Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group

[John Justice Wheeler]

About all the Dougie thing, I think Lynch wanted to make his own "Mr Hulot" character like in Jacques Tati movies.

Lynck never hide his admiration about Tati.

https://thefilmstage.com/trailer/david- ... e-arrives/

http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2015/10-mo ... d-lynch/2/

For sure. Much of Part 5 and it's corporate setting, especially the exterior shots, reminded me of Playtime.

To compare this to the infinitely more elegant Playtime (as so many seem inclined to want to do) does it no favors.

[LateReg]

About all the Dougie thing, I think Lynch wanted to make his own "Mr Hulot" character like in Jacques Tati movies.

Lynck never hide his admiration about Tati.

https://thefilmstage.com/trailer/david- ... e-arrives/

http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2015/10-mo ... d-lynch/2/

For sure. Much of Part 5 and it's corporate setting, especially the exterior shots, reminded me of Playtime.

To compare this to the infinitely more elegant Playtime (as so many seem inclined to want to do) does it no favors.

Sure, I see what you're saying. But they're different things entirely, and I don't think it's a fault of the Dougie scenes that they're not as elegant as Tati's most formally controlled film. Lynch can be raw and clumsy here with Dougie and that's his choice and it has its own charms and meaning; he can shoot on digital and choose to make it look digital when he could have made it look like film, and that is something to think about and doesn't automatically make it a lesser thing. I'm glad this is its own thing separate from its influences, even if occasionally it reminds me of other, certifiably classic things.

[counterpaul]

Lynch very recently stated that he does not think in allegory or meta. Add to that the fact that Mark Frost clearly writes around a theory that multidimensional beings are the 'fact' behind our myths and superstitions. The lodge elements are not meant to be allegorical or metaphorical (at least not exclusively).

I'd agree that Lynch doesn't work in allegory and that he isn't super interested (a small handful of throw-away jokes aside) in meta-narrative, but metaphor is a whole other ball of wax. Lynch's entire body of work is swimming in metaphors--or, as Lynch likes to call them, "abstractions."

Lynch also likes to say that he isn't a surrealist (he's pretty uncomfortable with "isms" in general, which I totally respect), but he does work like a surrealist. Surrealism, at the end of the day, is more about process than result anyway, and I think--though I believe him when he says he does not approach his work this way deliberately--Lynch comes closer than any other modern artist to the Bretonic ideal of the surrealist laid out in the first manifesto. Lynch follows his subconscious instinct wherever it leads and seems to have an innate ability to let the demands of the rational mind fall away--which, for anyone who has never tried to actually do it, is incredibly difficult.

What Lynch most definitely is not is a fantasy/sci-fi artist. He seems to have zero interest in consistent world-building and setting up a mythology with rational rules of any kind. The abstractions in Twin Peaks work on an emotional level, just like the mystery does. As 27 years of fervent Twin Peaks analysis attests, there is simply no way to squeeze all its many wonderful contradictions into a fantasy epic--it resists the attempt at every turn. I would argue that this does not reveal a flaw in the show, but rather a flaw in this approach to analyzing it.

As always, of course, YMMV!

Now, Frost is a tougher nut to crack. I'm not very familiar with his body of work independent from Lynch, but I would agree that TSHOTP does reveal some rather literalist tendencies (this is one of the reasons the book didn't do too much for me), but he also (at least these days) seems pretty comfortable working with Lynchian abstractions. The apparent tension between Lynch's surrealist impulses and Frost's more fantasist impulses is interesting, and part of the stew of what makes Twin Peaks Twin Peaks. But, at the end of the day, Lynch directed the thing and, when it comes to the medium of film/video, I'd argue that the director is the final arbiter. We all know how quick Lynch is to toss the script in the trash when it isn't working for him.

Note also that to a greater extent than previously the lodge elements are 'experienced' by more characters apart from the Dale Cooper/Laura Palmer core.

Yes, definitely. I do not think, however, that this lends any specific additional credence to the idea that the spiritual abstractions of the show should be taken any more literally. It's more that the show is getting increasingly abstract. The interesting question for discussion is why.

