Differing Views on The Return

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

Locked

To the Profoundly Disappointed: Are You Still Disappointed?

Still profoundly disappointed - my feelings have not changed.
7
30%
More disappointed.
5
22%
No longer profoundly disappointed but still disappointed.
1
4%
No longer disappointed at all but still have mixed feelings about The Return.
1
4%
My feelings have softened but not sure what I think of it.
2
9%
I need to rewatch before I vote.
1
4%
I need to rewatch it before I vote here, but I think I'm still going to be very disappointed.
2
9%
I need to rewatch it before I vote here, but I think I'm still going to be somewhat but less disappointed.
0
No votes
I'm neutral.
0
No votes
I now like The Return, but still have some mixed feelings.
1
4%
I now love The Return completely.
1
4%
Other - explain in comments.
2
9%
 
Total votes: 23
User avatar
enumbs
RR Diner Member
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2015 4:44 pm

Re: To the Profoundly Disappointed: Are You Still Disappointed?

Post by enumbs »

derOlli. wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 2:20 pm About that... I was actually goung to revive the "Gender in Twin Peaks: The Return"-thread, but as there is a discussion here already....
Not only do I view this scene as indefensable, I see it as a pathway to a more critical view on the gender dynamics in The Return in general.

There is this whole argument that the excessive and sever brutality towards female bodies in The Return were a deliberate attempt to criticize gendered violence by confronting the viewer with it. And I get that and it was very much my first reflex watching it back in 2017. With this scene, however, that whole line of reasoning falls flat as it was quite obviously played for laughs. Having to admit that, this made me suspicous about the portrayal of women in The Return in general. A portrayal, where ton of women are framed as victims with no agency (and - having read a little in the old threads, I know this word 'agency' pushes some people's buttons, but it is how I, and others, see these narratives), where women's dead bodies are framed as sexy, where old women are not particularly seen as desirable but at best motherly (at worst as pathetic) while young women are very much reduced to their beauty and objectified by the older men and so on and so forth.

Why is the Ike the spike scene funny and why should it be OK to have scene be funny?

So much for getting away from us potentially fighting, but I would really like other people's viewpoints on this (or at least I think I do, promised!).
Great post. Joel Bocko’s review of Part 6 captured the difficulties of that scene well:

“Possibly this scene can be valued for the way it confuses our reactions, but I don't think I'm misreading to conclude the overall mood is horror-comedy. The misanthropy feels a little cheap, and I'm not sure whether it's courageously self-aware or indifferently self-defeating for Lynch to include it in such close proximity to a more earnest depiction of death (it even makes one question anew whether that earlier scene was supposed to be somewhat sarcastic). Why does one life matter while the others are simply laughed off? Should we thank Lynch for drawing our attention to this discrepancy or conclude that he himself holds a double standard? Is "or" even the right conjunction here? This sequence reminds me a lot of the bungling hitman in Mulholland Drive, in which the comedy is heightened and the violence is dampened so that both are less troubling.”

I think Lynch sees basically everything in life as carrying the potential for tragedy and comedy. He famously couldn’t stop laughing while directing the scene of Frank abusing Dorothy in Blue Velvet, and the aforementioned scene of Sarah Palmer’s grief has been known to provoke giggles at screenings. I think the depiction of a horrific stabbing as darkly comic contributes to The Return’s portrait of a world gone horribly wrong. The kind of violent fate that was once reserved for a crucial revelation in episode 14 is now doled out on a complete random character with little narrative import, and even treated as a joke. I think the common reaction of discomfort and shock at the narrative “unfairness” of such a gesture is entirely intentional. This is the episode where Janet-E talks about living a dark, dark age, and in which we hear about the suicide of a veteran and watch a child get run down by a truck. There’s a lot of shit to dig ourselves out of.

I respect that many people will view the scene differently, and I can appreciate why some people might regard this as a long-winded excuses for the show’s mistreatment of women. I suppose for me Laura’s characterisation in FWWM is so empathetic that I find it hard to view Lynch as truly sadistic, and the centring of Diane and Carrie in the final part of The Return further reassured me on that front.
User avatar
mtwentz
Lodge Member
Posts: 2185
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:02 am

Re: To the Profoundly Disappointed: Are You Still Disappointed?

Post by mtwentz »

Well here are my criticisms of The Return:
-Ep. 18, I love parts of it; still not a fan of a drive to Odessa and then back, nor of Cooper in the hotel room with Diane. This is the only episode that truly does not feel like Twin Peaks at all. The ending however, with Carrie's/Laura's scream, is electrifying.
-Wally Brando: I understand what they were going for, I just don't find it funny and find it is a scene I have to suffer through.
-Dark Space Low: even though I love the scream at the end, I am not on board with Dark Space Low as the musical note to end on.
-So Many Roadhouse Bands: I would have preferred fewer bands and more songs from those bands.

There are a couple of things I like or don't like depending on the mood I am in:
-Dr. Amp
-Chantel and Hutch
-Candy and the girls: they are supposed to fill the role the elderly folks like Senor Droolcup filled in the original series. I don't think the scene with Candy taking forever to bring Anthony back to the Mitchums plays nearly as well as Senor Droolcup asking for warm milk.
-Gordon chasing skirts


Pretty much everything else I loved, from Dougie to the Glass Box, the Mauve Room, Freddy and the Green Glove, Woodsmen, Mr. C., Richard, sweeping scene, shovel painting, etc.
F*&^ you Gene Kelly
User avatar
Brad D
Global Moderator
Posts: 1070
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:56 am
Contact:

Re: To the Profoundly Disappointed: Are You Still Disappointed?

Post by Brad D »

The Roadhouse randoms might be my biggest frustration. It feels intentionally nonsensical. For me, it goes nowhere, means nothing, just exists to fill up time. Throw in the guy sweeping, the shovel painting, Lynch puffing up his sexuality at every other turn, one of the few women of color *turning into a white woman* — it’s a lot to stomach. Oop, forgot Dr. Amp’s cringe-y rants. And Frank’s wife. And whatever Ashley Judd’s character was (not) doing. Just all nails on a chalkboard!

Would have liked more of Forster for sure. I still respond strongly to the South Dakota diner. For me, that’s a golden standard of creepy mystique that hit me right in the OG feels. I wish that kind of energy could have been sustained till the end. Also, everything leading up to finding Naido in the woods was great. I don’t even mind the Mr. Jackpots scene. Mixed feelings across the board, reaching extremes. I wonder what that nine-hour version would have been like….
User avatar
AXX°N N.
Great Northern Member
Posts: 601
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 8:47 pm

Re: To the Profoundly Disappointed: Are You Still Disappointed?

Post by AXX°N N. »

derOlli. wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 2:20 pm where old women are not particularly seen as desirable but at best motherly (at worst as pathetic) while young women are very much reduced to their beauty and objectified by the older men and so on and so forth.
What about the bar scene with Sarah Palmer? The trucker creep objectifies her the worst of maybe anyone in the season, and she's also one of (if not the?) oldest women in the cast, and he clearly found her desirable enough to harass.
derOlli. wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 2:20 pmWhy is the Ike the spike scene funny and why should it be OK to have scene be funny?
For the sake of realism? It might seem absurd and outrageous to label that scene realistic, but that gets to the heart of what a lot of Lynch's work is about to me.* Just as a thought experiment, isn't it possible murders occur in real life that, if caught on camera and mistaken for a movie scene, could be taken to be attempts at humor and thus cause the same offense?

It's not any more comedic than the scene where Chantal shoots Duncan Todd, and that's murder of a man at the hands of a woman. It's also worth noting that Ike isn't killing an innocent lamb, and that Lorraine was attempting to see a hit job through. Compared to past TP, S3 actually has a lot of violence being committed by women, and some of the most gruesome, if you count for instance Judy shredding the box watchers up.

*There was a PBS special back in the day involving Mark Frost and a TV critic who had a really negative view on TP, claiming it was contrived and its 'whacky' portrayal of townsfolk cynical & mean-spirited. Frost's rebuttal was that it just seemed true to life to him, and that he's met people in real life exactly like TP characters. Similarly, one of enumbs' sore points was Denise referring to 'screaming hormones,' but I know a transgender person first-hand who, despite not having had hormone therapy, frequently refers to themselves as PMSing. It's fascinating how slippery the term "realism" can be. I've had experiences before that, prior to them happening to me, I would have figured them only possible in a film that's trying too hard to be absurd. I've also seen (and myself have had) emotional reactions that, if caught on film, would probably be taken as awkward and "unrealistic."
derOlli. wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 2:20 pmSo much for getting away from us potentially fighting, but I would really like other people's viewpoints on this (or at least I think I do, promised!).
I'm glad, since it's interesting food for thought.

