Chris

Twin Peaks Rewatch 32: The Missing Pieces

Recommended Posts

Twin Peaks Rewatch 32:

 

716__header.jpg

 

The Missing Pieces

As a followup to our Fire Walk With Me discussion, this week we share our thoughts on the Missing Pieces deleted and extended scenes from the Twin Peaks: The Entire Mystery Blu-ray set. Plus, we delve deep into listener opinions and theories on Fire Walk With Me!

Also as said at the end of the episode, next week is a mix of discussing listener mail about Twin Peaks as a whole, along with listener recommendations for additional supplementary materials to read/watch/etc. So send in your thoughts and recommendations to [email protected]! It'll likely be our last episode until the new season starts up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to one of your ending discussions, I'd like to link to a Film Crit Hulk article about Mulholland Drive. If you haven't seem the film, I'd say only take a look at this portion:

"THERE IS A POPULAR CONCEPTION THAT DAVID LYNCH JUST THINKS UP WEIRD SHIT AND PUTS IT IN HIS MOVIES. THERE IS ALSO A (FAR WORSE) POPULAR CONCEPTION THAT PEOPLE WHO LIKE HIS MOVIES EMBRACE THIS RANDOM WEIRD SHIT AS SOME SORT OF PRETENTIOUS RUSE TO SEEM SMART... IF YOU THINK EITHER OF THESE THINGS THEN HULK HEARTILY ENCOURAGE YOU TO KEEP READING. HOPEFULLY YOU WILL GET A CHANCE TO SEE WHAT LYNCH IS ALL ABOUT.

THE FIRST PROBLEM IN PROVING THAT DAVID LYNCH ISN'T JUST DICKING US AROUND IS THE FACT THAT HE ACTUALLY PROPAGATES THIS "MY MOVIES ARE JUST WEIRD SHIT I THINK OF!" CONCEPTION HIMSELF. HE OFTEN TALKS ABOUT THE MOST STRANGE METHODS OF INSPIRATION AND EXTRAPOLATION. BUT THIS IS JUST BECAUSE HE NEVER, EVER WANTS TO DIVULGE HIS INTENTION. THIS SERVES THE VERY IMPORTANT PURPOSE OF LETTING HIS FILMS' INTERPRETATIONS "LIVE FOREVER" SO TO SPEAK. IT GREATLY ENCOURAGE DISCOURSE AND AFFECTATION. IT EVEN ALLOWS HULKS TO WRITE COLUMNS ABOUT IT! AND WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO IT, HE JUST WOULD NEVER DO SOMETHING SO REDUCTIVE AS TO SAY "THIS IS WHAT I ACTUALLY MEANT."

BUT THE TRUTH IS THAT DAVID LYNCH, FOR ALL HIS TANGIBLE WEIRDNESS, IS ACTUALLY A PRETTY SMART AND SELF-AWARE FELLOW. ONE WHO IS CLEARLY WELL-VERSED IN PSYCHOLOGY, SYMBOLOGY, DREAM INTERPRETATION AND CRAP LOAD OF SEMIOTICS. HOW DO WE KNOW THIS? WELL, FOR ONE, HE WENT TO PRESTIGIOUS PENN ACADEMY OF FINE ARTS IN PHILADELPHIA AND HULK PRETTY SURE THESE CONCEPTS MIGHT'VE COME UP A FEW TIMES.

BUT FAR MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE STUFF THAT ENDS UP ON SCREEN IS JUST TOO VIBRANT AND SYMBOLICALLY CONCRETE TO IGNORE. THERE IS A THROUGH-LINE OF LOGIC THAT PRESENTS ITSELF IN EARNEST. AND A MOST BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF COMMON LYNCH TROPES LENDS ITSELF ENDLESSLY TO INTERPRETATION... WHICH MEANS, NO, HIS FILMS ARE MOST DEFINITELY NOT A BUNCH OF WEIRD STUFF UP ON SCREEN."

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2012/03/04/film-crit-hulk-smash-hulk-vs-the-genius-of-mulholland-drive

I think that a lot of the forums activities consist of trying to deconstruct his intentions, and I think this general point is worth remembering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh cool, much sooner than expected! Looking forward to next week too. I mentioned in the e-mail itself, but please please feel free to select/trim as much of the message as you need to. After sending it, I realized it was even longer than I had thought haha. [EDIT: Didn't realize you'd read it this episode. I feel badly if its length curtailed some of the other feedback, so hopefully that was not the case...] Can't wait to hear what everyone else has to say about the film and show. I mean obviously there has been a lot of discussion in this forum but I'd imagine there will be emails from a lot of lurkers and/or people who've never even visited the forum but listen to the podcast.

