UnpopularTrousers

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    85

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by UnpopularTrousers

  1. Posted

    1 minute ago, Mentalgongfu said:

     

    From what little we see, new Dougie seems about equal to sleeping Dougie Coop in his level of interaction, which seemed to be the happiest time in the life of Janey E and Sonny Jim. And I also assume he's an improvement over philandering Dougie prior to being replaced by Dougie Coop. So not as great as living with Dale himself, but still a nice ending.

    I feel like things going so well was somewhat contingent on Mike's helping hand, though. I don't think their lives will be universally bad and it's not like I think people without their full mental capacities can't be happy and experience love. But the scene did at least have a hint of sadness and melancholy to me. I felt an absence in Dougie's face that reminded me of when he cried looking at Sonny Jim. And I don't think  I can endorse the idea that a cheerfully lobotomized husband is better than a philandering one.

     

    It left me with a mixture of emotions.

  2. Posted

    I'm surprised that everyone sees Dougie's return as being a purely happy ending to that storyline.

     

    It's shot like a cheesy over-the-top triumph, but Dougie still seems like an artificial and mostly empty vessel. When Janey-E and Sonny Jim run up to hug his he says just says "Home...". He's not mirroring the last word of a sentence and he looks happy, but he also still sounds vacant and lost and likely incapable of composing complete sentences.  His life has no substance to it. Without Mike guiding him along anymore, I feel like Janey-E will have to babysit and do everything for him once again.

     

    They have all the boxes checked to have a happy suburban American family, but deep down their lives look sad and meaningless. 

  3. Posted

    1 minute ago, Nordelnob said:

    True. But this doesn't just negate objective reality. There is such a thing as bad writing (and I'm not saying this is necessarily bad writing, I'm just giving an example) and it's a completely valid thing to criticize or discuss that type of thing. That's pretty much what we do here on this forum.

    When someone criticizes art, just saying "well, art is subjective" is a bit of a non starter. Kind of shuts down the conversation.

    When a painter uses the color red, that's an objective fact.

    When a film maker uses spooky music for example to create an atmosphere, whether he's subverting expectations or playing to them, there's an established "flavor" or "palette" that is being used.

    Yeah, I'm totally with you.  My point was that people only usually bring up those things because the other person disagrees, not because they're actually against making claims of meaning or intent. 

  4. Posted

    2 minutes ago, malkav11 said:

    d. So that's almost certainly new footage and it's just not Jack Nance - can't be that hard to get someone who looks close enough from behind.

    I actually thought something was totally off about the behind-the-back Jack Nance body double on the dock. It actually took me out of it for a second because, like you, I thought it couldn't possibly be that hard to find someone who looks close enough from behind.

  5. Posted

    I feel like people are talking about somewhat different things here. The 'true' intent of a work of art can never truly be known. Even if the artist tells you, they may be lying. The 'true' meaning of a work of art can never be known. Some would argue that even the artist can't speak definitively about this. Art is created independently of the person consuming it, but it is also in a sense interactive because you bring your own interpretations and meanings to it. There are also very smart people who would argue that everything I just said is wrong. All of this can/his/will be debated forever.

     

    But is any of that stuff actually what y'all are talking about? Or are people just displeased that the meaning and intent some people are projecting doesn't line up with their own projections? I feel like people only argue that you can't possibly speak of intent when that intent doesn't match with their own assumptions. 

  6. Posted

    http://twinpeaks.org/faqeps.htm#e25

    Quote 
    
E25. What are the words to Mike (the one-armed man)'s poem?

According to the shooting script of episode 2, it is:
    
    Through the darkness of future past
    the magician longs to see
    one chance out between two worlds
    'Fire walk with me.'

However, the closed caption subtitles for the episode use
the word "chants" instead of "chance", igniting a
long-standing, never-resolved debate:

- "chance" implies there is only one way or method to escape
from "between two worlds". 

- 'chants' is supported by both the Convenience Store scene
and Laura's dream/vision in FWWM, where recital of the
phrase is followed by passage to the Red Room. 
  