[counterpaul]

Lynch transcends both Freud and Jung...yep I rest my case.

Well, to be fair, I brought up the Jung/Freud dichotomy when I was responding to a post that tried to shoehorn a strictly Freudian reading onto the show. Lynch is neither a Jungian nor a Freudian--though I do think it can be fun to look at some of the imagery from a Jungian perspective.

Also, Lynch isn't a philosopher or psychologist--he's an artist. He's not attempting to do anything like the work Freud and Jung were doing.

Oh, and also, all of the supernatural elements are metaphorical, even Briggs and the government program studying the woods, project Bluebook, and most of The Secret History of Twin Peaks. Reminds me of the scene from Seinfeld of the rich pretentious couple analyzing the painting of Kramer. "He transcends both time and space...".

Well, it's real easy to make open-hearted, passionate appreciation of an abstract work of art seem silly. It's also kind of boring, though.

I have no desire to denigrate your opinions on the show--only add mine to the mix.

[BigEd]

Minutes of screentime for black characters who aren’t sex workers; eastern USA, western USA or anywhere in between: 1?. Minutes before this character appeared: 250?
% of women shown as sexually active and brutally murdered onscreen: 80?
% of attractive young women around fiftysomething RussellBrandCoop shown as his for the taking: 100.
Minutes of woman/woman interaction: <5?.
Minutes of adults exchanging nonsexual and irony-free warmth: <3?

So what is the take away from all of this?? Is there a point here?

If it wasn't clear before, I think this reaction illustrates it.

Well, not sure if my post is a "reaction," but the only thing I gather from those statistics is that TPTR wasn't written to pass any PC metrics test. Imagine my surprise!

Sexually active women "for the taking" who are brutally murdered without the opportunity to have a women/woman interaction?? Yikes. I need a Tylenol.

And now we're looking for nonsexual irony-free warmth in a DL film?

[LurkerAtTheThreshold]

Just gotta say, I love the Twin Peaks fan community.

Look at another fan base like Star Wars or Star Trek, and they've kind of embraced their nerdiness and obsessiveness, and it's just a staple part of the whole entourage, arguing which fan fiction is canon and which isn't, but on the whole just nerdy buddies.

In TP world you have this unity of two totally different groups, on one hand there are the more doting speculators who would map out the history of the cream corn wars on planet garmonbozia if they could--- then you have the 'Lynch mob' who are so awestruck by this Century's most popular, Arthouse avante garde surrealist -- they are unwilling to discuss the most minute plot detail for fear of tainting 'the experience' ... you know-- 'Lynch isn't meant to be understood man- just watch and appreciate the genius Dougie scenes for what they are'.

So off the bat you've got a feud waiting to happen, someone just asks a question about wether Bill Hastings is innocent and it's all on for art appreciation verses detective mystery speculation.

Now the unchallenged nature of Lynch's genius has reached such a high level just criticising him for bad special effects or unnapealing slow melodrama and you're a moron who can't appreciate high art.

It's pretty hilarious.
But in all genuiness I do love this community, even in their constant vitriol

[counterpaul]

We can view the narrative of S3 (so far) as a painfully obvious Jungian metaphor and suppose Dougie / Mr C. to be a manifestation the 'good' and 'bad' parts of Coops psyche on their psycho-spiritual journey to reintegration with the Whole. OK, so it is 'metaphorical', if a somewhat ham-fisted, bludgeoning metaphor.

However it's important to remember BOB was metaphor for Leylands fragmented shadow-self and Lauras 'screen-memory' to cover the abuse by her father - and totally unlike Dougie / Mr. C., BOB did not have an external, physical form, roaming the world, going to the bathroom, crashing cars etc. BOB exists only in the mind. This remains true even if we also accept BOB as a supernatural evil spirit, walk-in who devours fear and takes possession of his victims.

If S3 were using the same, consistent model of psychological metaphor as Twin Peaks, either Dougie / Mr C. would not be 'real' or we would have seen TMFAP walk into the Double-R and order pie, backwards, and that never happened.