 

Any plans for further episodes?

 

I think that a lot of the forums activities consist of trying to deconstruct his intentions, and I think this general point is worth remembering.

 

I think Hulk is generally right, especially about the stuff onscreen having meaning. But I do also think a lot of Lynch's creative process is genuinely intuitive & subconscious rather than meticulously planned out. So much of it feels right and "falls into place", I think, because he is genuinely more in sync with the subconscious than most people are, either because of meditative practice, natural ability, or some other reason. Thus he's able to create works that resonate like dreams because they are created by a similar process. But of course it's all essentially speculation. Only one person knows: David Lynch, and he ain't telling!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love that FilmCritHulk piece of Lynch and I think, like LostInTheMovies says, there is truth in everything FilmCritHulk says but also you have to keep in mind that Lynch does operate on an intuitive level at the same time. I tried to say as much in this week's episode but didn't manage to explain myself any better than I'm doing here. I worry (maybe unnecesarilly) that focusing too much on Lynch being driven by intuition and the subconscious runs the risk of losing sight of how deliberate he is, and how consistent. So I'm glad that Hulk's article goes in very strong on the deliberate nature and solidity and consistency of Lynch's work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple things about the Engels alt.tv post. First off, what I took from that anecdote was that Engels told the crowd about the longer cut and the missing footage, not that they actually saw it there in the theater. I'm pretty sure Lynch cut a lot of those scenes really early so they were never in a condition to show an audience until 2014. As far as I know, no audience ever saw a different theatrical version of FWWM than the one we've been watching all these years.

 

Also, re: Engels' statements about making another movie with Bowie & not Cooper...frankly I don't buy it. Engels has a tendency to contradict himself and to focus on fairly bizarre minutia about the movie whenever he's interviewed. Most notoriously the planet of creamed corn. Have you heard about that? According to Engels, Lynch's origin story for Mike and Bob was that they came from a planet of creamed corn and were collecting it on earth to find their way back home. This sounds like something he and Lynch possibly joked about one morning over coffee, and not remotely anything Lynch would actually execute. Although who knows, maybe we'll have a surprise visit to Planet Garmonbozia in 2016 - though I doubt it.

 

I suspect the Lynch-Engels partnership was based on the shared sense of humor that we see in Deer Meadow. I don't think Engels ever really took the film very seriously - indeed he's expressed curiosity and surprise about what people are still getting out of Twin Peaks 20 years later. Last fall I interviewed Martha Nochimson, who has written some really excellent studies of David Lynch (based on conversations with him and research into his work). This was her take on Engels, which I think is worth reprinting for the light it sheds on the difference between his and Lynch's views on Twin Peaks. It also ties into what you guys were saying about different types of lore & storytelling:

 

"Bob Engels is a very particular case. I did have a very short and not very nice interview with him. He was very different from David. David is about 'I would tell you if I could, but I can’t tell you what you’re asking.' Him, it was like a striptease, like 'if I wanted to, this shoulder that I’m showing you,' that sort of thing. He gave the impression that it was all very tricky and more like a puzzle. But for David, it’s not a puzzle. With David, it’s that what happens comes from a very deep place. And that’s why he can’t tell you."

 

Engels contributed a lot of great stuff to the series and film but I tend to take his perspective on FWWM with a grain of salt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, re: Engels' statements about making another movie with Bowie & not Cooper...frankly I don't buy it. Engels has a tendency to contradict himself and to focus on fairly bizarre minutia about the movie whenever he's interviewed. Most notoriously the planet of creamed corn. Have you heard about that? According to Engels, Lynch's origin story for Mike and Bob was that they came from a planet of creamed corn and were collecting it on earth to find their way back home. This sounds like something he and Lynch possibly joked about one morning over coffee, and not remotely anything Lynch would actually execute. Although who knows, maybe we'll have a surprise visit to Planet Garmonbozia in 2016 - though I doubt it.

 

It is difficult to take something like that seriously, well at least literally. But you never know. In the book "Lynch on Lynch" and later excerpted in the Criterion Collection edition of Eraserhead, Lynch was asked:

 

Coulson has said that years before her appearance as The Log Lady in Twin Peaks, you predicted she would appear in a television series one day with a log. Was that a joke?