Brad Smith ([email protected]) attended the '93 Fan
Festival (see question P8 for the address for Fan Festival
info) and had the opportunity to ask Al Strobel (actor who
played Mike) about this:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

When I was at the TPFF 93, I asked Al Strobel about
chants/chance.  He said that he got the poem from David
Lynch's handwritten notes and it was chants.  This would
seem to indicate that DL's intention was chants. 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This is further supported by an appearance of the poem,
using "chants", in David Lynch's photography book, "Images"
(see question P1). 

However, because of the conflicting written versions, and
because both words help support peoples' different
interpretations of Lodge events, it is unlikely this will
ever be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. 
TOP of section

     

  7. Posted

    2 minutes ago, Jake said:

    I think Cooper thought that's what would happen, somehow, because he goes to visit someone he thinks will be Laura Palmer, and he has the person right... but it's not actually Laura. It's not the person he expected, or the past he expected. It seems like he has somehow shifted over into an entirely separate reality. I don't know how or why, but it doesn't seem like he actually changed the past, but found himself in a wholly separate timeline? Presumably the Twin Peaks we know still exists somewhere but Cooper is, once again, not in it?

     

    The line "One chants out between two worlds" in the fire walk with me poem now seems to mean something different than it did before? We have seen what seem like (at least) two totally different realities this season, with the red room/lodge(s?) serving as the transitory space between them(?). 

    Maybe we should also be thinking about the person who is doing the chanting. The chanter is in neither world. The chanter is between them.


    I think we live in that fuzzy transitory middle of the Worlds Venn diagram. Good Coop sitting on one shoulder, Bad Coop sitting on the other.

  9. Posted

    10 minutes ago, Digger said:

    The sex scene was especially weird because there was no context for it.  Diane had said they had only kissed once before, and the kiss in the car didn't seem overly sexual or romantic, Coop told her to do it and she did.  Them having sex in the motel seemed weird because they were on the trail of something or heading into another world.  Why would you stop at a hotel to have sex (for the first time).  Neither of them seemed very excited about the prospect or during the act.  I don't think it is them.  I guess Diane could be covering his face because it reminded her of the rape, but why would she continue, surely Coop would stop and comfort her.

    Rather than the motel scene being an event which took place after the rape, I thought it was an alternate version of the rape. In both stories Diane had kissed Cooper once before and then they met and then they had sex/he raped her. While there were no punches or direct violence, Cooper's words felt like they were orders and that Diane felt like she had no choice. I have no interest in getting into a discussion of what level of persuasion constitutes rape (because that's besides the point) but at the very least Cooper seemed to be using his power in an immoral and shitty way.

     

    This goes into my view of the finale being about how there isn't merely good and evil and how the real Cooper is a mixture of Good Coop and Bad Coop. I think the series was about extremes and the finale was about asking you to look to see the truth that exists in the unsaid middle.

  10. Posted

    14 minutes ago, Aether said:

     

    Believe me, I want to agree with you, I just poured 18 hours of my life into the season and many more thinking about it. I want to agree with you. And yet: Cockney Freddie and the magic gardening glove. That scene is not the problem, it's just an example of the problem. But there was just too much that Lynch threw under the bus in overtly ridiculous ways (or ignored all together). Having Cooper spring back last week "100%" only to very quickly turn into a different, Evil Cooper influenced self...that was intentional. The build up to Cooper's return was intentional...it was done knowing we would never really see that character again, in any meaningful way. Which is fine...that's Twin Peaks. You can mine rich stories out of expectation and altered selves. Lynch does it in his other work all the time.  This season was just structured in such a way that the build up never really meant anything. It's hard for me to see that as anything other than contempt for the audience. I'm glad so many others disagree and enjoyed the season. I just wish it had hit me the same way. I'll leave it at that, I'm being overly repetitive at this point. Thanks for the discussion forum people.

    I understand why people would hate the Bob hulk smash. It's cartoonish, anti-climactic, and somewhat flippant with aspects of the series. I think you're absolutely right that it doesn't take certain aspects of the lore all that seriously. It took all the most superficial elements of good versus evil and neat resolutions and ratcheted it all up to an extreme. The plot resolution it provided was deliberately shallow.

