• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About SickNotes

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday July 11

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Oakland, CA
  • Interests
    David Lynch, Neutral Milk Hotel, William Gibson, Masamune Shirow, The Mighty Boosh.
  1. House of Cards is awesome. I didn't know that about David Fincher. It's an interesting analog. I love how the new House of Cards (US) twists the old one (UK). Even going so far as to:
  2. The fact that Leo actually goes out of his way to kill the myna bird via rifle is one of the most absurd points in the show...and I love it so much. I mean *snort* no bird would be able to stand up to the stresses of cross-examination. An even better plot line would have been Leo threatening the myna's wife if her husband didn't keep his mouth shut.
  3. I think Frost was Lynch's "foot in the door" for television. I don't know if that holds true, but what I am saying is that underestimating Frost would be a bad way to go, because I don't know how much of a television series they would have let David Lynch make without someone with Mark Frost as co-creator. In other words, everyone knew David Lynch after Twin Peaks, but going into the series, everyone at the television studio would have seen Mark Frost's resume as paramount. I'm in agreement that Mark Frost made his mechanisms felt and didn't feel second string ...well until everyone wanted to interview David Lynch instead of him.
  4. I like the idea of exploring how Laura Palmer tended to corrupt the people she was "seeing." Bobby is the really great example. James is too dumb to corrupt, but I think there are a lot of examples of things like that: of how deeply she was able to touch people in both their emotions and their weaknesses. I think you are on the right track here and it something to look out for. Haha, your name is turgid.
  5. I think this is an excellent rundown for Audrey. I agree. The highlighting of the poodle skirt from another era (anachronism) reminds me of Laura Dern's character's wardrobe in Blue Velvet.
  6. My wife and I just watched Eraserhead the other day, because of these forums mostly. I felt that I didn't have a firm enough handle on David Lynch to describe what was and was not Lynchian about Twin Peaks. I had heard lots of things about it over the years, but it just wasn't readily available till recently(ish). So, this was my first time watching it. My wife was actually a little afraid to watch it, cause she was certain it would give her weird dreams. I think it suffices to say, it will take a long time to digest. One of the brilliant things I wish I had was a viewing of it before and after becoming a husband and father. I think Lynch started making Eraserhead after marriage and fatherhood. I think it colors things...differently. I liked the idea of how the "baby" was an imposition on the insular nature of his life before fatherhood. That's not to say that I regret getting married or having a child. What I mean to say is that the way he moves around his house and daydreams and has "hobbies" is interesting. That's mostly what I remarked on. The film as a whole will need to be digested from several more viewings...probably months apart.
  7. This is a really helpful analysis. I'll have to read up on your blog. The moving of the show from one night to the next is really interesting as well. I think one of the other things that makes reviewers nervous is the idea that what they are looking at might not be subject to deconstruction. Reviewers are supposed to provide answers. Especially, I feel, television critics. I feel there has been a wealth of commentary that has grown up about not knowing the whole deal. I don't feel modern reviewers would have as much hardship dealing with an initial viewing, but I don't have any examples. With shows like Lost and the Sopranos and a host of others, I think there are now ways to suggest possibilities without backing yourself into a corner? Movie critics have it a little easier, because the piece is handed to them complete.
  9. Will this attrition be an issue with this forum? If people are losing interest in what I think are the predictable places, how do we keep viewership going. I love all your comments, but I'm worried that after we get passed the killer reveal, there will be a huge decline in forum attendance, haha. I don't know the solution to this. My wife was the only reason I made it through season two all the way this time. So, this viewing is the first time, I have ever sat through all of it.
