Twin Peaks Rewatch 41: The Return, Part 7

[cgoc]

10 hours ago, FRENDEN said:

Are we to believe that Dougie squeezed Ike's hand so hard that it took a few layers of skin off on the handle of the gun? That seemed ambiguous. It looked sorta like the hunk of organic schmoop that was in the trunk of Hastings' car.

 

If you look closely as he drops the gun, you can see that it does indeed come from Ike's hand

[LostInTheMovies]

I am leaning away from the Vegas/TP-are-a-dream/alternate world theory now not so much because of anythint we've seen/heard but just because he casual way hear stories are intercut just doesn't quite register with how Lynch treats similar concepts in his other work - even in the fluid Inland Empire, there is an abrasive/jarring feel to the transitions (plus everything is so surreal). Of course it could just be a new approach for him. But something about that idea isn't quite clicking for me after this episode.

 

I wrote most of my reactions to Part 7 - maybe my favorite so far - here: http://www.lostinthemovies.com/2017/06/twin-peaks-return-part-6-theres-body.html

 

However, one of the few aspects I didn't mention was Tammy. I have to say I'm a bit more onboard with her admittedly bizarre and cringey character this time around, simply because the show itself acknowledges and highlights the ridiculousness of the situation between the tensions with Diane ("fuck you, Tammy") and especially Gordon's extraordinarily childlike treatment of her which made me laugh as well as groan. (I can definitely see Lynch doing this in real life.) It's still a jarring decision to present Chrystal Bell this way (and really, to cast her in the first place), especially after reading The Secr

History where Tammy has so much interiority, but I feel slightly better about it now. That said I could see why some would feel as bad/worse after part 7.

 

1 hour ago, TurboPubx-16 said:

 I wonder if Dougie's fame will spread on the Internet and Hawk will find him in a Vine or something. 

 

I really enjoyed this episode. I laughed out loud several times. Favourite bit:

 

Gordon: BUT YOU'LL GO WITH ME?

Albert: Say please.

Gordon: WHAT?

Albert: You heard me.

Gordon: [...] Please.

 

There's also the really dark stuff, like the implication that Bad Coop assaulted Audrey and Diane. If we accept that Leland is at least partially responsible for abusing Laura then I think we have to accept that even our beloved Coop has a dark side. Bob is doesn't feed off anything that isn't there already, I think.

 

This is one thing I'm not really clear about yet, dramatically speaking. I appreciated that through the diary entry, they emphasized once again the idea that Leland, not Bob, was the one driving Laura's abuse (yes, this has to do with her perception and what she'd just found out, but I still find the emphasis on this phrasing significant). However, is Coop in the same boat?

 

I often get the sense that one reason Lynch puts so much emphasis on a split rather than possession (it was his idea, he dragged it into FWWM via Annie, and he's brought it up in interviews when he mostly avoids specificity) is because he wants to preserve and separate Coop's goodness from the evil of his double. That makes sense not only a sentimental level (everyone loves Coop) but on a character level too - we may have learned that Coop was flawed and even had his own shadow, but he never indicated the evil we've seem in the doppelgänger.

 

The problem is, though, what does this 18-hour film tell us about human nature and spiritual struggle if it's essentially just a dualistic tale of two opposed entities, neither responsive to the other? I'm not sure he allegory holds up in this sort of story, where much else is, if not realistic exactly, operates on the level of individual motivation and responsibility. Unless they can find a way to reconcile what we know about Cooper with the need for a deeper resonance (or else convincingly retcon him as having been something else all along, which is a stretch).

[Schnapple]

Something I've been curious about with regards to the Black Lodge is the passage of time. 

 

We know that it's been 25 years since Cooper was trapped in the Black Lodge and Cooper himself has visibly aged, both because in the 1990 TV show they artificially aged Kyle MacLachlan to illustrate that as well as the fact that in reality Kyle MacLachlan has aged 25 years. 

 

However, unless there's a barber shop in the Black Lodge, it's odd that his hair hasn't changed. Especially since BadCoop has grown long hair. And that suit would be pretty ratty after 25 years. To say nothing of body odor. Or the need to eat.

 

Maybe some of this we're just not supposed to think about or care. Maybe the Black Lodge lets people age but other nonorganic things stay the same. Or some other handy wavy magic thing.

