own inclinations, some might make a similar statement to imply that introspection must lead to an evaluation of how he views race, which would then lead to a change in how he draws characters and casts actors that has to do with race. And if he doesn't, then he's somehow failed to progress. That's where I think this gets thorny. If he arrives there naturally, then that's great, but if no story emerges and he chooses to broaden his horizons in other ways, that's great too. To force something that isn't there out of some external pressure would not be good, and it would be unlike an artist like Lynch, which is all I see as Rhodes' point. After all, with The Return Lynch made what is one of his deepest, most thoughtful, most human works. It's not like the man hadn't progressed "where it counts."

You must admit that in these days there are a lot of decisions that do come across as empty or forced, the result of the phrases that you admit you are wary of. You make an excellent point about FWWM. When Lynch made FWWM, it seemed bold; when Tarantino made Kill Bill, it also seemed bold - I don't recall anyone referring to it as PC in those times, but I do remember some ridiculous acquaintances saying that they couldn't take women seriously in an action role. Today, I feel one can easily sniff out the real from the fake. And almost all of the fake is definitely "boring, lame and disappointing." All's I'm saying is this is indeed a two-way street.

Edit: Sorry, just saw Soolsma's request to maybe put this in a separate topic.
I very much appreciate your attempts to be balanced, even as I find myself more attuned to Mr Reindeer's way of looking at things. In any case, I agree with you both that Lynch needn't feel obliged to do anything he isn't compelled to do as an artist - although he doesn't need us to tell him that!

But Rhodes wasn't talking about external pressure, he said that Lynch "improving himself (100% in accordance to latest fashion) makes him (almost by definition) less avantgarde, less interesting and maybe even less of an artist". This is a troubling sentiment to me. Even if you can prove that a desire to tell more diverse stories or to engage in more nuanced characterisation of minorities is a sincere creative impulse, it seems that some will still see this as an innately troubling development. Why is it that Lynch telling stories inspired by the predominantly white environment of his childhood should be somehow more pure or honest than choosing to draw from his current environment, and in what way does a lack of interest in well-rounded black characters indicate he has "guts"?

This is not an attack on Rhodes or anyone else. I just have trouble with some of the assumptions underlying the arguments I'm seeing. You say that "as soon as someone like Lynch starts to think about some of these other things that don't organically enter into his vision, then that vision is indeed compromised". Yet ideas don't emerge in a vacuum. Whether it's by reading up on Monroe and the Kennedys, watching the OJ trial or hearing Mark Frost's idea of Cooper emerging in Vegas, Lynch has always responded to ideas which emerge externally. You might even say that all ideas are drawn from the external world in some sense, although some go back further than others. As nobody in this discussion has proposed any kind of enforced changes to Lynch's work, it seems that some think that questioning and expanding your vision means compromising it. Yet as Lynch always says "always accept a good idea, and never accept a bad one" and if he comes to the conclusion that it might be a good idea to expand the pool of actors he considers for psychologically rich roles, then that can only be a good thing

Of course there is no real indication that he has done this, and I fully expect Wisteria to be another audacious masterpiece... with an almost entirely white cast. :lol:

As for the idea about diversity being a two way street, I think it's a bit more complex than that. The thing about big Hollywood movies is that while their attempts to appear diverse might be cynical, so too are their choices not to be. A straight, white male is not the default human being, and yet people who complain about pandering never mention the preponderance of movies with those kinds of protagonists. Ultimately the industry is interested in making money, and sometimes that means emphasising "girl power" or "diversity" but more often it means avoiding offending the sensibilities of middle America, less tolerant foreign markets, and the demographic of people who complain about PC run amok. I tend to think the cringey moments you mention are little more than empty gestures in a movie landscape which is still broadly conservative, and in which (to put race aside for a moment) women are still regularly underwritten and gay characters perpetually confined to the side-lines. In this context the supposed SJW agenda doesn't strike me as a legitimate threat to culture in the way it is so often discussed.
LateReg
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1124
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

Re: Season 4? Or is it over after this?

Postby LateReg » Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:54 pm

I tend to think the cringey moments you mention are little more than empty gestures in a movie landscape which is still broadly conservative, and in which (to put race aside for a moment) women are still regularly underwritten and gay characters perpetually confined to the side-lines. In this context the supposed SJW agenda doesn't strike me as a legitimate threat to culture in the way it is so often discussed.
Another great post all around (and what you said in your earlier post was beautifully put, the more I thought about it). And trust me, I despise the half-measures you describe here, which are merely distractions and empty gestures. Thats more or less the exact problem I'm personally talking about. And good points about Lynch responding to external factors. To be clear, I was earlier talking about what happens if he wasn't responding to those factors, but was in the unlikely situation where, say, he was forced to deal with some sort of quota (of any type) to fulfill. I believe that would be very intrusive and unpleasant for him and his vision.

But back on target...there's this. Apparently the new issue of Production Weekly now lists Unrecorded Night as the title.

https://mobile.twitter.com/fatecolossal ... 2557335553
Rhodes
RR Diner Member
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 8:35 am

Re: Season 4? Or is it over after this?

Postby Rhodes » Thu Dec 10, 2020 1:09 am

you don't need to be so prickly in reply. I get what you're saying.
Sorry Jack, didn't mean to be a prick. This stuff just really makes me very sad and emotional.
Rhodes
RR Diner Member
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 8:35 am

Re: Season 4? Or is it over after this?

Postby Rhodes » Thu Dec 10, 2020 1:21 am

I’d like to also point out that Arya did not kill the Night King because it was a “feminist” or “woke” choice. She killed the Night King because she was a fan favourite character, because it was deemed a surprising twist, and because Arya did not have any other major moments in the final half season which would justify the time spent showing her training. Like much of the last few seasons it was the result of cheap and lazy writing, but the trend of blaming everything bad on this sinister Woke brigade is not one I can get behind.
The writers explicitly admitted/bragged that "the public" (e.g. specific viewers and/or critics) reacted very positively to the women finally taking control over their own lives and not being victims anymore, that they decided to write more storylines about strong women.

Just as these writers were heavily critized when Sansa was raped and victimized (which was clearly absurd). This is not a theoretical excercise. Art is in very real danger because of PC, genderstudies, post-colonialism, BLM, etc. etc. These movements want to move "culture" in a certain direction, which is logically incompatible with free expression.

I appreciate the intelligent and eloquent replies of the various outstanding posters here. And yes, maybe there is a middle ground (although it was admitted that finding this middle ground can go terribly wrong! An important argument for not bothering with it to begin with). But the lenghty posts in a way prove my point. Lynch shouldn't have to find a middle ground or devote a second of his time to these (complicated!) issues.

If genderstudies and our past of slavery are his great passions: fine. But they are not, and it is a shame that decent people of good will are constantly pressured by society to engage themselves with these issues.
User avatar
Soolsma
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1297
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 12:28 pm
Location: Netherlands

Re: Season 4? Or is it over after this?

Postby Soolsma » Thu Dec 10, 2020 1:57 am

But back on target...there's this. Apparently the new issue of Production Weekly now lists Unrecorded Night as the title.

https://mobile.twitter.com/fatecolossal ... 2557335553
I do find it kind of strange they only updated it now, shortly after news broke/leaked elsewhere, while the copyright has been filed way earlier. But I have 0 clue how these things work. Could be Sutherland's doing, after she realized it leaked anyway.
Carrie Page: "It's a long way... In those days, I was too young to know any better."
enumbs
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2015 4:44 pm

Re: Season 4? Or is it over after this?

Postby enumbs » Thu Dec 10, 2020 3:53 am

The writers explicitly admitted/bragged that "the public" (e.g. specific viewers and/or critics) reacted very positively to the women finally taking control over their own lives and not being victims anymore, that they decided to write more storylines about strong women.