  10. I'm not a newcomer, this is probably my third time watching it through. Although, it is my first time actually engaging with it on this level, probably because I have this forum to discuss the things I am noticing; but my thoughts are these. According to the wikipedia pages for each episode, viewership was high for the first episode of season two, then descended thereafter. I don't know why the hell that would be, necessarily. I can't imagine people thought that they would reveal the killer at the beginning of the second season? I think of Twin Peaks as a show that made a lot of ambiguity possible for its successors and it changed the way shows are written. However, I think it has a lot of things working against it. There should have been less writers. Season two found a lot of aimlessness and quirkiness (Ed and Nadine) that didn't do it any favors. David Lynch was less at the helm because, as someone mentioned, he had other projects he was working on. The fact that the ratings started to slip on what the TV executives thought was going to continue to be a phenomenon, made it so that they had to inject their opinions into the pacing. The execs probably projected add revenue for the whole season and when it dropped off almost immediately, they probably started pitching a fit. My personal opinion is that the writers of the show not associated with David Lynch, not having access to David Lynch, and David Lynch not being interested in clearing up some of the ambiguities, had to address the ideas of the supernatural elements. Maybe Mark Frost was a bigger help in this arena. But there is a tonal shift that happens in season 2 that, as people have suggested, makes the nature of the magical elements a central piece of the show. Instead of Lynch's desire to have the surreal and the magical be a small piece of the show as magical realism and surrealism, we get to a place where the writing becomes about the nature of the magic and how it works shifting it into fantasy territory (exploring the nature of the magic is the realm of fantasy). I don't think it is a spoiler to say that David Lynch returns (thank god) for the last episode and returns it to its inscrutable and ambiguous roots. Honestly, before watching Twin Peaks this time around, I didn't understand how much the X Files must owe to Twin Peaks. I like the X Files. I have nothing against it. But I think someone mentioned earlier that the X Files is based on the premise of FBI agents going to small towns to investigate strange phenomenon. The difference being that it ends each episode with a decision on whether the things we have seen are hoaxes, scientifically explained (think genetic mutations), or actually belong in the unknown category with the central arc concerning the possibility of aliens. The purpose of the episodes in the X Files is to illuminate. What David Lynch wants to do is deny your scrutiny. The fact that David Lynch directed the first two episodes of season two and the ratings started to drop is indicative of something, but I don't know what. I may have to go back and watch both of those to make some judgement. I don't think this answers your question LostInTheMovies, but it's my thoughts so far having just finished season two.
  11. I was doing a little research on the statue in the Red Room (I think we are still calling it this at this point, because I don't know that it has been named, yet.) It took me a while to find the specific statue because I have intentionally been staying away from fan pages until I am finished with watching everything up to the missing pieces. I am the first person to admit that David Lynch has a love of the inscrutable. In other words, deconstructing his work tends to lead down a rabbit hole which detracts from admiring the emotional force of the imagery. Basically, you don't have to "get it" to love it. However, it is worth mentioning that the statue we see in this episode is Venus de Medici (not Venus de Milo.) They are two different works. The Venus de Medici wikipedia page is here The wikipedia page for Aphrodite is here You could spend a great deal of time analyzing the metaphors and whatnot from the mythology. I think the important parts are these (if we assume the statue is a comment on Laura Palmer): Venus is the Roman name for the Greek god Aphrodite: the goddess of love. "Aphrodite is consistently portrayed, in every image and story, as having had no childhood, and instead being born as a nubile, infinitely desirable adult." (Laura is sexualized from an early age and robbed of her childhood) She is ordered to marry an ugly God. She is unfaithful and has many lovers. I am sure there are other things that can be said about this and would love to hear if anyone has any other stuff to say (I read spoilers). I don't think it is an accident that they chose this statue. In other words, I think it has more to comment than just to say it is a statue added to make things more surreal. The reason I believe this:
  12. I agree it must be difficult to follow with all the spoiler blocks, but I need to respond with just one more:
  13. Completely off topic Here is my best case for "Everyone Should Watch I, Claudius At Least Once:" This is Livia's (Sian Phillips) speech to the gladiators from I, Claudius. Possibly the most cold hearted speech I have ever seen performed, because she is ordering men to die in an arena as if they are florists who have, in the past, given her the second best roses. Video should start at 30minutes 30seconds. To tie it back to something Lynchian, here is the same actress asking you to simply PUT YOUR HAND IN THE BOX:
  14. Yes, I, Claudius is like one of those things that everyone should see, but no one has time to. I think my wife and I watched it after finishing HBO's Rome, cause we wanted more Romans, of course. One of my friends was lamenting how HBO's Rome ended when it did cause he wanted to see the rest of the story. I tried to impress upon him that it had already been told in I, Claudius cause it picks up where Rome leaves off, basically. He never watched it. His loss. I mentioned I, Claudius for the spindly legs, but the casting for that is surprisingly similar to David Lynch's Dune. I haven't checked but there is probably a casting director in common: Patrick Stewart, Livia, and several others, I think. However, I think this is a complete list of the actors who are in both Dune and Twin Peaks: Kyle MacLachlan Plays Paul Atreides and Agent Dale Cooper Everett McGill Plays Stilgar and Big Ed Hurley Alica Witt Plays Alia Atreides and a minor role as Gersten Hayward (the child pianist) Jack Nance Plays a Harkonnen (Nefud) and Pete Martell Miguel Ferrer Plays nobody in Dune and Albert Rosenfield; however, his father is Jose Ferrer who played the Emperor in Dune. Jurgen Prochnow Plays Leto Atreides and has a minor role in Twin Peaks Fire Walk with Me as a character in the Black Lodge called “The Woodsman.” This list isn't really that long, but now whenever someone mentions Dune, I get to say, “Yeah, you remember when Big Ed and Agent Cooper rode that sandworm together?”
  15. I'm with you guys on that scene: