LostInTheMovies

A great comment on Reddit points out the social/class critique of Dougie/Coop's situation: There's something that feels very "fifties" about the form this critique takes (I also think it's probably heavily due to Frost as well as Lynch) - right down to the contrast between the suited salesman and the cowboy statue. I love the ambivalence of that image and how many layers it contains. Not simply the contrast of a mundane present with a mythic past (that probably never quite existed like that) but also an implicit recognition, with the consistent focus on the gun, that both past and present were formed through and linked by an unspoken violence. And then there's the poignant mirroring between this frozen, incommunicative statue and Dougie's own state, but also its heroic status and his own humble standing: it's both an embodiment of his condition and an aspirational ideal. And, just on the story level, the shoes!

I loved this episode. I've been dazzled so far but in a more cerebral way, this was the one where the emotions started kicking in more. Interestingly enough, I also feel that way about the course of the original Twin Peaks and about Lynch's body of work as a whole - the early parts are impressive, polished, and brilliant but it's the later stuff that really hits me on a gut level. I wrote up my response here (I've also covered 1/2, 3, and 4), and have slowly begun making my way through the recent forum posts, hopefully to catch up soon. My very own "Twin Peaks Rewatch: The Return"

I think this is probably a fair enough description of the first half of his filmography (and, unfortunately, much of The Return so far). However, from Fire Walk With Me through Inland Empire the female characters tend to be centered and explored much more than the male ones. I'll be interested to see if The Return eventually works its way up to that or if that was only indicative of a certain phase in his career (having something to do, maybe, with his creative and personal partner for 15 years, editor/writer Mary Sweeney - EDIT: to clarify that timeline, they divorced in 2006).

Glad to be back! Been enjoying the new podcasts so far.

The only part of the book that drove me bonkers was the treatment of one character, which is all over the place. Maybe I'm just anal about dates, but this seemed so blatantly confounding that it was almost funny. Here's what I wrote on the dugpa forum at the time:

According to the blu producer Lynch sent over some scraps of paper with the dialogue that morning (it was just supposed to be an interview with the actors). No one except the actors was told what was on them and they went off in their corners to study for an hour. When Lynch arrived and they started shooting, he announced he would be interviewing the Palmers which was the first anyone on the crew heard of this idea, and they just rolled form there with the actors speaking the lines Lynch had given them not much earlier. Hopefully I'm not mangling that story but the short version is - yes, he definitely wrote it. Regarding the series accomodating new viewers

Woah, missed that. That's crazy. Why only the male ones?

I agree completely. I don't think the significance of it is that it's Gordon Cole, I think the significance is that it's Lynch. Especially as this is already set up as a behind-the-scenes promo. (Never thought about it being a selfie, but that makes perfect sense really - Lynch enjoys participating in pop culture stuff like that; see his bizarre Ice Bucket Challenge last summer where he called out Vladimir Putin. Also works as a "signature" at the end.)

Thanks for sharing that - I enjoyed the discussion & the interview with Brad. I was surprised they never once mentioned Fire Walk with Me though, especially as they mentioned a few things that are ONLY referenced in the movie (Mike being related to the Little Man, or the good Coop being stuck in the Lodge). It actually got kind of funny at one point, where I was perversely hoping they wouldn't mention the film just to see how long a Twin Peaks podcast could go without bringing it up even when skating really close to it. Any idea what they think of the movie? I'm particularly curious if your friend saw it - especially since she mentioned Laura as her favorite character and Sheryl Lee as her favorite actress but didn't talk about FWWM.

I just made a playlist of all the early 90s Twin Peaks videos I could find on YouTube yesterday. I'm sure there are probably plenty more - although I ignored stuff already on the Gold Box or The Entire Mystery - but this is a good selection of 35 or so (including some programs that are split into several videos). Really fun to watch all the actors in their youth and see the hype at the time. I tried to place them in chronological order though I have no idea when that first Sherilyn clip is from - could even be a bit after Twin Peaks ended. Incidentally, the guy from the Madchen Amick interview seemed really skeevy in that interview. I didn't know much about him, so I looked him up and holy shit: On a more serious note (at least in retrospect) there are some great Catherine Coulson clips in there too, one from the Emmys, and also some from the premiere of Fire Walk With Me in '92. Such a bummer to hear about that the other day. I wonder if, knowing the state of her health, Lynch & her filmed something quietly a few months ago. I hope so for their sake as much as anything - it would be really poignant for them to have collaborated one last time, since she was one of his oldest friends (helping him out with Eraserhead and starring in one of his earliest short films, The Amputee). Apparently he even saved her life at one point, and she would call him every year on his birthday to thank him. She was also a groundbreaking camera assistant, one of the first women in the camera union. Here are some great recent interviews with her: & http://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-pj42z-57b27c RIP

Recently joined Tumblr, and am posting a lot of Twin Peaks content over there: http://lost-in-the-movies.tumblr.com/ Meanwhile, there's been some surprising news on the new 2016/17 Showtime Twin Peaks front. Semi-spoiler-ish so I won't post it directly but here's a link to a thread discussing some of this stuff: http://www.dugpa.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2920&start=270 Oh, and the gang isn't going to do that True Detective season 1 podcast anymore, are they? Feels like that ship really sank with the aftertaste of season 2, and nobody even wants to think about the series anymore. Although it did well ratings-wise, I'm guessing

Me too. I've been checking out other recaps of the finale and they are all pretty brutal about the season. Pizzolatto is basically blood in the water right now and while I think he brought on himself in many ways, I can't help but feel a little bad for the guy. Couple recent headlines: "Insufferable Nic Pizzolatto Says Insufferable Things" and "Would HBO Renew True Detective Without Nic Pizzolatto"... This podcast was easily the most positive, or at least the most evenhanded, coverage I saw of the season. While I wasn't a huge fan of the show, I did think the last 3 episodes were pretty entertaining and that there were interesting ideas at work here, even if many of them didn't land. Sometimes the failures of a work can be as fascinating as its successes.

Only problem with this is that while it leads directly to Frank's death, Ray's death comes from something else.

This actually touches on something that I think is a permanent flaw with True Detective. I mentioned how season 2 did a better job than season 1 of actually focusing on the conspiracy, and not just brushing it under the rug but while that's true, BOTH seasons introduced a ton of characters and plot elements that ultimately just kind of disappeared. Season 2 was more egregious in this regard, but season 1 was arguably more offensive because the characters/threads it left dangling (most notably Audrey Hart - I almost wrote Audrey Horne!) seemed much more important to the story. The weird thing about Pizzolatto's writing is that he essentially seems to be setting up multiseason shows even though he knows he is only writing 8 episodes. So stuff like the Pano...etc etc Institute is set up like it's going to be this ominous, fascinating linchpin but ultimately consumes maybe 6 or 7 minutes of screentime over the course of the series and is brushed aside in the rush to the finish. If this shows went on for several seasons, or even a season that was twice the length, it could do that normal TV thing of "now on this episode we're going to hone in on Ani and her father" or "now we get to discover the crazy shit that Pitlor is up to" or "let's dig into Tony Chessani's crazy life" (someone elsewhere pointed out that, even though he was essentially the chief villain of the story, his role is essentially a one-scene walk-on). It could patiently unveil every little nook and cranny of this universe, while slowly advancing the main story. Instead, if sometimes feels like we're getting a sampler plate of a show instead of a banquet. True Detective Digest, so to speak.

Just listened to the podcast. WAS the Osterman guy Caspere's son? It sounded like the chief was saying that the girl was Caspere's daughter (shades of the classic "father finds out prostitute is his daughter" urban legends) but that maybe the mother was pregnant with another baby? I couldn't quite figure it out. The Oedipus connection obviously works better if Osterman was his son of course, and didn't know it when he killed him.

This quality fascinates me too, and I hope the Weekly podcast digs into it when they begin covering season 1. I think a spoiler section, ala Twin Peaks Rewatch, might not be a bad idea because the comparisons are interesting to begin with, and these guys are really good at doing that type of thing.

Should we spoiler tag season 1 stuff? The show's anthology status makes these considerations complicated... Anyway, following my own advice Ok what did the Osterman(n?) kid say that got Farrell to react like that? I can't remember!

In addition to the diamonds (which I forgot about too) I think asking for the suit was just a final assault on Frank's dignity. He knew he probably wasn't going to make it out of that desert anyway and it was the final straw and an excuse to go down with a fight. Really, as soon as Frank and Ray are saying goodbye and walking to the cars, you just know they're not gonna make it. The question of "how" is almost an afterthought...

I enjoyed the finale but my major objection was that Ani was so completely sidelined for the climax, which really didn't seen fair to her character or the audience. My big surprise was that by the finale, after such a struggle (especially early in the season), I actually felt interested/invested in these characters. The plot was a bigger MacGuffin than I expected, not just the predictably casual Who Killed Ben Caspere reveal but even the underlying corruption/conspiracy felt more like a backdrop for character exploration (a preference revealed right away by the opening scenes). Which makes me wish they hadn't wasted so much of the season on plot stuff but hey... I like Apple Cider's head canon and wish Pizzolatto had it in him to write a show like that. I expected Season 2 to be underwhelming but not as incompetent as it was. Right now in torn between dismissing Pizzolatto as a wannabe auteur who lacks the gravitas of the major showrunners and respecting him for really sincerely investing in his characters and themes wholeheartedly (part of the reason I found the endings effective was that, for all the types and tropes he employs, P really seems to believe in them on a fundamental level; he's not just engaging in cynical surface cliches - it seems deeply-felt). I'm leaning toward the latter conclusion, partly because the last few episodes were generally satisfying to me, partly because I value that type of earnest investment even when it invites parody, and partly because it's hard not to feel a bit bad for the guy as he takes such a beating in the press, even if he does come off as somewhat egotistical. I truly hope he has enough humility to hold himself to a higher standard (and maybe seek stronger collaboration) in S3 because I think the talent is there.

Hmm...this title is unexpected. Last season after loving everything up to the end I was a little disappointed by the finale (especially when I realized it was meant to entirely close off the world and mythos). I'm hoping that this season it will be the opposite: after having a very mixed reaction to a meandering story, it all ends with an explosive and surprising bang. My dream would be that we somehow get a subtle little link to season 1 but I'm 99% sure that won't happen. Which kind of makes me wonder what the point is of having a True Detective show in which every season is completely different from the other. Couldn't it just be a set of unrelated miniseries? What will distinguish this from any post-True Detective mysteries that Pizzolatto makes? The format just doesn't really make sense to me and almost feels like a marketig gimmick. Incidentally, I've heard several people suggest that the set photographer is the raven/brother of Caspere's secretary (ie the other orphan from the jewelry heist). That would correspond roughly to when/how the killer was introduced in season 1. I wonder who is directing this week.

An interview with the infamous Stan himself: http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/07/who-is-stan-true-detective-mystery-solved. Funny thing is, the actor/character is getting more attention than he probably would if the character actually WAS more prominent. Also, after finally figuring who Stan was - the totally anonymous (but predictably unfriendly-looking) goon/thug who roughs up some businessman and stands scowling behind someone in another scene, it's all the more hilarious that he's been built up into this mythic, noble too-good-for-this-world hero. Although I guess this is undercut by Blake's reveal that Stan just wanted a payoff or to get cut into the deal to betray Frank after all. EDIT: I love this tweet too: https://twitter.com/brianbyrdman/status/625495606228856832

I'll cosign this. Around the middle of the season, I was thinking OK, he's starting to come together as a character...but ultimately he just felt like a not-very-interesting sideshow. Potential, but too much for an 8-episode arc especially one that already HAS a B story with Frank. Me too. I kept thinking stop here, stop here, leave it to our imaginations, leave it ambiguous, but they kept going. I've noticed quite a few critics are on board with this, though their tone is fairly defensive. That really surprised me too. I'm not sure why in retrospect, but it worked.

Here's my post from the other thread, though I'm gonna drop the spoiler tags on the presumption we've all seen the episode if we're here: Pretty sure Aniray had more anti-shippers than shippers but here we are. I'm not entirely sure if the show wants us to see it as a good thing or not (leaning towards giving it the benefit of the doubt) but either way, I wish they'd just left well enough alone. These two had really good chemistry as partners, and that little bit of romantic/sexual tension was ok way, way in the background, but the hook-up just felt very forced and awkward. EDIT: Someone in another article felt it was like watching a brother & sister make out, but to me it felt even more like somebody making out with their reflection or something. These two feel just TOO similar to make an effective couple.

Spoiler for episode 7, because I can't wait for the thread.

Also, I found Frank oddly endearing in this episode. For whatever reason he felt more like a character whose ridiculous quirks you tolerate out of affection than the annoying half-baked-cliche verbose mobster of episode 5.