 

No. I had this idea during Eraserhead that I described to her and Jack and whoever would listen. [Laughs] And it was called I’ll Test My Log with Every Branch of Knowledge! It’s a half-hour television show starring Catherine as the lady with the log. Her husband has been killed in a forest fire and his ashes are on the mantelpiece, with his pipes and his sock hat. He was a woodsman. But the fireplace is completely boarded up. Because she now is very afraid of fire. And she has a small child, but she doesn’t drive, so she takes cabs. And each show would start with her making a phone call to some expert in one of the many, many fields of knowledge. Maybe on this particular day she calls a dentist, but she makes the appointment for her log. And the log goes in the dental chair and gets a little bib and chain and the dentist X-rays the log for cavities, goes through the whole thing, and the son is also there. Because she is teaching her son through his observations of what the log is going through. And then sometimes they go to a diner and they never get to where they’re going. That was the idea. You’d learn something each week, see? For real! In an absurd sort of world.

 

How did that manifest itself finally in Twin Peaks?

 

Well, we were shooting the pilot, and we’re coming up to this scene in the Town Council meeting and it struck me that Catherine had to be in this scene. And all she was gonna do was hold a log and turn the lights on and off to get people’s attention—there’s something about a lady with a log, you know . . . we got a lot of feedback about her, and so she became like a regular character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't gotten around to listening to the podcast yet, but I watched the Missing Pieces which I had never seen before. My impression is that while there is some wonderful stuff in there, I'm glad none of it made it into the movie as I feel like the movie would feel a lot less sharp with a lot of that material. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple things about the Engels alt.tv post. First off, what I took from that anecdote was that Engels told the crowd about the longer cut and the missing footage, not that they actually saw it there in the theater. I'm pretty sure Lynch cut a lot of those scenes really early so they were never in a condition to show an audience until 2014. As far as I know, no audience ever saw a different theatrical version of FWWM than the one we've been watching all these years.

 

Also, re: Engels' statements about making another movie with Bowie & not Cooper...frankly I don't buy it. Engels has a tendency to contradict himself and to focus on fairly bizarre minutia about the movie whenever he's interviewed. Most notoriously the planet of creamed corn. Have you heard about that? According to Engels, Lynch's origin story for Mike and Bob was that they came from a planet of creamed corn and were collecting it on earth to find their way back home. This sounds like something he and Lynch possibly joked about one morning over coffee, and not remotely anything Lynch would actually execute. Although who knows, maybe we'll have a surprise visit to Planet Garmonbozia in 2016 - though I doubt it.

 

I suspect the Lynch-Engels partnership was based on the shared sense of humor that we see in Deer Meadow. I don't think Engels ever really took the film very seriously - indeed he's expressed curiosity and surprise about what people are still getting out of Twin Peaks 20 years later. Last fall I interviewed Martha Nochimson, who has written some really excellent studies of David Lynch (based on conversations with him and research into his work). This was her take on Engels, which I think is worth reprinting for the light it sheds on the difference between his and Lynch's views on Twin Peaks. It also ties into what you guys were saying about different types of lore & storytelling:

 

"Bob Engels is a very particular case. I did have a very short and not very nice interview with him. He was very different from David. David is about 'I would tell you if I could, but I can’t tell you what you’re asking.' Him, it was like a striptease, like 'if I wanted to, this shoulder that I’m showing you,' that sort of thing. He gave the impression that it was all very tricky and more like a puzzle. But for David, it’s not a puzzle. With David, it’s that what happens comes from a very deep place. And that’s why he can’t tell you."

 

Engels contributed a lot of great stuff to the series and film but I tend to take his perspective on FWWM with a grain of salt.

That's good clarification about the fan screening and does seem more accurate to what I'm sure happened! Also that is kind of reassuring to hear (?) about Engels because it tracks to what I would have expected from his work on Peaks. Thanks as always for posting this stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lostinthemovies in his email commented on the similarities between Ronette and Laura and the characters in Inland Empire (I haven't seen the film so I don't know their names, sorry.) I just recently viewed Mulholland Drive, and there was a similar duality between both of the women in that film. Does anyone have any thoughts on the similarities between these two films?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lostinthemovies in his email commented on the similarities between Ronette and Laura and the characters in Inland Empire (I haven't seen the film so I don't know their names, sorry.) I just recently viewed Mulholland Drive, and there was a similar duality between both of the women in that film. Does anyone have any thoughts on the similarities between these two films?

 

I think it's almost the reverse in a way, although the power dynamic is the same (blondes always seem to be more powerful and/or troubled than brunettes in Lynch's world). Well it starts off similarly in that the blonde woman is protecting/looking out for the brunette. But then

of course, it turns out she was the one who had her killed, in reality/alternate reality/whatever-you-want-to-interpret-it-as, although Camilla/Rita comes off more as the femme fatale.

Also Lost Highway has a brunette/blonde duality too, although this time they are played by the same actress.

And in that film, the brunette is the version of Patricia Arquette who becomes Pete/Fred's victim whereas the blonde is the version that victimizes him. Take that as you will.

In Twin Peaks, of course, the blonde Laura is the mysterious, dangerous dead girl while her brunette cousin is the sweet, innocent living one.

 

Blue Velvet is the only film of his I can think that completely flips this dynamic on its head. The blonde Sandy is the girl next door, naive and idealized, while the brunette Dorothy is troubled, mysterious and threatening to Jeffrey (although she still is a victim figure, like the brunettes in most of the other works).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Lynch loves the double identity thing, we see this over and over again in his work. I find Lost Highway is the most striking example of it where we seem to have two different female characters played by the same actress, and two different male actors playing the same person sort of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just want to say that I would have loved to see a Log Lady show, especially one that sounds basically like Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood, but with a log.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to chime in on the actual topic of the thread (since my previous comments were OT) and say that, for the most part, I really like The Missing Pieces. But I'm also glad they aren't in the film. I think they were shot because Lynch didn't really have a grasp on the kind of film he wanted to make yet, and the idea that somehow these belong to the same film Lynch ended up cutting strikes me as odd, to put it mildly. Restoring the deleted scenes into a massive fanedit seems pretty terrible, except just as a kind of experiment for people who've already seen them several times, properly separated. Honestly, on a rewatch my preference is to watch them before the movie because I find they make a nice bridge between the scenes & film, tonally and stylistically. Now that 2016 is coming, though, they may fit better after the film especially given the ending.

 

I do think TMP will be treated as canon given how Lynch presented them, saying something to the effect of "Many things happened in the last few days of Laura's life that we will now be seeing for the first time."

 

One more thought...it's worth noting that The Missing Pieces were cut by Lynch, not Mary Sweeney (his editor and ex-wife, who cut Fire Walk With Me in '92). All of the post-production work, to my understanding, was done in 2013-14. So to a large degree, the presentation of these scenes - the rhythm of the cutting, the sound design, some of the digital effects (like that video zoom in the middle of the convenience store) - actually belongs more to the current phase of his career than his 1992 aesthetic. That's another reason I don't think it makes sense to conceptualize The Missing Pieces & Fire Walk With Me as part of the same meta-movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So to a large degree, the presentation of these scenes - the rhythm of the cutting, the sound design, some of the digital effects (like that video zoom in the middle of the convenience store) - actually belongs more to the current phase of his career than his 1992 aesthetic.

 

Good point, I noticed this when one of the same names in the credits for The Missing Pieces showed up in Inland Empire.  It still looked like Twin Peaks to me, but it really is a revisitation from modern eyes like when Soderbergh starts cutting up a classic film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any word on the next episode - has it been recorded, or will it be a while yet? Me being me, I'm holding off on some errands in the hope that I can listen to the new podcast as I do them. Or maybe I'm just lazy and looking for an excuse not to do them haha...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been negligent in releasing it but it will appear in the next couple of hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been negligent in releasing it but it will appear in the next couple of hours.

 

Good to know, and it's been a blast listening to you guys since the fall. Thanks for the great food for thought & discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of these clips are really interesting and I’m really glad they exist. 

 

It was neat to see Pete and the bank manager have a long discussion about wood. 

 

Its intersting to to me how much “classic” twin peaks was stripped from the film (coop and Diane banter, Leland being over friendly but slightly insane, the doc being nice to Laura, ed and Norma with nadine). You can see why all of it was chopped to give the overall tone of the film something far more consistent and solid and maintaining some ambiguity (cooper at the end of series 2). 

 

A couple of others worth noting:

coopers room analysis is identical to Leo’s. 

 

Bobby nearly laughs his head off when Laura says baby laxative

 

I think my favourite deleted scene is the extra long Donna/doc Hayward/Laura scene. I love how in the conversation between Donna and just subtly illustrates that Laura’s oblivion is a choice which isn’t about sex because it’s a cool thing to do - she criticises Donna - but that it’s her coping with whatever deeper horribleness she needs to block out. This could be the Leland stuff but it could be something else entirely. 

 

I think also when doc is nice to her is a really important moment because I don’t think we ever see much kindness or warmth to Laura. Even donna seems to only be nice in the same way a birthday card might express friendliness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now