I don't think the shift in The Return is as extreme as you paint it here. If one were to interpret Twin Peaks so that anything in the narrative that undeniably happens outside of a character's head must be considered extra-metaphoric, then a purely metaphoric reading of the "supernatural" elements of the story began to fall apart the second Major Briggs brought Coop the printout with "The owls are not what they seem" and became totally unsupportable as soon as Harry watched Coop disappear behind the curtains at Glastonbury Grove. FWWM would, according to this logic, only further rip such a reading to shreds as the ring appears in a photograph and Jeffries inexplicably appears at the Philadelphia FBI headquarters.

My point is that discussions about what is and isn't "real" in Twin Peaks isn't really productive. It's sidestepping the language of the show, which works on a metaphorical level from the first frame to the last.

Now, arguments as to whether Lynch's metaphors are ham-fisted is a whole other thing. I'm finding a lot of grace in the story of Cooper's battered, vulnerable essence entering the world as an infant. I'm moved by the idea that a grand soul like Dale Cooper's succumbing to darkness would inexorably infect the whole world with a kind of unnamable dis-ease, and I find that idea totally consistent with the world-view and abstract logic of Twin Peaks as a whole.

[N. Needleman]

But in all genuiness I do love this community, even in their constant vitriol

Again, the only place I've ever found much vitriol in the TP fan community - ever, in years of lurking across the Net well before I signed on to Dugpa with a username - is in this thread. As for Reddit, well, that's Reddit in general for you. Got nothing to do with Twin Peaks so much as the nature of that user base. But hey, YMMV. I see no mob on Dugpa.

(And for the record, I don't think either Season 3 or FWWM invalidated either the mythos of the original show or the more psychological interpretations implicit in FWWM. I think both the mythology and the psychoanalytical decryption of Leland/BOB/etc. have always existed hand in hand and still do. You can take them both ways. They coexist naturally.)

[LurkerAtTheThreshold]

But in all genuiness I do love this community, even in their constant vitriol

Again, the only place I've ever found much vitriol in the TP fan community - ever, in years of lurking across the Net well before I signed on to Dugpa with a username - is in this thread. As for Reddit, well, that's Reddit in general for you. Got nothing to do with Twin Peaks so much as the nature of that user base. But hey, YMMV. I see no mob on Dugpa.

(And for the record, I don't think either Season 3 or FWWM invalidated either the mythos of the original show or the more psychological interpretations implicit in FWWM. I think both the mythology and the psychoanalytical decryption of Leland/BOB/etc. have always existed hand in hand and still do. You can take them both ways. They coexist naturally.)

Fair enough.
At this stage anything is possible with the new series. It could stay abstract or it could become totally plot driven. Intrigued to see what happens either way.

I'm not saying people are nasty, but I think argument and division has always been a part of Twin Peaks. It's part of the fun in some ways. Just look at this old forum from back when the original series aired;

https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!top ... K0SzIaiN0k

It's fascinating that even back then you have some people analysing the deer head on the wall and drawing connections between the Horne family and 'horns' ---then there's people yelling at the people studying clues saying 'It's just surrealism you idiot! There are no answers!'
It's exactly the same as it is 27 years later.
I just think it's really funny.

I can personally remember heated arguments between people speculating on the original series back in the day, and Lynch vitriol was the same back then too. I've never seen another director who is given such all or nothing praises as Lynch. I think it must be a part of the complex tapestry that people either are totally on board or detach themselves from the whole web. It's not that one is more intrigued or engaged than the other, but if one is absorbed in Lynch's world they tend to have this mantra 'Lynch is an untouchable Genius' then when they get pulled out of the narrative they suddenly turn like Tarantino 'Lynch has crawled so far up his own ass.....'

It explains the whole series two sudden loss of interest and FWWM critical reception versus Season 3 standing ovation at Cannes.

When you embrace Lynch 'the artist' you have to accept every second you see as untainted genius or it's like the illusion doesn't work.
Why sit through hours of Dougie and Jacoby painting shovels unless it's pure poetry. Challenge the cult of Lynch and you get abused like a scientologist 'What are your crimes? What are your crimes?'

I don't know man. I'm sick of arguing. I like Lynch and I'm genuinely starting to really enjoy the new series, so let's stop arguing and just agree. Trying to bury the hatchet whilst maintain my right to express thoughts and feelings.