Just as these writers were heavily critized when Sansa was raped and victimized (which was clearly absurd). This is not a theoretical excercise.
Most of the discussions about Sansa’s rape centred on quite reasonable concerns around how the issue was framed. The focus was on Theon’s reaction to the violation rather than the victim’s trauma, and as such struck a lot of people as a shallow treatment of the subject reminiscent of Death Wish and the like. I don’t think Game of Thrones depicted rape or its consequences particularly well, and if you think that view is absurd so be it.

I can’t see an interview with the writers saying what you described, but my point in the earlier post is that the final season of Game of Thrones was embarrassing all round. If the writers had been earnestly concerned with the (generally fair) feminist criticism of the show, they wouldn’t have reduced Cersei’s role so drastically, or skimped on the characterisation needed to make Daenerys’s turn in any way coherent. The writers took the easy route at every opportunity, in ways which contradict your “strong woman” narrative.
Art is in very real danger because of PC, genderstudies, post-colonialism, BLM, etc. etc. These movements want to move "culture" in a certain direction, which is logically incompatible with free expression.
This is approaching conspiracy theorising now, but I will try to respond to your claims in good faith.
And yes, maybe there is a middle ground (although it was admitted that finding this middle ground can go terribly wrong! An important argument for not bothering with it to begin with).
It is true that were Lynch to focus on new subjects it could go wrong. His characterisation of an African-American character might be condescending and cliche for example. But I think the same is true of all artistic endeavours. He was compelled to portray a physically disabled character in The Elephant Man, women suffering abuse in FWWM and Inland Empire etc. These portrayal could all have been inept, but I believe it a good thing that Lynch has not just directed Eraserhead over and over again. What is the distinction that makes these endeavours admirable where any attempt to broaden his horizons now is “trendy” or “incompatible with free expression”?

It is free expression we are talking about here.
But the lenghty posts in a way prove my point. Lynch shouldn't have to find a middle ground or devote a second of his time to these (complicated!) issues.
It does not prove your point. Many aspects of Lynch’s work can inspire complicated discussions, and that is a good thing. It would be wrong to say he should stay away from areas just because they can be controversial - that way we would not have Fire Walk With Me. You keep on saying you are in favour of artistic freedom, but the sentiments you express seem to needlessly limit it.
If genderstudies and our past of slavery are his great passions: fine. But they are not, and it is a shame that decent people of good will are constantly pressured by society to engage themselves with these issues.
You are straw-manning. Nobody has demanded that Lynch explore gender studies and slavery, we just discussed the possibility of him potentially wanting to cast minority actors in more complex and less stereotypical parts. I will say that his portrayal of sexual dynamics is definitely worthy of inclusion in a gender studies course, however much you might demonise the subject. I am sure that deeper engagement with racial issues would be similarly compelling were Lynch sincerely interested in exploring them, cries of “stay in your lane” be damned.
User avatar
eyeboogers
Great Northern Member
Posts: 608
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 3:35 am
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Contact:

Re: Season 4? Or is it over after this?

Postby eyeboogers » Thu Dec 10, 2020 7:05 am

At this point, especially with the "Game of Thrones" deep dive, it is fair to say that this is not the thread for that discussion.
FormicaTable
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2014 11:46 am

Re: Season 4? Or is it over after this?

Postby FormicaTable » Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:57 am

Good grief. This thread has been hijacked. Full stop. Can we shut it down and please take the political convo elsewhere?
User avatar
JackwithOneEye
RR Diner Member
Posts: 125
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 2:26 pm

Re: Season 4? Or is it over after this?

Postby JackwithOneEye » Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:47 pm

I don't know if it's been mentioned here or not, but Production Weekly is now listing the title as Unrecorded Night. and Wisteria as a working title or whatever.

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests