I wasn’t claiming that EVERYONE is doing this, or even all doing it in the same way, with the exact same language, or intensity, or whatever — so I’m not sure why you feel the need to insist that NO ONE is doing this. I think you’re mischaracterizing what I’m saying in the first premise.Novalis wrote:
There's a couple of false premises here as far as I am concerned:
I think the first premise -- that there is a 'massive rush of interpretation' involved when drawing parallels between scenes -- is patently false. Sometimes people are just pointing out aesthetic resonances between sequences: how they echo or appear to respond to each other, as one might do when analysing musical structures like call-and-response, or visual rhythm in paintings such as the way two groups of pikesman hold their weapons at similar or complementary angles despite being in positions that cannot see each other. And so on. I don't see anyone attaching cosmic importance to these aesthetic concordances, just describing them in order to appreciate them in a social setting where they can be further noted, inventoried, and discussed.
- that the pointing out of parallels always forms part of an interpretive strategy
- that the assigning of value or significance to these parallels can be understood as suggesting an authorial intent to communicate something to the audience
The second premise -- that commenters believe that there is a pre-existing intent on the part of the director to embed an encoded message which must be cracked by decoding such parallels, is, as far as I can see, also false. I see people noticing equivalences and occasionally supplying confirmation and expanding on them, even -- though rarely -- citing close confidants and interviewers of Lynch like Martha Nochimson on artistic methods of representing Lynch's alleged views on the universal connectedness of consciousness. But as yet I've yet to see people suggesting that we as an audience are supposed, en bloc, to arrive at certain conclusions about the identity of characters, in accordance with the writers' wishes. Sure, there are speculations, but the context clearly marks them up as such, not as definitive declaratives in the form (look at me I solved it!) S is P. There are plenty of suggestions, tagged as such by tantalising questions (e.g. 'just a coincidence?') but no assertoric propositions. Again, these can be read, with very little charity needed, as forms of appreciation of the work, just as the identification of patterns and underlying convergences in any artwork function as interesting ways to describe what is shown or heard. And insofar as these patterns occur with any regularity they do then form a stylisation or formal positivity that is very useful to talk about as it becomes widely recognised as a characteristic of the artist(s) in question, one of the ways to create discourse about them.
(snip)
Finally, I have to ask -- what's the alternative? How would you have us enjoy it?
But yeah, I really do think that this way of reading resemblances between scenes in TP is out there as this way that people are trying to read the show. And reading these forums over the course of the show, I’ve seen plenty of resemblances and equivalences pointed out, and often with some level of conclusion implied in it. And I guess the ones that stuck out as odd to me were the ones that really seemed to “iron things out into a simplified, everyday narrative” (which is a really good way of putting it).
Off the top of my head, some of the kinds of parallels noted, and the conclusions suggested, on this board have included:
-Sarah Palmer’s sweater is black & white + the Lodge floor is black & white = is Sarah Bob?
-Diane has black and white nail polish + the Black Lodge has black & white floors = is Diane from the Black Lodge?
-Coop was captivated by red shoes + Audrey once wore red shoes = Audrey will wake Coop up (ok, this one I think had something to it at the time)
-the French woman was moving weirdly + Lil in FWWM moved weirdly = the French woman is a secret FBI code to Albert
-Sonny Jim blinked slowly for a split second in one scene + beings in the Black Lodge blink oddly = Sonny Jim is from the Black Lodge
-Candie is gesturing in the air when talking to Anthony in the casino + Mike was gesturing in the air in the Black Lodge = is Candie from the Black Lodge?
This is the kind of stuff I find odd. And yeah, fine, these were all claimed with varying degrees of seriousness. And, fine some of these might be coded as “questions”. But the point behind what I’m saying is not really about how ALL people are responding to, or even that they’re claiming any of this with absolute certainty. To say that these are just “questions” is disingenuous semantics. Asking a question IS making a statement, staking a claim, has rhetorical weight. So even if these kinds of “theories” aren’t being claimed in terms of absolutes, this still remains a kind of frame through which, it seems, a lot of people are trying to process the show. Fine. But when people are pointing out these parallels with the suggestion that they’re hints, that are ultimately to explain or solve, is what I find interesting, but also really confusing.
And I’m curious why that is. And I’m curious partly because these kinds of observations about the show really make no sense to me in terms of Twin Peaks’ story-telling, cinematography, and so on. I don’t necessarily think it’s wrong — though some fan theories are beyond ridiculous (the all-time winner still being: the scientist in the glass box photo is Charlie standing on Audrey’s shoulders!) But I’ve just never gotten the sense that Twin Peaks has ever been a show that drops hints, or explains, in this way. When it comes down to it, I really do feel like these kinds of parallels are often noted with a kind of reductive conclusion in the mix. That they are to “explain” something, the characters, the mythology, etc.
As you say, this is at some level something with ALL filmmakers, their cinematic language, and so on. Definitely agreed. And of course we should be paying attention to that! Who watches anything by David Lynch and isn’t fascinated by his cinematic language? I love it to pieces, ESPECIALLY in the new Twin Peaks, where we can see so many elements of his work done since the first Twin Peaks being invoked in new ways. A lot of really interesting observations have been made between the new TP and Mulholland Drive, Lost Highway, etc. These are incredibly interesting — and maybe that’s because they speak to effect much more than to explanation. The elements of mystery (and mystery begetting more mystery) I also agree are so significant to this show. But I still don’t think that these things, broadly, is the direction that fan discussion necessarily takes. It doesn’t have to, to be sure.
I’m not trying to suggest there’s a right way to see things — and I said that quite literally. So to try to turn the question back on me (“how would you have us enjoy it?” — I don’t care, do whatever. But I can still ask why.) is weirdly defensive. There are plenty of alternative discussions about the show, and a lot of those alternatives are represented in the great discussions and observations people make right here on these boards as well.