 

But what I wonder is - we know Cooper has been in the Black Lodge 25 years, but does Cooper think he's been in the Black Lodge 25 years? 

 

I'm reminded of a sequence of episodes in True Blood (I think it was the end of one season and the beginning of the next) where Sookie is transported into another dimension with fairies and when she comes out, after what she perceives is an hour, to find a year has passed in the real world and everyone thought she was dead because she was missing.

 

So what I'm wondering is, maybe in the Black Lodge only a few hours/days/weeks have elapsed but in real life 25 years have elapsed. Or maybe 25 years has elapsed but Cooper just thinks a smaller amount of time has passed. 

 

Some sort of non-passage of time might be why Major Briggs' body seems to be too young for how old he would have been. But Cooper's body did age. I dunno.

 

Maybe none of this will ever be answered but I'm mainly curious how long Cooper thinks he's been stuck in the Black Lodge.

 

I'm also insanely curious to read that new "Twin Peaks: The Final Dossier" book that's coming out after the show, since that's supposed to be what tells us all happened in the 25 years between the seasons. 

[dartmonkey]

1 hour ago, LostInTheMovies said:

The problem is, though, what does this 18-hour film tell us about human nature and spiritual struggle if it's essentially just a dualistic tale of two opposed entities, neither responsive to the other? I'm not sure he allegory holds up in this sort of story, where much else is, if not realistic exactly, operates on the level of individual motivation and responsibility. Unless they can find a way to reconcile what we know about Cooper with the need for a deeper resonance (or else convincingly retcon him as having been something else all along, which is a stretch).

 

I think the image of Cooper as a boyscout isn't quite accurate. Having rewatched the pilot recently, it struck me how impish and mischievous he is. He messes with Bobby, he's super enthusiastic about the letter under Laura's fingernail. Granted, these examples are borne of professionalism but he's far more impulsive and interesting than the thumbs-up Mr Positive I tend to remember. He's got an incredible moral compass (and as tantilising as a GoodCoop/Audrey relationships would have been, I think it would have been hugely inappropriate) though again, we're shown via Caroline that he has faltered in the past.

 

I guess it depends what doppelgängers are. If they're just unchecked id then I think BadCoop could certainly be connected to GoodCoop.

 

Also, if Briggs had been in the White Lodge, maybe time has no meaning there. The predator has no teeth. Okay nerds, tell me that reference 😉

[Oldbie]

When David Koechner introduced himself and his two partners as "Detectives Fusco", I immediately remembered one of my favorite Onion articles: "William Safire Orders Two Whoppers Junior". Confirmed in the credits that all three detectives are indeed Fuscos.

 

What a weird episode. I feel like every week I'm adjusting to a new style of Twin Peaks and, frankly, I think I like it.

[Argobot]

Creepy hobo is up there with the monster behind the diner from Mulholland Drive. Both are so viscerally scary. 

 

Does anyone else think he might be the long bearded man from this scene of Fire Walk With Me? (sorry for low quality)

 

 

[Persistence of 3]

That tune Gordon Cole whistles at his desk sounded to my ears to be the theme to Amarcord. Which translates to "I remember".

Which, funnily enough, by the time he got to the end bit, he couldn't remember.

 

 

[cgoc]

On the subject of tar hobos: I went back and looked, and the hobo in this episode appears to be different than the previous one in Episode 2. I wonder if there's any significance to the fact the the tar hobo in this episode walks into frame just as Lieutenant Knox says "What I mean is his head is not here, it's missing", given Episode 1's hobo's floating head.

 

The character and actor aren't listed in either of the episode credits, and, to my knowledge, these are the only characters that haven't been listed (hell, even the weird creature in the box is credited as "Experiment Model"). The character from FWWM that Sarah mentioned above is credited as "Woodsman" and is played by Jürgen Prochnow (Duke Leto Atreides in Dune), who, as far as we know, has not been cast in this season.

 

The character from Episode 1 was actually brought up in a recent interview with Lynch (I believe it's this one), and Lynch says something to the effect of "keep an eye out for him", so I wonder if this is what he meant.

 

 

[Argobot]

Ahhh, they're close enough, although the FWWM man's beard is obviously a lot longer.