[counterpaul]

In TP world you have this unity of two totally different groups, on one hand there are the more doting speculators who would map out the history of the cream corn wars on planet garmonbozia if they could--- then you have the 'Lynch mob' who are so awestruck by this Century's most popular, Arthouse avante garde surrealist -- they are unwilling to discuss the most minute plot detail for fear of tainting 'the experience' ... you know-- 'Lynch isn't meant to be understood man- just watch and appreciate the genius Dougie scenes for what they are'.

The contradiction is interesting, but I don't think it's as black-and-white as you say. For example, I've been quite active on the S3 Timeline thread, using dates and days of the week to come to the conclusion that The Return is likely taking place in September 2014 and trying to use evidence in the show to support the idea that we are not looking at multiple timelines presented non-chronologically (I could definitely be wrong about all that--but I'm pretty sure The Return has been fairly linear from a plotting perspective). Another example is that it really bugs me that people keep referring to Cooper as Dougie (as you do above)--Dougie had about a minute-and-a-half of screen-time and we haven't seen him since.

I think there is a ton to talk about on a storytelling and character level. I just also think getting bogged down in what, to me, seems like fantasy minutia that has absolutely nothing to do with what's actually going on in the show is a distraction. I think Twin Peaks, and most of Lynch's work, uses surrealist abstraction as basic part of its vernacular, and that doing so adds a wonderful, unique dimension to a very human story about intuition and denial.

I'll talk about character and story detail all day! Why else would I be here?

So off the bat you've got a feud waiting to happen, someone just asks a question about wether Bill Hastings is innocent and it's all on for art appreciation verses detective mystery speculation.

I hope my posts don't seem like feuding. I'm totally uninterested in a feud. Vigorous expressions of differing opinions need not be vitriolic, I hope.

The question of Bill Hastings is very open. And quite interesting! I loved the interrogation scene purely for its drama--two friends caught inexorably in the machine that is the criminal justice system. Issues of guilt and innocence aside, the moment when Dave leads Bill to his cell is devastating. See, just pure storytelling--detective stories are definitely part of the mix!

Now the unchallenged nature of Lynch's genius has reached such a high level just criticising him for bad special effects or unnapealing slow melodrama and you're a moron who can't appreciate high art.

I'm not calling anyone a moron. I'm a fan of Lynch's visual aesthetics and pacing (I'm an editor--it's what I do for a living--and I know exactly all the ways Lynch's work could be tightened up, but I find his rhythms such a breath of fresh air!), but that's me. It's a simple artistic preference. I certainly wouldn't ever say my preferences and preoccupations make me better than anyone!

As for the VFX elements, well, they're not bad. They're completely unrealistic, but they're well rendered (with the possible exception of the face replacement in the Richard scene in Part 5) and meticulously built, and I have little doubt that they look exactly as Lynch wanted them to look (possibly despite the VFX crew balking at some of it!--this isn't based on any specific inside info or anything; rather just having worked in post production for around 20 years and knowing a lot of VFX artists and what they tend to focus on accomplishing).

I'm pretty used to video art, which largely works with VFX in a similar way (with the goal of creating the uncanny and uncomfortable rather than something seamless), and I'll take that approach over the blockbuster aesthetic any day. It's, again, simply a matter of personal preference, though. Neither is inherently better or worse in my mind.

Lynch's imagery is very unique to him, but this approach to VFX as a whole is not. There's about 40 years of great work to look at as precedent (folks like Bill Viola, Ed Emshwiller, Takeshi Murata, Ed Atkins, etc.). It is, of course, pretty unusual to use this aesthetic toolkit in the context of a narrative television show with a sizable budget. Pretty awesome, though, in my mind.

[LurkerAtTheThreshold]

In TP world you have this unity of two totally different groups, on one hand there are the more doting speculators who would map out the history of the cream corn wars on planet garmonbozia if they could--- then you have the 'Lynch mob' who are so awestruck by this Century's most popular, Arthouse avante garde surrealist -- they are unwilling to discuss the most minute plot detail for fear of tainting 'the experience' ... you know-- 'Lynch isn't meant to be understood man- just watch and appreciate the genius Dougie scenes for what they are'.

