Gender in Twin Peaks: The Return

[dustoff]

I hear you, but I'm not so sure about your first claim. Isn't such violence the very foundation of the narrative tension that keeps us watching, (or, to be more overtly cynical about it, that keeps us "entertained"?)(...) Nonetheless, this is the way narrative pleasure is deployed: Stories without conflict are generally pretty boring.

First, someone before has stressed a huge difference between 'depicting' and 'gloryfying'. I find this difference essential.

Second, that's how film works, isn't it? Take war films. Violence is the foundation of the narrative tension, right? Yeah, it kind of 'keeps us entertained'. But I don't see any conclusion that should be drawn from this remark. Depicting, not gloryfying.

Yes, that's a valuable distinction. And I suppose your second point depends on the war movie in question, but yeah, we are in agreement.

[djsunyc]

JESUS I came here to read theories about the episode, not endless unrelated discussion about sexism. This thread is so, so bad.

well i will say this - is lynch inspiring tv? is his work supposed to garner emotional responses? is his work supposed to make you talk about stuff?

i think it is so this episode was very heavy on alot of gender roles so i think it's perfectly up for debate.

[Framed_Angel]

Thanks for creating this thread!
Plenty to digest as numerous female victims of violence were in evidence with Part 10 of TP S3.
Myself, I was among those who were made uncomfortable by the Janey-DougieCoop sex scene as it transpired in Part 10.
The responses that ensued on these boards have been thought-provoking for me.. and, I would want to rewatch the episode as I usually get around to, since doing so often shows me aspects I hadn't noticed or given thought to the first time.
I'd be curious to see if a poll were done how that scene impressed (or not) others, too.

[Manwith]

Is the other thread only temporarily locked? I wanted to post this but I guess it sort of fits here too:

I don't get why they made Steven Burnett seemingly violent towards his wife, Becky, . I thought he would be a drug user who wasn't physically abusive, just bad news for non physical reasons. The show already had a violent woman beater character with Richard Horne.

In the old Twin Peaks we had Leo, who hit his wife, and Hank, who was a bad husband and a criminal but never actually physically abused Norma. In the new show it's like there's two different "Leo: the next generation" characters.

Why? It's a little one note. I would have thought Steven Burnett would have been bad in a different way than Leo, since we already had Richard Horne as a sort of Leo.

Actually: on second thought I would have thought Steven wouldn't abuse Becky at all, and the problem would 100% be the drugs, a problem they equally share. So the relationship would just be "bad" because they enable each other. But I guess we'll see where's that plotline is going.

[starmand]

I don't think I've ever posted before, if I have it was long ago; but I've been reading and enjoying the forum for years. Have to say I'm really disappointed that the mods gave in to the pressure and split this off into its own thread. If discussing gender in the context of a DAVID LYNCH SHOW is not "on topic," then what the hell is? After seeing initial responses to Part 10, I was of the mind that folks might be getting too wound up about its treatment of women as compared to the rest of the series. But after reading the frankly sickening responses in the other topic, I'm not sure. If people can watch David Lynch's work and still come away with the mindset that "PC culture is terrible" and "SJWs are ruining the world," then I have to wonder if the violence he portrays against women (which I've always found to be decidedly not glorified and presented through a somewhat feminist lens) might actually be as irresponsible as some critics claim it to be. Perhaps it's not worth putting art like that into the world if one runs the risk of firing up these egoistic man-children with their "politics have no place in art" diatribes, who seem utterly incapable of discussing the merits of a work through any sort of social filter except their own (which they conveniently pretend does not exist). Typical white male positioning white maleness as the "default" ideological position and anyone else bringing their lens to it is "politicizing" a work.

Apologies, I don't want to derail this thread too. But I found the responses in the Part 10 thread deeply upsetting, even more so because they were able to get what they want. David Lynch is one of my favorite directors, and it pains me to think that his fan-base can be so reactionary when I feel a deep thread of openness runs through his work.

[Cipher]

I just saw Cipher quoted me as anonymous in a post slightly earlier, I’ll take ownership of that one- the Bechdel test thing. It can help me clarify. Concerning the world-building of Twin Peaks, do even the most anti-gender critique of you not think that the show would be better if female characters talked to each other more regularly than they get murdered? Do you really think it ‘ideologically motivated’ to want or expect something as basic as this? It is political (as is all art to a degree, one way or another), but it is also inseparable to immediate experience i.e. mine, which I share here as others do theirs. I think it’s a rare weak point in what I think could still turn out to be the best show on TV ever. Why is this different from people complaining about something like… the old characters not being used more?