 

Also, someone on twitter pointed out that Laura gives her diary to Harold before she has the dream about Annie. Does anyone remember if that's true or not?

[Frohike]

Jerry Horne's scene at the beginning of this episode made it seem like he has somehow channeling other characters.  He almost sounds like a lost Dougie or some reverberation of Coop.  Consider these lines in the context of the later Dougie scene with the cops and his inability to speak without echoing the other person:

Jerry: "Someone stole my car."  (<-- this really reverberates with the exploding car investigation)
Ben: "What?"

Jerry: "Didn't I tell you?"
Ben: "Jerry, what's going on. Someone stole your car?"

Jerry: "You say the same thing." (<-- again pretty close DougieCoop parallel here, like he's witnessed what Coop is doing)
Ben: "What? Jerry."

Jerry: "I think I'm high!" (... didn't Dougie in the Black Lodge say something along those lines? forget)
Ben: "Oh good lord, Jerry."
Jerry: "I DON'T KNOW WHERE I AM!" (<-- could be either Dougie or Coop in this situation)

He really doesn't seem or sound like himself.  It's like Dougie got into him somehow while he was perched up there in his tree. Owl, maybe, or he stumbled into the BL entrance in the woods?
 

[LostInTheMovies]

33 minutes ago, Argobot said:

Ahhh, they're close enough, although the FWWM man's beard is obviously a lot longer.

 

Also, someone on twitter pointed out that Laura gives her diary to Harold before she has the dream about Annie. Does anyone remember if that's true or not?

 

Yes, and consequently Leland rips the pages out even earlier than that. Even FWWM itself seems to forget this chronology, given Annie's line and Lynch's later proclamation (in interviews) that she did write it in her diary.

 

I guess the only way to "fix" it would be assume that she wrote these pages elsewhere and Leland found them too before killing her, but that does kind of undercut the conceptual elegance Lynch/Frost seem to have had in mind.

[ddennism]

4 hours ago, LostInTheMovies said:

I have to say I'm a bit more onboard with her admittedly bizarre and cringey character this time around, simply because the show itself acknowledges and highlights the ridiculousness of the situation between the tensions with Diane ("fuck you, Tammy") and especially Gordon's extraordinarily childlike treatment of her which made me laugh as well as groan.

 

Yeah, I had a similar reaction to Tammy in this episode. When Gordon Cole initially tells her to place her hands in front of him, I braced myself for an extremely patronizing explanation of how mirror images work. I was so relieved when it instantly got way weirder, and also confirmed that the three agents are all aware of the "It's yrev very..." thing, without one of them essentially having to turn to the viewer and say, "We're aware of the linguistic oddity in an earlier episode, don't worry."

[ihateasparagus]

1 hour ago, Frohike said:

He really doesn't seem or sound like himself.  It's like Dougie got into him somehow while he was perched up there in his tree. Owl, maybe, or he stumbled into the BL entrance in the woods?
 

Seems like quite a few people have made this "Dougie" connection.  I just thought it was Jerry being wonderfully stoned and paranoid---and my first thought was a fun call-back to MD:

Rita:  "I DON'T KNOW WHO I AM!"

Jerry:  "I DON'T KNOW WHERE I AM!"

[thenexus6]

[ddennism]

Laura Hudson at Vulture nails it, again, with her review of part VII, putting into words exactly how I feel about the tension between Lore and Emotional Truth:

 

Quote

"The promise of the “puzzle TV” genre — which can trace its lineage directly back to Twin Peaks — is that there’s a clear answer to the strange and often supernatural mysteries they present, a secret and speakable piece of truth that will make it all come together and turn like a key in a lock. This turns out to be either untrue or unsatisfying because once you spin up too many layers of abstruse or supernatural weirdness, it’s hard for it to resolve neatly into a concrete block of knowledge.

 To the frustration and delight of its various fans, Twin Peaks has never tried to do any such thing. Sure, we found out who killed Laura Palmer, except did we? The murderer was always just as much a scapegoat as he was a culprit, and the real answer was always bigger, weirder, more unknowable. There was no name you could write on a police report that would ever tell you the truth.
 
The mystery of Dougie’s insurance files, of Mr. Strawberry, of What Diane Knows might have answers; maybe we will learn them. But it’s equally likely that they exist not to be revealed but as symbols of secret knowledge, placeholders and pronouns that are not meant to have an antecedent."

 

[LostInTheMovies]

1 hour ago, ddennism said:

 

Yeah, I had a similar reaction to Tammy in this episode. When Gordon Cole initially tells her to place her hands in front of him, I braced myself for an extremely patronizing explanation of how mirror images work. I was so relieved when it instantly got way weirder, and also confirmed that the three agents are all aware of the "It's yrev very..." thing, without one of them essentially having to turn to the viewer and say, "We're aware of the linguistic oddity in an earlier episode, don't worry."

 

I didn't even catch how literally he was addressing the doppelganger's statement until the second viewing. Made the moment seem even stronger! (And I love that only in the world of Twin Peaks could I describe an esoteric backwards word/finger-counting exercise as being relatively "on the nose" to someone else lol)

[LostInTheMovies]

3 hours ago, Persistence of 3 said:

That tune Gordon Cole whistles at his desk sounded to my ears to be the theme to Amarcord. Which translates to "I remember".

Which, funnily enough, by the time he got to the end bit, he couldn't remember.

 

 

Wow, any relation between this and the Rammstein intro? Lynch has plausible connections to both, having directed a Rammstein video and included their work in Lost Highway but also being an avowed, devoted Fellini fan (despite not generally being a vocal cinephile of the Scorsese variety), who visited the director on his deathbed.

[Argobot]

Maybe it's because Twin Peaks: The Return is not doing Westworld or even True Detective numbers, but I haven't really noticed any feverish speculating with this show. Sure, we've played an innocent guessing game of "is Albert looking for Diane?" but that stuff is fairly tame in comparison to the frenzy that surrounded these other shows. I suspect that if this show was more of a mainstream hit, we'd be seeing a lot more of that. But also, there's no way the show in its current form would ever become a main stream hit, so there's no reason for it to become part of the Internet speculation machine.  

[LostInTheMovies]

53 minutes ago, ddennism said:

Laura Hudson at Vulture nails it, again, with her review of part VII, putting into words exactly how I feel about the tension between Lore and Emotional Truth:

 

 

 

Great succinct description of the lines Twin Peaks straddles. I can sense the "Emotional Truth" (especially with Dougie) in The Return but it remains a bit hazy for me at present. I suspect it will become much clearer in the back half, see also FWWM following TP & Mulholland Drive's final third.

[LostInTheMovies]

1 minute ago, Argobot said:

Maybe it's because Twin Peaks: The Return is not doing Westworld or even True Detective numbers, but I haven't really noticed any feverish speculating with this show. Sure, we've played an innocent guessing game of "is Albert looking for Diane?" but that stuff is fairly tame in comparison to the frenzy that surrounded these other shows. I suspect that if this show was more of a mainstream hit, we'd be seeing a lot more of that. But also, there's no way the show in its current form would ever become a main stream hit, so there's no reason for it to become part of the Internet speculation machine.  

 

While it was by far the least of my worries (or eager anticipations), I did kinda think it would be cool if Twin Peaks could find its way back into the zeitgeist. And it WAS cool being in New York the weekend of the premiere and seeing Laura and Cooper on the sides of buses. Nonetheless, it was a pipe dream. As you say, this show is resolutely designed not to provide a clear hook/throughline for viewers and I think that figured even into the marketing beforehand (though I can only see that in retrospect). ABC promoted Twin Peaks in 1990 as "Who killed Laura Palmer?" while Showtime was essentially forced to promote Twin Peaks in 2017 as "Hey, remember Twin Peaks? It's back!" (which in itself would prove a disappointing way in for the nostalgics who tuned in to see a guy stare at a glass box in Manhattan for several minutes).

 

It's also grimly amusing how even as the threshold is lower, Twin Peaks keeps underperforming! After the truly blockbuster pilot, season 1 slipped to midpoint in the ratings. It was moved to a Saturday, where the competition was less fierce, and ended up doing even more poorly than said competition. A movie was funded on the basis that, well, 10 million people isn't a lot for a TV show but if that many people buy movie tickets, we're solid! And then the movie made $4 million. And now finally, in an age where True Detective becomes a media sensation with just a few million viewers, The Return can't even get FWWM numbers. That said, it's true that subscriptions/streaming numbers look strong. I suspect if Lynch/Frost wanted to do a follow-up, Showtime would go with it but might downplay the live TV aspect to emphasize the streaming, probably dropping all the episodes at once (if that's how the cable business can work - I'm not really sure). And likely for a lower budget.

 

Anyway, it's sort of a relief to just move onto the content itself now rather than fixate on the aura (fun as it was to see Twin Peaks on magazine covers - not that my local supermarket didn't just carry over the EW Thor issue an extra week rather than display David Lynch ). Despite its splashy opening 27 years ago, TP was always more about the ages than the moment. Besides, I'm finding it hard enough to keep up with even 1% of all the stuff being written, podcasted, etc as it is! And my sister was finally convinced to watch Twin Peaks, so that's something lol

[Schnapple]

7 minutes ago, LostInTheMovies said:

And now finally, in an age where True Detective becomes a media sensation with just a few million viewers, The Return can't even get FWWM numbers. That said, it's true that subscriptions/streaming numbers look strong. I suspect if Lynch/Frost wanted to do a follow-up, Showtime would go with it but might downplay the live TV aspect to emphasize the streaming, probably dropping all the episodes at once (if that's how the cable business can work - I'm not really sure). And likely for a lower budget.

 

I'm sure you've seen this, and it's a few years old now, but I keep remembering this article in Slate about how the business of premium cable original content works. How Game of Thrones is the most popular TV show in HBO's history but if a broadcast TV show pulled in its viewership it would be canceled before the first season finished. 

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2012/03/game_of_thrones_how_hbo_and_showtime_make_money_despite_low_ratings_.html

 

Part of that is due to premium cable channels not being in every house over the airwaves like broadcast television is but the differences in HBO and Showtime stand out to me. 

 

HBO actually gets money for every subscriber. You pay your cable provider the $28 or whatever and HBO gets a cut of that. Actually it may just be that HBO gets a flat fee per viewer. Showtime, by way of comparison, just charges the cable providers a flat fee, so the cable providers then just keep whatever they charge the individual viewer for Showtime. This is why Showtime is more frequently discounted by cable providers than HBO is, sometimes it's even given away for free as part of a package. The flip side though is that it then doesn't matter if a million people or a hundred million people have Showtime, the amount of money they'd make is the same.

 

The thing that really sticks out to me though is HBO owns almost all of their programming. Showtime only owns about half of their programming. This means HBO makes money on every outlet - like selling the shows on DVD/BR. Showtime doesn't see a penny from disc releases of, say, Homeland (Fox does). One thing to notice on the Showtime Anytime apps is that they say "Available Until (X Date)". HBO doesn't have that for their original shows (though they do regularly rotate out movies). 

 

This is why I figured Showtime got the deal. For HBO to air Twin Peaks Season 3 they would have wanted to own it, Showtime doesn't seem as married to that practice.

 

Which is why it could be that Twin Peaks still might see a season 4. I'm not holding my breath, as long as they end this season on a good note I'm good with them going back to it. But the bar of success is lower for premium cable than movies/tv, and even lower if you're Showtime. 

[antikewl]

Today I discovered that I can determine if I should be on the edge of my seat, waiting for someone to have a face motion-blurred off, or be ready to settle back into some comfy Twin Peaks slippers by whether the NowTV pre-show announcer says "this show contains scenes that some viewers may find disturbing" or not. Today, they did not, and this was a nice, comfy slippers episode.

 

Oh, man. The posthumous "Doc" Skype call was a bit of a shock. A shocking number of cast members have died since filming.

 

I also got distracted by Truman's desk, which overshadowed everything else.

[Kadayi]

The scene in the morgue was legit up there in the unnerving stakes as the Winkies scene in Mulholland Drive. 

[ThatGuyOverThere]

Ummm, can we have Audrey Horne and Big Ed please? Pretty please????

[richardco]

20 hours ago, Phlogiston4lyfe said:

Seeing David Koechner as one of the cops was kind of a trip. 

Also, come on, Ben, you were supposed to have given up affairs and stuff. 

 

There's lots of great comedians in bit roles this season. Stephanie Allayne was one of the interviewed people this season and Brett Gelman was the casino manager that got fired. All my comedy podcast friends are in Twin Peaks now!