     

    While I did get some satisfaction out of seeing all the pieces fall into place, I would have been pretty unhappy if the series ended right there. But it didn't. Instead, by pushing that stuff past the breaking point, it felt to me like it shed itself of the plot machinations and asked the viewer to look back on the series not in terms of how the plot got us to where we are but in terms of the ambiguities and flaws in characters that would have otherwise gone unexamined. I liked how it left me feeling scattered and how even the most blatant comic book fight doesn't truly extinguish evil, because evil exists in shades of grey in everyone. The dualistic nature of Lynch's work is about how people are made of contradictory internal elements and not how opposing external sides are at war. It was a pull the rug out from under you approach, but I think it was with a point and a purpose.

     

    So I don't think it's that Lynch didn't care, I think its that he cared about different things than you. Which is totally fine. You cared about the plot and the lore, and I think he wanted to show that he considers those elements to be disposable and metaphorical and pushed them aside to focus on the signified rather than the signifiers. 

    Did it work? Is that a strong enough reason to flippantly toss aside the importance of lore and plot you have invested significant energy in dissecting? Well, you seem to think not and honestly I think you could make a pretty strong case. But I don't think it was a fuck you. It was merely a shift in focus.

     

  13. Posted

    30 minutes ago, lethalenforcer said:

     

    I could see her being a dreamer for some, but not all. That'd mean she dreamt up things involving Diane, Jeffries, etc, that I couldn't imagine her having any prior knowledge of. Maybe Diane.

     

    Waiting for someone to come up with a new proposed order to watch the episodes in. And character-centric threads combined into single viewing experiences would/will be interesting.

    I should clarify: I don't think any one fan theory will provide a key to put everything into place. Lynch's work is always too messy and loose for that. Every attempt to pin down the relationship between Bob and Leland has shown that to be the case. A lot of his stuff has elements that seem like dreams and projections of certain characters as well as elements that seem like dreams and projections of the audience as well as bits that might actually be happening like scenes in a normal movie. I think the first half of Mulholland Drive is largely Betty's dream, but I don't think she actually imagined the Winkies diner scene or Kesher going to talk to the cowboy.

     

    When dealing with three seasons of a TV show and a movie, this spirals completely out of control. However, I still think it's worth considering various reductive explanations and seeing if they enrich certain scenes for you. Enjoy the bits that work and look at what doesn't under a different light. 


    So, no. I don't actually think all of The Return is Audrey's dream. However, there was at least one scene that was presented as if it was her dream, so I think it's worth considering that there could be more. And if Bob/Leland could be an analogy for the need to compartmentalize in order for Laura or Leland to deal with abuse, then I think the same could be true of Good Coop/Bad Coop for Cooper or Audrey. Maybe how we see Diane is also a projection based on Audrey's experience with Cooper and her having heard him say her name into a tape recorder. It doesn't make sense for all the scenes, but it's interesting for some. Other bits I think are totally about the viewer and our dreams and expectations. It's a big swirling mess of things.

    For me, this is the only way I can penetrate Lynch's work. It eludes direct interpretation, but I enjoying helplessly grasping at it anyways.

  14. Posted

    30 minutes ago, SuperBiasedMan said:

    It's hard to explain but I'm wondering if it was there specifically to be dropped. A lot of this show has created unease in so many ways, this is certainly one of them.

    I think it might make some amount of sense if Audrey was the dreamer for the whole of The Return, though. In a loose Twin Peaks-y sort of way, anyways.

     

    She idolized her special agent, and he had inappropriate feelings towards her that he didn't act upon in the original run of the show. But when she was in a coma and he had the opportunity, he took advantage of it and raped her. These two things are so irreconcilable, that she more than anyone else had a reason to invent two Coopers in order deal with the trauma. Laura Palmer did the same thing to deal with Leland being her rapist. So, we could in effect have two interlocking dreams created by Audrey and Laura to live with how the men they looked up to and trusted betrayed them in the most horrible of ways. Maybe?

    EDIT: And to be clear, I in no way think there is a neat and tidy solution. It's always a hazy mixture of different explanations with Lynch. However, I do feel that if Frost/Lynch decided to show us explicitly that one sequence was Audrey's dream, then it seems likely that at least some other bits are too.

  16. Posted

    I feel like Bad Coop's path to the sheriff's station is important.

     

    He arrived there by going through a portal into a movie theater and was then fed through a tube into the movie screen. This movie world he went into was the cartoonish world of old Twin Peaks. "What is this?" he asks. This is where the bad Lucy jokes exist and where Andy walks around with a picnic basket. Even when Lucy shot Coop, it punctuated by Truman's hat doing an absurdly silly hop atop his head and Lucy delivering a punch line to the running phone gag. I think Lucy's terrible characterization this season may have actually been a deliberate choice to mock the squeaky clean style of the old show.

    It is only through this travel from The Return to old Twin Peaks that the two Coopers were able to meet, because they don't actually coexist in a single world. At least not in sense of two separate entities who could run into one another on the street. It was then through the collision of these two worlds that we get the more realistic character of episode 18. 

  17. Posted

    2 hours ago, plasticflesh said:

    Perhaps that's what Freddy's magic garden glove does. Not destroy BOB, but distribute his essence into the ether to be mixed into everyone's spirits.

    This is in line with my reaction. The over-the-top battle between a gloved superhero and a giant evil orb was such an on-the-nose showdown between good and evil that I think it felt more like the destruction of the stark and binary distinctions between good and evil rather than the destruction of evil itself.

     

    3 hours ago, plasticflesh said:

    The eerie sex scene between Diane and Dale, played to the lyrics of My Prayer by The Platters, resonates with the episode 1 sex scene in front of the glass box that invokes the Mother. Both sex acts were invocations, or sacrifice rituals. 

    And with episode 8 where that song was played on the radio before the DJ's head got crushed to bits. And with the overhead shot of Becky's face in the car when she gets high with her abusive husband and I Love How You Love Me plays. And with Diane's story about Cooper in episode 16. And it takes place in a motel that brought to mind where Leland went in FWWM. Oh, and the way the song faded in and out was odd and not unlike the Otis Redding song when Norma and Ed got together. Gosh, this is all a lot to deal with here.

     

    I also noticed that this took place in room 7 shortly after the importance of the number 8 shown.

  18. Posted

    4 minutes ago, anoldtoilet said:

    No, because Diane was raped in her house, and the sexual encounter we saw took place in a mysterious motel and then a different mysterious motel. 

    Well sure, but it was after they had kissed once before and certainly seemed coercive and not like something Diane wanted to do. So much of the world was off and altered at that point that I don't think a change in location rules it out.

  21. Posted

    2 minutes ago, anderbubble said:

     

    But she's played by Mary Reber, who apparently literally owns the house in real life.

     

    http://twinpeaks.wikia.com/wiki/Mary_Reber

     

    https://www.heraldnet.com/news/theres-a-little-mystery-and-a-whole-lot-of-screaming-at-twin-peaks-house/

    Dose that mean that part of the show exists purely in TV land, and another part exists in place that combines TV land with reality? Like how Jim Belushi is an actor, but Monica Bellucci is just Monica Bellucci? I mean, probably not.

  22. Posted

    So, I think episode 17 was the most deliberately reductive good versus evil superhero fight imaginable, and episode 18 argued that such a dichotomy doesn't exist. The Cooper of episode 18  was neither good Coop nor bad Coop, he was just Coop. And he used his power to force Diane to have sex with him. I think when the evilness of Bob was destroyed, it was actually the false dichotomy of good and evil being destroyed giving us a world where everyone is both.

     

    Or at least that was what my gut was telling me was happening on an emotional level. I can justify it at all, and I need more than a couple of minutes to figure out what the fuck I just saw in terms of actual plot.

  23. Posted

    Just finished episode 17. I can't fucking believe that Bad Coop was defeated half an hour in by a callback to the terrible Lucy phone jokes and a shaky cam punching battle with a floating orb. And then a bunch of Back to The Pilot time travel? My instinct is to say that this was all rather stupid, but at least it's a unique and interesting brand of stupidity. 

     

    On to episode 18, I guess!