My overall opinion on the gender dynamics of S3 is that they're unfortunate, but that's how I feel about many gender dynamics in real life. I'm not sure I agree that their inclusion operates as a critique, nor do I think they need to be critiqued. I think they're reflections of life, just like many things in TP are. Some are dialed up to 11, some are ripped straight from daily occurence, and some would take debate to figure out which camp they belong to.
Recipe not my own. In a coffee cup. 3 TBS flour, 2 TBS sugar, 1.5 TBS cocoa powder, .25 TSP baking powder, pinch of salt. 3 TBS milk, 1.5 TBS vegetable oil, 1 TBS peanut butter. Add and mix each set. Microwave 1 minute 10 seconds. The cup will be hot.
User avatar
Brad D
Global Moderator
Posts: 1070
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:56 am
Contact:

Re: To the Profoundly Disappointed: Are You Still Disappointed?

Post by Brad D »

Just now I sort of wondered, how did Sarah get away with literally killing a dude in a bar?
User avatar
Jasper
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1138
Joined: Wed May 08, 2013 9:24 am

Re: To the Profoundly Disappointed: Are You Still Disappointed?

Post by Jasper »

Brad D wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 6:33 pm Just now I sort of wondered, how did Sarah get away with literally killing a dude in a bar?
It’s not quite as inexplicable as her surprise ability to open her face like a kitchen cabinet, display nightmare images, then tear out a man’s throat with one lightning-fast bite, leaving no blood whatsoever on her person. That said, it is unexplained, so I’ll take a stab at it.

There was no followup with medics/police arriving, so it was left unresolved for viewers. We did see her scream, act shocked, and deny responsibility to the suspicious bartender. It would have essentially been impossible for anyone to demonstrate how she could have done it, even more so since it seems that half of the man’s neck had vanished into thin air. Sarah is a slightly built widow in her mid-seventies, with no weapon, no observable blood on her body, face, or teeth, and it was the man who had gone up to her. The responding officers might have known her, and while she would surely remain a person of interest during the investigation, they probably didn’t have grounds to charge her or keep her in custody, though she might have been brought in for questioning.

So, my conclusion is that she remained a person of interest or even a suspect in an ongoing investigation, but there were no grounds, at the time, for them to hold her. That’s the best that I can do with it. I hope you like it!

It’s a difficult scene for me, because, assuming that it actually occurs and isn’t some fever dream of Sarah’s, it takes her all the way into literal physical supernatural monster-channelling territory, as opposed to her being one of the gifted and the damned, (as MIKE memorably put it), and able to see and channel otherworldly things, non-physically. For example, she can see BOB, and she channels Earle from the lodge, but BOB doesn’t come leaping out of her, and she doesn’t remove her face to reveal Earle to Major Briggs, (though her voice does impossibly change). It also seems to suggest some cooperation with (or surrender to) Judy on the part of Sarah, and I didn't really want to see or accept Sarah possessing (or being possessed by) that level of evil.

I just watched the scene, and it's great on its own as a horror piece, but its overt, and very concrete supernatural nature troubled me in the greater context of Twin Peaks. It was/is something of a tough narrative pill to swallow. It's probably not a choice that I would have made, though at the same time I'm not 100% opposed to it. I don't have this issue with any of the other Sarah scenes in S3.
User avatar
Audrey Horne
Lodge Member
Posts: 2030
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:20 pm
Location: The Great Northern

Re: To the Profoundly Disappointed: Are You Still Disappointed?

Post by Audrey Horne »

Oh brother… I forgot all about that one.

It doesn’t really change how I view the show though. It’s like when I watch the show’s first season and half of second, I don’t think of the Ben character is the same one having the Civil War fantasy. Or like when I watch Jaws, I’m not worried about the events of Jaws 4: The Revenge. I heartily cherry-pick my head cannon.
God, I love this music. Isn't it too dreamy?
User avatar
Jasper
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1138
Joined: Wed May 08, 2013 9:24 am

Re: To the Profoundly Disappointed: Are You Still Disappointed?

Post by Jasper »

If some sort of darkness, like a storm cloud, had simply come over Sarah's face, and she had said the same words with the same frightening voice, and simply scared the man away, then I think I'd probably love the scene, without complication.
User avatar
mtwentz
Lodge Member
Posts: 2185
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:02 am

Re: To the Profoundly Disappointed: Are You Still Disappointed?

Post by mtwentz »

Brad D wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 6:33 pm Just now I sort of wondered, how did Sarah get away with literally killing a dude in a bar?
How does a coin magically suspend in mid air? Why does an insurance company executive seem happy to pay out a multimillion dollar claim?

Love it or hate it, the entirety if TPTR is probably taking place in Cooper’s mind. He is re-integrating, or attempting to re-integrate, his fractured psyche.

So really, I see that Sarah seen as very much a nightmare.

btw another clue that is is all happening inside Cooper’s head is that the entities in general- mostly the Woodsmen but also BOB and Judy- are like poltergeists. They can cause physical damage. They could never do that in the original.
F*&^ you Gene Kelly
User avatar
eyeboogers
Great Northern Member
Posts: 729
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 3:35 am
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Contact:

Re: To the Profoundly Disappointed: Are You Still Disappointed?

Post by eyeboogers »

Just like with Audrey's awakening, episode 18 was the season finale, but not the end to "Twin Peaks", at least not according to Mark Frost. No one says that Sarah's murderous incident wont' have legal consequences. I personally love the progression from her learning the throat biting killing technique from watching hyenas on the Palmer House's evil Discovery channel on a loop, in an early episode, to the shocking payoff many episodes later.
User avatar
JackwithOneEye
Great Northern Member
Posts: 771
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 2:26 pm

Re: To the Profoundly Disappointed: Are You Still Disappointed?

Post by JackwithOneEye »

Sometimes I think maybe most of TP is taking place in Sarah Palmer's head. The pilot is a very straight forward until her vision/ second sight at the cliffhanger where she sees someone taking the necklace.
User avatar
Jonah
Global Moderator
Posts: 2815
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:39 am

Re: To the Profoundly Disappointed: Are You Still Disappointed?

Post by Jonah »

Lot of great (albeit some too heated - let's keep it friendly people!) discussion here. I'm still wading through some of it, lot of great points.

Two in particular that stood out to me:
derOlli. wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 3:38 am The crux is, I just don't find the season compelling and that is where it has me disappointed even 4 years later. I love reading about meta-commentary and hidden meanings, but that all falls incredibly flat when actually rewatching the scenes and episodes and storylines and not enjoying them one bit.
I think this is an interesting point - and something that could apply to other things too.
Brad D wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 4:19 pm The Roadhouse randoms might be my biggest frustration. It feels intentionally nonsensical. For me, it goes nowhere, means nothing, just exists to fill up time.
This is probably the part of the show I struggled with the most. A couple of these sequences were strong (the one with Richard Horne / the one with the girl on the floor screaming) and I liked the musical numbers just fine, but yeah the randos talking in the roadhouse is probably the element of The Return I diliked the most. It felt more like stuff that should have been confined to Extra Footage disc.

Brad also mentioned the 9-hour version. I think a cut down season would have been better, if not 9 hours, maybe 12 -15? A lot of the other stuff could have been put on a More Things That Happened kind of disc, like the Inland Empire stuff. Though I do also kinda like how big and rambly (not a word) the whole season is and you can kind of dip in and out of stuff you liked. I do think a tightened version might be much better and more compelling though, and would have liked to see both a 9 to 12 episode version and the 18 episode one. Of all Lynch's stuff, The Return really feels to me like he threw everything but the kitchen sink in. He cut so much stuff from previous projects (often probably because he was forced to) I was surprised to see how much he left in here and didn't hold back. I would be very surprised if more than a handful of scenes didn't make it into the final cut.
I have no idea where this will lead us, but I have a definite feeling it will be a place both wonderful and strange.
User avatar
Jonah
Global Moderator
Posts: 2815
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:39 am

Re: To the Profoundly Disappointed: Are You Still Disappointed?

Post by Jonah »

Overall, lots of interesting discussion in this thread.

One more thing I wanted to note - for those who love the show and pointed out some of the nitpicks or problems they had with it, I actually didn't notice many of these myself (such as poor special effects etc.) which I thought was interesting given I did have a lot of problems with it yet the smaller gripes escaped me almost completely. I've been pretty open about having some issues with the show too, but I never felt profoundly disappointed, I accepted it fairly early on, put my disappointment to one side and made the best of it after the first few episodes once I realised it wouldn't be the Season 3 I had longed and hoped for, or the one I had thought the trailers were depicting. Note that I didn't necessarily want a return to the original show, I expected it to be darker, I just thought it would be more focused on the town and the characters and the themes of ageing, etc.

Overall, I think it is better on a rewatch and would encourage anyone who disliked it immensely to give it at least one more shot. I still feel though that it's something I need to wade through, picking out sections and scenes that are absolutely genius that are kind of lost in larger sea of scenes that drag (and not in the good way like the slow scenes in Episode 8 and 29 of the original) so that's one thing I dislike about - that I have to cherry pick scenes that are really good and kind of just suffer through the rest. That's true of many things to an extent but I found it very prevalent here. I expect that feeling may continue to ease as the years go by and if I rewatch again. I quite like Parts 1 -4 and 17 and 18. And lots of stuff in between. And there's a lot of stuff I don't like and will happily complain about, but can't say I feel profoundly disappointed by it. I'd still rather have it than not have it, even if it wasn't the revival I wanted.

I do hope they make more. I agree with others who said Episode 18 felt like a beginning or would have been a good pilot like Brad pointed out. As I've said many times before, Mark Frost even retweeted a tweet with similar sentiments - that 17 felt like an ending, 18 like a new beginning of something else.

Even if we don't get a Season 4, a movie following Richard/Dale and Carrie/Laura would be fascinating. Throw in a bit of Audrey and the characters who didn't make it to Season 3 (Annie, Catherine, Josie) and I'd feel like it was complete!
I have no idea where this will lead us, but I have a definite feeling it will be a place both wonderful and strange.
User avatar
AXX°N N.
Great Northern Member
Posts: 601
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 8:47 pm

Re: To the Profoundly Disappointed: Are You Still Disappointed?

Post by AXX°N N. »

Jasper wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:38 am It’s a difficult scene for me, because, assuming that it actually occurs and isn’t some fever dream of Sarah’s, it takes her all the way into literal physical supernatural monster-channelling territory, as opposed to her being one of the gifted and the damned, (as MIKE memorably put it), and able to see and channel otherworldly things, non-physically. For example, she can see BOB, and she channels Earle from the lodge, but BOB doesn’t come leaping out of her, and she doesn’t remove her face to reveal Earle to Major Briggs, (though her voice does impossibly change). It also seems to suggest some cooperation with (or surrender to) Judy on the part of Sarah, and I didn't really want to see or accept Sarah possessing (or being possessed by) that level of evil.

I just watched the scene, and it's great on its own as a horror piece, but its overt, and very concrete supernatural nature troubled me in the greater context of Twin Peaks. It was/is something of a tough narrative pill to swallow. It's probably not a choice that I would have made, though at the same time I'm not 100% opposed to it. I don't have this issue with any of the other Sarah scenes in S3.
This is pretty much word-for-word my feelings on the scene. If I was tasked with excising exactly one scene, it would be this one. I don't think it actually lessens or reduces how terrifying, for instance, the later scene is where Sarah storms in from off-camera after an uncomfortably long time and stabs the picture. That scene is probably one of my favorites. But thinking about it outside the viewing, it's hard to reconcile both those scenes, and conceptually it really ought to have lessened it. On one hand I think it was a mistake to show Sarah as literally capable of supernatural violence. And yet, it sits so uncomfortably that I can't exactly say it doesn't serve a purpose--it's so bizarre it's hard to take literally, anyway, and perhaps it does fit because it destabilizes my ability to see the show as a streamlined reality.

Basically, I feel as conflicted about it as I do the Josie drawer-pull--I hate and like it.
Recipe not my own. In a coffee cup. 3 TBS flour, 2 TBS sugar, 1.5 TBS cocoa powder, .25 TSP baking powder, pinch of salt. 3 TBS milk, 1.5 TBS vegetable oil, 1 TBS peanut butter. Add and mix each set. Microwave 1 minute 10 seconds. The cup will be hot.
User avatar
Jonah
Global Moderator
Posts: 2815
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:39 am

Re: To the Profoundly Disappointed: Are You Still Disappointed?

Post by Jonah »

AXX°N N. wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 1:36 pm
Jasper wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:38 am It’s a difficult scene for me, because, assuming that it actually occurs and isn’t some fever dream of Sarah’s, it takes her all the way into literal physical supernatural monster-channelling territory, as opposed to her being one of the gifted and the damned, (as MIKE memorably put it), and able to see and channel otherworldly things, non-physically. For example, she can see BOB, and she channels Earle from the lodge, but BOB doesn’t come leaping out of her, and she doesn’t remove her face to reveal Earle to Major Briggs, (though her voice does impossibly change). It also seems to suggest some cooperation with (or surrender to) Judy on the part of Sarah, and I didn't really want to see or accept Sarah possessing (or being possessed by) that level of evil.

I just watched the scene, and it's great on its own as a horror piece, but its overt, and very concrete supernatural nature troubled me in the greater context of Twin Peaks. It was/is something of a tough narrative pill to swallow. It's probably not a choice that I would have made, though at the same time I'm not 100% opposed to it. I don't have this issue with any of the other Sarah scenes in S3.
This is pretty much word-for-word my feelings on the scene. If I was tasked with excising exactly one scene, it would be this one. I don't think it actually lessens or reduces how terrifying, for instance, the later scene is where Sarah storms in from off-camera after an uncomfortably long time and stabs the picture. That scene is probably one of my favorites. But thinking about it outside the viewing, it's hard to reconcile both those scenes, and conceptually it really ought to have lessened it. On one hand I think it was a mistake to show Sarah as literally capable of supernatural violence. And yet, it sits so uncomfortably that I can't exactly say it doesn't serve a purpose--it's so bizarre it's hard to take literally, anyway, and perhaps it does fit because it destablizes my ability to see the show as a streamlined reality.

Basically, I feel as conflicted about it as I do the Josie drawer-pull--I hate and like it.
I'm not sure how I feel about the Sarah scene. I didn't like her being made the new "Big Bad" overall. I felt like it was too much. I was intrigued by her scenes especially the one of Hawk coming to visit her which I loved and felt more like the show I wanted. But I would've preferred had they kept it to her being psychic ("spooky" as Maddie and Laura put it) and having visions of the Lodge, perhaps the Woodsmen, finding Laura's old painting and maybe having visions or inadverdently creating a way for entities to leave the Lodge and come back into the real world. I would have much preferred something like that and have her answering the door at the end of 18! Okay, sure, might be kind of obvious plot beats to follow - but sometimes obvious can be compelling too. I get what they were going for - The Mother this time, rather than The Father - but I just felt it was too much, same with Laura's overall cosmic backstory. I choose to view much of it as metaphor or just ignore it. That scene in particular neither worked or didn't work for me. It was just there. I found it interesting, though, didn't dislike it, though it wasn't subtle and making it more subtle would have worked better, though as others have pointed out we don't know for sure it actually happened. I was actually fascinated by the bar and the neon sign and glimpsing a part of the town - or a neighbouring town? - we've never seen before.

With regards to Josie, I never understood why people disliked that. Was it mainly the poor special effects or that the concept seemed to silly or both? To me, it's a fascinating and brilliant sequence. Sure, it's a bit silly, but it makes perfect sense imo and completely connects to all the other themes of spirits getting trapped in wood - the Ghostwood project itself, Brigg's comments on wood and spirits, the trees surrounding the town, the Log Lady and her husband, the log itself. It made complete narrative sense to me even if it was a bit out there and I think it marked an uptick in the original show returning to quality after the end of a bad stretch. I also think it's interesting and worth noting that, even though Lynch unfortunately did not direct that sequence, he did request it - so he effectively wrote it. I just wish they'd managed to work in the shot of Josie's head sticking through the curtains in Episode 29 to tie it in more and I think Coop stumbling upon her like that in the red room would have been very eerie.
I have no idea where this will lead us, but I have a definite feeling it will be a place both wonderful and strange.
Locked