The contradiction is interesting, but I don't think it's as black-and-white as you say. For example, I've been quite active on the S3 Timeline thread, using dates and days of the week to come to the conclusion that The Return is likely taking place in September 2014 and trying to use evidence in the show to support the idea that we are not looking at multiple timelines presented non-chronologically (I could definitely be wrong about all that--but I'm pretty sure The Return has been fairly linear from a plotting perspective). Another example is that it really bugs me that people keep referring to Cooper as Dougie (as you do above)--Dougie had about a minute-and-a-half of screen-time and we haven't seen him since.

I think there is a ton to talk about on a storytelling and character level. I just also think getting bogged down in what, to me, seems like fantasy minutia that has absolutely nothing to do with what's actually going on in the show is a distraction. I think Twin Peaks, and most of Lynch's work, uses surrealist abstraction as basic part of its vernacular, and that doing so adds a wonderful, unique dimension to a very human story about intuition and denial.

I'll talk about character and story detail all day! Why else would I be here?

So off the bat you've got a feud waiting to happen, someone just asks a question about wether Bill Hastings is innocent and it's all on for art appreciation verses detective mystery speculation.

I hope my posts don't seem like feuding. I'm totally uninterested in a feud. Vigorous expressions of differing opinions need not be vitriolic, I hope.

The question of Bill Hastings is very open. And quite interesting! I loved the interrogation scene purely for its drama--two friends caught inexorably in the machine that is the criminal justice system. Issues of guilt and innocence aside, the moment when Dave leads Bill to his cell is devastating. See, just pure storytelling--detective stories are definitely part of the mix!

Now the unchallenged nature of Lynch's genius has reached such a high level just criticising him for bad special effects or unnapealing slow melodrama and you're a moron who can't appreciate high art.

I'm not calling anyone a moron. I'm a fan of Lynch's visual aesthetics and pacing (I'm an editor--it's what I do for a living--and I know exactly all the ways Lynch's work could be tightened up, but I find his rhythms such a breath of fresh air!), but that's me. It's a simple artistic preference. I certainly wouldn't ever say my preferences and preoccupations make me better than anyone!

As for the VFX elements, well, they're not bad. They're completely unrealistic, but they're well rendered (with the possible exception of the face replacement in the Richard scene in Part 5) and meticulously built, and I have little doubt that they look exactly as Lynch wanted them to look (possibly despite the VFX crew balking at some of it!--this isn't based on any specific inside info or anything; rather just having worked in post production for around 20 years and knowing a lot of VFX artists and what they tend to focus on accomplishing).

I'm pretty used to video art, which largely works with VFX in a similar way (with the goal of creating the uncanny and uncomfortable rather than something seamless), and I'll take that approach over the blockbuster aesthetic any day. It's, again, simply a matter of personal preference, though. Neither is inherently better or worse in my mind.

Lynch's imagery is very unique to him, but this approach to VFX as a whole is not. There's about 40 years of great work to look at as precedent (folks like Bill Viola, Ed Emshwiller, Takeshi Murata, Ed Atkins, etc.). It is, of course, pretty unusual to use this aesthetic toolkit in the context of a narrative television show with a sizable budget. Pretty awesome, though, in my mind.

Interesting points.

The thing with Bill Hasings is that it's the centre of the lateral storytelling so far.

At the moment the show doesn't feel centred enough.

It's the event of which all realistic mysteries are built on, but unfortunately there's only so much to speculate on so far, did 'Hank' (the shady guy hanging outside) have some hand in delivering the body? What was in the garbage bags he was carrying? Is the body Major Briggs? Was Bill Hastings possessed by the ghost in the jail cell? How did Dougies ring get in the body?
Unfortunately this central mystery isn't enough at the moment to make reasonable speculation interesting yet, the number codes, alien in a box, mauve zone, casino gangsters are just too sparse to be interestingly related to the central mystery.

That's why speculation tends to focus currently on more mystical elements. I'm hoping, in a twisted way that Beckys murder will centralise a more traditional murder mystery. I think then the show could really carry its own weight. Time will tell I suppose.