I largely agreed with what you were identifying there (and pointing out the difference in the number of female-female conversations we've had so far versus the number abused or dead really does highlight something of a disconnect, maybe, between The Return's goals and its portrayal at this point). Again, it's that thing where if part its aim is being honest about presenting victimization, and I think it has to be, with its prominence in the series and the amount we see in The Return, there is an element that doesn't track when it isn't nearly as honest with presenting who women are outside of violent situations, as it more regularly does men. (And as far as identifying its focus on violence against women, one need only compare the number of scenes focusing on brutality against them versus against male figures, even when there's been opportunity to show both.)

That's a forgivable disconnect that comes from a sincere place, but it's a notable one in the series to me, unique among Lynch's other works. FWWM and Empire in particular are quite capable of communicating the feeling of being a woman in a predatory world without reducing women to spectacles of abuse; probably a result of the personal viewpoint versus the larger scope of Season 3. In that regard, even if The Return never completely feels like it clicks in this regard (though I still hope it does), it's an understandable if still unfortunate stumble.

Anyway, all this was to say that I didn't mean to quote you as "anonymous." I picked that up from the person I was quoting.

EDIT -- Was pulled in here by clicking a notification. This was split off into its own thread? I agree with the poster above; that sucks. I am slightly appalled at that.

Re: Lynch and gender writ large: I don't believe he's interested in making specific political statements of it (as so many in the episode 10 thread seemed, disappointingly, to believe we were implying), but he's chiefly concerned with the way it affects people's emotional realities. As it has to. He's interested in communicating the feelings of being a human in the world, and the world we inhabit is gendered, a fact which he does highlight and which dovetails with his exploration of the uncanny domestic as a central emotional space.

You cannot do Eraserhead, Inland Empire, or Fire Walk With Me justice without paying some attention to the role gender plays in the way they communicate. I'd probably argue the same thing of Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive, to a lesser extent.

Discussion of Peaks has been done a disservice here, all because a handful of posters were set on attacking the idea of broaching a subject that, for whatever reason, makes them uncomfortable. Disappointed.

Hard to even know what to do with this thread because the critiques of The Return up through Part 10 that spawned it were also largely not about Lynch and Frost's views on women as a whole; just the way The Return is working. (EDIT EDIT -- Fixed that with a title change, since we're stuck with this now.)

[dustoff]

I don't think I've ever posted before, if I have it was long ago; but I've been reading and enjoying the forum for years. Have to say I'm really disappointed that the mods gave in to the pressure and split this off into its own thread. If discussing gender in the context of a DAVID LYNCH SHOW is not "on topic," then what the hell is? After seeing initial responses to Part 10, I was of the mind that folks might be getting too wound up about its treatment of women as compared to the rest of the series. But after reading the frankly sickening responses in the other topic, I'm not sure. If people can watch David Lynch's work and still come away with the mindset that "PC culture is terrible" and "SJWs are ruining the world," then I have to wonder if the violence he portrays against women (which I've always found to be decidedly not glorified and presented through a somewhat feminist lens) might actually be as irresponsible as some critics claim it to be. Perhaps it's not worth putting art like that into the world if one runs the risk of firing up these egoistic man-children with their "politics have no place in art" diatribes, who seem utterly incapable of discussing the merits of a work through any sort of social filter except their own (which they conveniently pretend does not exist). Typical white male positioning white maleness as the "default" ideological position and anyone else bringing their lens to it is "politicizing" a work.

Apologies, I don't want to derail this thread too. But I found the responses in the Part 10 thread deeply upsetting, even more so because they were able to get what they want. David Lynch is one of my favorite directors, and it pains me to think that his fan-base can be so reactionary when I feel a deep thread of openness runs through his work.

Yes x1000.

[Agent Earle]

This rant is misguided on MANY levels. Embarrassing.

Exactly. And it just goes to show how right the mods where to transfer this kinda ideological rantings and ravings to their own thread - kudos to them! As things stand here now, we're not far from being proclaimed serial sex slayers ritually fed by such irresponsible "artists" as David Lynch by these self-appointed moral guardians. Twin Peaks - no matter if you like the new season or not - deserves far better than this sociopolitical gutter thinly disguised as a "movie analysis".

[Mr. Reindeer]

This rant is misguided on MANY levels. Embarrassing.

Exactly. And it just goes to show how right the mods where to transfer this kinda ideological rantings and ravings to their own thread - kudos to them! As things stand here now, we're not far from being proclaimed serial sex slayers ritually fed by such irresponsible "artists" as David Lynch by these self-appointed moral guardians. Twin Peaks - no matter if you like the new season or not - deserves far better than this sociopolitical gutter thinly disguised as a "movie analysis".

Didn't you refer to Part 8 as "cheesy half-assed fan fiction" a couple of weeks ago? We all have our own ideas of what constitutes worthwhile "analysis" vs. "ranting," but let's maybe not go casting stones.

i'm also a bit disappointed that this topic was split off, but the mods are in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" position sometimes. Thanks for keeping order, Jerry.

[Agent Earle]

This rant is misguided on MANY levels. Embarrassing.

Exactly. And it just goes to show how right the mods where to transfer this kinda ideological rantings and ravings to their own thread - kudos to them! As things stand here now, we're not far from being proclaimed serial sex slayers ritually fed by such irresponsible "artists" as David Lynch by these self-appointed moral guardians. Twin Peaks - no matter if you like the new season or not - deserves far better than this sociopolitical gutter thinly disguised as a "movie analysis".

Didn't you refer to Part 8 as "cheesy half-assed fan fiction" a couple of weeks ago? We all have our own ideas of what constitutes worthwhile "analysis" vs. "ranting," but let's maybe not go casting stones.

i'm also a bit disappointed that this topic was split off, but the mods are in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" position sometimes. Thanks for keeping order, Jerry.

You're (deliberately?) taking my words well out of context. So much for "casting stones". And even if we don't take that into account, my comment was at least in accordance with discussing art on its own terms and merit, I wasn't concerned about its (un)intentional goal to fuel unhealthy obsessions of various maniacs consuming it. You're smart enough to know the difference.

[Troubbble]

I was of the mind that folks might be getting too wound up about its treatment of women as compared to the rest of the series. But after reading the frankly sickening responses in the other topic, I'm not sure. If people can watch David Lynch's work and still come away with the mindset that "PC culture is terrible" and "SJWs are ruining the world," then I have to wonder if the violence he portrays against women (which I've always found to be decidedly not glorified and presented through a somewhat feminist lens) might actually be as irresponsible as some critics claim it to be. Perhaps it's not worth putting art like that into the world if one runs the risk of firing up these egoistic man-children with their "politics have no place in art" diatribes, who seem utterly incapable of discussing the merits of a work through any sort of social filter except their own (which they conveniently pretend does not exist). Typical white male positioning white maleness as the "default" ideological position and anyone else bringing their lens to it is "politicizing" a work.

This rant is misguided on MANY levels. Embarrassing.

Despite that I agree with most of what is being said in this "rant," which you have attributed to me, I didn't write it.

Sorry, my mistake with the quote.

Sort of want to dig into this more with you (since you're saying you agree with this) but I can't spend as much time as I'd like to at work. Just want to inject this quickly into the conversation:

My personal belief is that all human beings deserve fair and equal treatment, regardless of differences in race, gender, or sexuality. I also tend to think this is the mindset of nearly everyone participating in the discussion of this show. With that being said, these beliefs don't preclude someone like me from thinking that the continuing focus on gender issues and representation in the show is not particularly interesting--nor is it really even appropriate, without seeing the complete picture being painted in The Return.

It makes as much sense to me as it would to critically analyze Fire Walk With Me having only seen the first half of the movie.

[Manwith]

The irony in a group of people trying to shut down discussion about gender issues in TPTR by saying they are trying to 'stifle' (what?) debate is off the charts. The irony in a group of people thinking there is zero role for discussions of gender in a series who's core subject matter was the abuse of girl at the hands of a man is also off the charts. You're allowed and encouraged to disagree with people who have a different view on these matters, you're also allowed to ignore it completely.

The gender violence discussion was fine, the multiple pages of people arguing whether you should be allowed to talk about their feelings about the violence against women was very off-putting.

Twin peaks is about violence against women as a core theme. The mod's made a huge mistake moving this to a seperate thread. It's now basicically off topic to talk about Twin Peaks on the Twin Peaks episode thread.

In other forum I've been on its off topic to play pretend mod as people shouting down the discussion of violence against women theme were doing on the other thread. Not so here evidently.

[Mr. Reindeer]

Exactly. And it just goes to show how right the mods where to transfer this kinda ideological rantings and ravings to their own thread - kudos to them! As things stand here now, we're not far from being proclaimed serial sex slayers ritually fed by such irresponsible "artists" as David Lynch by these self-appointed moral guardians. Twin Peaks - no matter if you like the new season or not - deserves far better than this sociopolitical gutter thinly disguised as a "movie analysis".

Didn't you refer to Part 8 as "cheesy half-assed fan fiction" a couple of weeks ago? We all have our own ideas of what constitutes worthwhile "analysis" vs. "ranting," but let's maybe not go casting stones.

i'm also a bit disappointed that this topic was split off, but the mods are in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" position sometimes. Thanks for keeping order, Jerry.

You're (deliberately?) taking my words well out of context. So much for "casting stones". And even if we don't take that into account, my comment was at least in accordance with discussing art on its own terms and merit, I wasn't concerned about its (un)intentional goal to fuel unhealthy obsessions of various maniacs consuming it. You're smart enough to know the difference.

I don't believe I mischaracterized your words, but I apologize if you feel that way. Feel free to clarify.

I think most -- I won't say all -- of the discussion on this topic has been focused on analyzing the way L/F have approached a delicate artistic theme which they deliberately chose to engage with (in DKL's case, on a regular basis for the past 20+ years of his career). The discussion may have meandered into the "social issue" aspect of things rather than strict artistic analysis in certain posts, but you're doing some pretty serious mischaracterization yourself by implying that the bulk of the discussion was directed at attacking viewers who enjoy the show (of which I am unabashedly one) or DKL himself. Insofar as anyone mentioned DKL on a personal level at all, the consensus seemed to be that perhaps he has some blind spots that are consistent with his age. He's my favorite living artist, but that doesn't mean I love everything he does without question. For the record, I also think he has some serious blind spots when it comes to the effectiveness of slapstick comedy.

[whoisalhedges]

My personal belief is that all human beings deserve fair and equal treatment, regardless of differences in race, gender, or sexuality. I also tend to think this is the mindset of nearly everyone participating in the discussion of this show. With that being said, these beliefs don't preclude someone like me from thinking that the continuing focus on gender issues and representation in the show is not particularly interesting--nor is it really even appropriate, without seeing the complete picture being painted in The Return.

It makes as much sense to me as it would to critically analyze Fire Walk With Me having only seen the first half of the movie.

OK - "Without seeing the complete picture" - THIS is fair. Someone, on the other thread (I think it was Cipher), talked about part 10 being upsetting "in a vacuum" specifically. It remains to be seen what'll come of it.

Just a few points from the new guy, most of this has been addressed....

1) I am beyond astonished that ANYONE could think that a discussion of gendered violence is somehow "off topic" in a show about the repeated rape and murder of a teenage girl. Without gendered violence, there is no Twin Peaks, without discussing gendered violence, there is no discussion of Twin Peaks... unless the only things you find interesting about the show are coffee and pie, silent drape runners, and dancing dwarves. Particularly in part 10, violence against women IS the plot. Miriam, Becky, Sylvia... Candie's Stockholmesque behavior opens doors to questions; Carl Rodd - someone good enough to see the pure soul of a dead child ascend (probably/maybe - this wasn't exactly "explained") - didn't intervene in a scene of domestic abuse: "you wanna know who killed Laura? You did! We all did"

2) I read every post on the episode thread. It's possible I missed something... but in this case it's not likely, because I know how people operate. Even those most hostile to the scenes of violence in the episode said how THEY did not like how it was portrayed. Not once did a single poster EVER suggest that Lynch should not have been "allowed" to show it, or that he and Frost should not have been allowed to script it. No, once again, the ONLY people calling for censorship were those crying about "SJWs" if it didn't happen time and time again, it'd be noteworthy; instead it's just tiresome. 100% agreed w/Mr. Reindeer that it's a damn shame there has to be a separate thread - that anyone considers gendered violence in THAT hour to be off topic raises the question as to whether they even watched the show. But yeah, admins were in a catch-22, with probably dozens of people whining to them that others dared to actually discuss the show....

3) Part 10 is my favorite episode so far. Yep. Even with all the abuse. Because I see a point to it, I think it's going somewhere. I am trusting Lynch and Frost to tell this story. I don't think the women harmed in this part suffered in vain (yes, I'm aware they are fictional characters ), I think we're gonna see something more from Becky, maybe from Sylvia - and even poor Miriam might have a measure of comfort to come. I don't think there were any accidents in this show. The rapeyness of the Dougie/Janey-E scene was intentional - she didn't know he was... um, "compromised," he didn't know he wasn't actually her husband (which in turn would've made him a rapist by fraud) - I think this was a very deliberately scripted and shot almost-hour, that Coopie and Janey-E absolutely without the least intent did violence to each other, and despite that, ended the scene in a loving embrace, both much more joyful than they started. That Carl permitted violence to continue, that Johnny wanted, more than anything, to stop the brutal attack on his mom, but physically couldn't intervene.... It was not an easy part to watch; but I truly think that it WAS done respectfully and responsibly. Some people disagree, and that's fine - we won't really know where we stand until it's over.

[whoisalhedges]

Twin peaks is about violence against women as a core theme. The mod's made a huge mistake moving this to a seperate thread. It's now basicically off topic to talk about Twin Peaks on the Twin Peaks episode thread.

In other forum I've been on its off topic to play pretend mod as people shouting down the discussion of violence against women theme were doing on the other thread. Not so here evidently.

Life imitates art.

The Richard Hornes get away with it, the Miriams get beaten down. Welcome to the Internet.