Existing user?

Members
  • Content count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Existing user?

  • Rank
    Member
  1. <raises hand, glancing around>
  2. Joanna Robinson on the Peaks TV podcast said that every part is a differently balanced cocktail. Like, they shot all these various scenes, and then assembled them into these uniquely constituted one hour blocks. Each part is a different combination of the ingredients they shot, mingling and merging and balancing the neighboring scenes with a mixologist's logic. Just thought that was a really apt description.
  3. Like mother, like daughter (Shelly, Becky) Like father, like son (camo dad, camo kid) Both repeating the dangerous mistakes of the past. That whole sequence might have been my favorite so far.
  4. For me, a good example of a perplexing/challenging scene being "justified" by a later scene actually occurred within this episode. Candie's undignified remorse for swatting her boss was weird and uncomfortable and seemed random. On its own, it just felt like "look at this dumb blonde in her pink dress being a dingbat." Mean-spirited and also kinda pointless. But this got complicated by her later scene when she was passively defiant, ignoring her bosses and then carrying out their orders in the most patience-testing way. This did not read to me as just another example of Candie being "dumb" in a cliche sense. Instead it felt like she was getting back at them – retracting her apologies? – under the guise of airheadedness, maybe. It was still weird and unexplained! But there was some new interesting friction between those two modes: airhead-subservient and airhead-like-a-fox-defiant. The way each mode is cartoonishly overplayed or heightened further provokes comparison. There is some uncanny reversal going on… It also reminds me a lot of Hastings. In his early appearances he seems super guilty, gets vein-bulgingly mad at his wife, and is obviously lying to the cops. Then some episodes later, with no intervening developments, he reappears in a completely different mode: broken, divulging everything, pathetically lamenting his lost love and the tropical vacation he'll never have. There's something up with these jarring reversals, deliberately without logical, comforting transitions to ease us from one point to the next. Just overclocked in one direction, then another.
  5. Re: "context" for the brutal Richard scene, I don't think Jake and Chris were saying that they lacked context to understand the character motivations or narrative significance or anything like that. It sounded like they were talking about the ugly psychological impact of such a raw, assaultive portrayal. It's enough to make an audience member question the artist, as in "why am I being asked to endure this?" If it feels excessive in the moment, we can only look to the future, some additional context provided by later events. This is the nature of watching a work of art over time, which is inherent to film but even more of a factor when spread out over so many weeks like this. Tell me if I misunderstood, but I think that was the idea. Personally I was okay with the scene… It was very uncomfortable and sad but I didn't feel shocked out of appreciating the film, or anything… I think it's just highly personal how one reacts to that kind of thing.
  6. Fair! BB is super pulpy, intentionally and wonderfully so. Much better schlock than Sherlock, I would assert. I'm aware that my low opinion of the first two seasons of Mad Men is not a commonly held view. For all the great production design, social insights, and sound concept, I find the early goings heavy handed and on-the-nose. I really had a hard time getting through it! Eventually I just skipped to season 3 and it was like a different show. It became one of my favorite shows ever, a wonderful treat every week (accompanied by your podcast in the final season). Eventually I went back to complete season 2. It was more palatable having become attached to the characters but I still couldn't love it. Might be a weird reaction … I wish I could explain it better! PS sorry for the thread derailment!
  7. Sounds like you hate internet fan culture. These shows are all very different from each other. Sherlock is shlock, imho……………… If you're interested, try some Breaking Bad or Mad Men (not very good until season 3, becomes amazing) and avoid the fans.
  8. Did Albert seem more unwell in this episode? It seemed like he was short of breath… then I remember the actor passed away recently. I wonder if his scene with Cole in the hotel room was filmed later than his other speaking scenes this season. It was the first time I noticed him appearing frail.
  9. I loved the weird intensity of the casino brass. Just loved how the actors and the direction/editing/score presented their frustration and vengeful determination. Very funny. Also how the guy delivering the "Jones is your enemy" message anxiously delayed his exit, as though he expected them to declare on the spot "then we'll assassinate Dougie Jones!" How did people read Candy's behavior in her later scene, when she's sent to retrieve the messenger guy? I wasn't sure quite what was going on, but there seemed to be some defiance or passive-aggression in there.
  10. I keep thinking about how when Ray says he wants to pull over for a piss, Bad Coop's reply is "go for it". With a well-annunciated T. Such an enthusiastic endorsement.
  11. Regarding what happened between Diane and Bad Coop, I had the same read as Jake: he visited her house shortly after emerging from the black lodge did something bad which made her hate him. We don't know what it is… but sexual assault is a pretty natural assumption given "your house" at "night". Now I find myself wondering, surprisingly for the first time, who/what Bad Coop really is. My original assumption about Bad Coop was that he was simply a vessel for Bob. But I also had the contradictory thought that Coop might be brain dead because he's missing his other half, suggesting that he'll only return to normal when Bob relinquishes Bad Coop and the two Coops become one. This notion was encouraged by observing that Bad Coop seemed weakened after Coop/Dougie's return to the world – they aren't both supposed to be outside the black lodge at the same time, so each is lessened by the existence of the other. Now I'm not sure Bad Coop really is weakened, but that was my initial read of his weird slowed down voice. Of course if Bad Coop really is a part of Cooper, and the Cooper-Bob alliance can be compared to Leland-Bob, that casts the implied incident with Diane in an even darker light. If Bad Coop is just a vessel for Bob, his crimes are horrid but lack the psychological resonance of the original Laura Palmer mystery. It's just a story about a monster. If Bad Coop is the demonically empowered id of Cooper, his crimes are both far more disturbing and perhaps more psychologically meaningful, in the tradition of the original show. But is it also a shallower retread of familiar Twin Peaks themes? I think it's much too early to say. If this is a 18-hour movie, we're just at the end of act I. Better to stay in the dream and feel how it all comes together…