I understand what your saying about the special effects. The cheapness does sometimes have a unique quality to it, like the gold ball had a charlatanry and stage magician quality to it.

There are echoes of fun weirdness in the FX like the movie 'House' by Nobuhiko Obayashi, have you seen it?

[N. Needleman]

They're too sparse to be interesting to you, sure. But that's subjective, it's not fact. I think that may be where we're having difficulty.

[LurkerAtTheThreshold]

They're too sparse to be interesting to you, sure. But that's subjective, it's not fact. I think that may be where we're having difficulty.

Of course my opinion is subjective.
The traditional way to argue why somebody is wrong is to explain what makes the central mystery interesting, and make your own case--rather than just discounting the opponents argument as subjective. It's like you refuse to acknowledge my opinion at all.

I think it's a fair criticism to say that the Bill Hastings mystery doesn't have enough complexity to be interesting yet. At least admit that it doesn't pack the same punch as 'Who killed Laura Palmer?' Mystery. Not yet. Things could still totally turn around. But right now the speculation is at a dead end. With Laura Palmer everyone could put their two cents in straight away, there was immediately ten suspects and people could say 'I think James Hurley did it, or 'her bourfriend did it' and so on.
Right now people can either compare the giants code with the clock in the Teresa Banks autopsy or they can sit back and admit --'I have no idea how this is going to play out'

[N. Needleman]

The traditional way to argue why somebody is wrong is to explain what makes the central mystery interesting, and make your own case--rather than just discounting the opponents argument as subjective. It's like you refuse to acknowledge my opinion at all.

It's not that I'm not acknowledging your opinion, it's that I think the bulk of my posts in other threads have made the case for what I like about the show or don't and why. I just don't feel the need to present a mano-a-mano opposing argument on demand just because someone has a particular take.

And I bring up the issue of claiming objective fact because whether it's, say, here or on the subreddit that is what I often see people reacting poorly to, when it happens. That and people referring to Lynch personally with a number of hateful slurs I won't repeat here, or openly saying that all fans who liked the first four episodes are just bootlicking plebians. I'm very pleased if the subreddit has stopped generating that kind of vitriol against the new show.

Right now people can either compare the giants code with the clock in the Teresa Banks autopsy or they can sit back and admit --'I have no idea how this is going to play out'

Or they could do both. And what's wrong with doing that? It's just a bit of fun.

[LurkerAtTheThreshold]

The traditional way to argue why somebody is wrong is to explain what makes the central mystery interesting, and make your own case--rather than just discounting the opponents argument as subjective. It's like you refuse to acknowledge my opinion at all.

It's not that I'm not acknowledging your opinion, it's that I think the bulk of my posts in other threads have made the case for what I like about the show or don't and why. I just don't feel the need to present a mano-a-mano opposing argument on demand just because someone has a particular take.

And I bring up the issue of claiming objective fact because whether it's, say, here or on the subreddit that is what I often see people reacting poorly to, when it happens. That and people referring to Lynch personally with a number of hateful slurs I won't repeat here, or openly saying that all fans who liked the first four episodes are just bootlicking plebians. I'm very pleased if the subreddit has stopped generating that kind of vitriol against the new show.

Right now people can either compare the giants code with the clock in the Teresa Banks autopsy or they can sit back and admit --'I have no idea how this is going to play out'

Or they could do both. And what's wrong with doing that? It's just a bit of fun.

Nothing at all. Just like there's nothing wrong with expressing your distaste for some elements of the new series.

Haven't noticed the people calling fans plebs and that's shit, and it's the same way I've felt by being attacked for saying anything negative by some folk too. (As you say, mainly not on Dugpa but more so on reddit) people here are much less reactionary and take the time to think about their responses.

So I think the lesson is whatever side you're on it's better to be patient and hear other people's points of view rather than rushing to judgement and attacking people ad hominem. Probably most people debating it at all have a lot more in common than people who aren't. We're all massive Twin Peaks fans and there is no need to split the community. I think whatever positive and negative things people have to say about Season 3 can eventually be integrated into one civil conversation that is nuanced and thoughtful.