Twin Peaks Rewatch 52/53: The Return, Parts 17 and 18

[richardco]

1 hour ago, Aether said:

 

I agree. Cockney Freddie and the magic glove versus a Bob rock: that's not "simply disregarding viewer expectation". That's David Lynch laughing at you.

 

I've never, ever gotten the feeling that Lynch has contempt for his viewers.

 

When Lynch is mad at something, he gives us goofy scenes like Mr. Eddy's tirade against inconsiderate drivers in Lost Highway--which can directly be traced to a drive he took with Michael Anderson before that movie.

 

Lynch loves Twin Peaks. You really think he'd fight so hard for a large budget and 18 episodes instead of 9 because he hates his audience and wants to laugh at your expense? I really don't think there are many--if any--creators out there at all who are motivated by hatred of their fans. Creators aren't 4chan trolls. You don't spend so much time and energy and passion into making something just because it might make someone mad.

[agorman]

This thread has been so much fun to read through and pour over. I've contributed very little to the forums over the run of this show, but this podcast and the discussion in here has been a real source of joy for me over the last few months.

 

I suspect (as Jake had talked about Lynch's work on previous episodes of the podcast), that on subsequent viewings, The Return will be a much more coherent work, and the ending may be less frustrating than it is now. 

 

I find myself most frustrated on getting nothing more on Audrey after the end of episode 16, but on the whole am just so pleased we got this season of television...what a gift

[Aether]

35 minutes ago, Frohike said:

 

I'm having a hard time understanding your statement. Cockney Hulk Smash was... fully expected and glorious.  I mean, in my experience I guess.

 

It sounds like you didn't enjoy it so much, but I'm not sure that implies some trickster director who has some sort of contempt for your personal expectations.

 

Bob, a major force in the show, was dispatched by a character we barely knew using a magic gardening glove that was revealed to the viewer in an exposition dump. So no, I didn't enjoy that, it didn't feel like Lynch intended for anyone to enjoy it. 3 seasons and a films worth of build up involving Bob was resolved with an abrupt mega punch. That entire story ended with a shrug. Fuck Lynch for that. However, that one scene is not what makes me feel that the finale was Lynch's middle finger to the viewer. Most of the finale seemed to be about brushing off everything that came before it, in terms of the structure of this season, and wallowing in the trajectory of Cooper's failure and loss of self. As I've said before, this season could have ended in all sorts of bleak ways that were also meaningful, but episode 18 just felt like Lynch spitting in our faces. The languid pace of the return and the ambiguity of so many scenes ultimately served no purpose and led to nothing. Where's Audrey? Lynch could care less. Her fate is not enigmatic, it was just discarded. In retrospect, a lot of the season meant very little, these were starting points that Lynch never intended to take anywhere interesting. The finale undid much of the season and much of Twin Peaks as a whole (literally) just so that we could witness Cooper (once again) lost and defeated. I only focus on the magic gardening glove nonsense because it's a window into how Lynch viewed the finale. Some of it was a joke to him, the rest was contempt for the viewer. You disagree and that's perfectly fine, it has been interesting to see the various reactions. Thanks, Frohike.

[Mentalgongfu]

One person's "exposition dump" is another's off-screen back story. I find it interesting that Lynch can be simultaneously criticized for being inscrutable and for this "exposition dumping," a phrase I am coming to despise.

 

I'm still ambivalent about the finale, but never in the series did I feel the creators were spitting in my face or giving me a middle finger. 

 

It's certainly true lots of threads were started that were never concluded, but I don't equate that with those scenes serving no purpose. As far as them never going anywhere interesting, that's in the eye of the beholder as well. Jerry in the woods was one of my favorite diversions of the story, and I'm baffled that so many people seem utterly confused about his mini-drama.

 

I also didn't feel that the conclusion undid anything about the season or the series as a whole, unless you mean Laura's body on the beach disappearing. Even there, lots of room for debate remains on what that meant when combined with that which follows. 

 

It should go without saying it's perfectly fine to love it or hate it, but I do get a little peevish about attributing motives to the creator such as claiming it was a joke to Lynch and he was showing contempt for the viewer. On the contrary, I think he may have put too much faith in the viewer judging from some reactions. In any case - he's not dead, nor is Frost. I don't know how reclusive either is from the public, but it's certainly possible to ask them if it was all a giant troll on TP fans with the aid of a large Showtime budget. That interpretation is convenient for those who are not satisified, since it makes them the smart marks while everyone else is being played. I mean, if it was a giant troll, I just got Rickrolled Lynch-style and not only did I not notice, I enjoyed the ride.

 

[Mike Danger]

2 hours ago, MabaseSlums said:

Does RR To Go = Meals on Wheels? I don't have a strong enough recollection of those moments, but I think that's an interesting detail.

 

RR To Go appears to be an additional service that the Double R offers in season 3 (maybe as part of Norma's franchise operation?). Whenever people are drinking to-go coffee or eating donuts in Twin Peaks in S3 it always seems to be from an RR To Go branded box/cup.

[SuoTempore]

3 hours ago, anoldtoilet said:

At the end of episode 18, Laura is alive, knows who she is, and is back in Twin Peaks. Cooper succeeded in saving her. BOB is in the Lodge again, and will remain there. There are loose ends to tie up, but they're in a better position to do so than ever before. Chalfont/Tremond tried to trick Coop and Laura into walking away into the darkness, forgetting everything that happened, and living a life lost, empty, and filled with pain, but it didn't work. Laura still woke up from the dream.

 

I don't think I agree with that interpretation. As they walk away then turn back to look at the house in puzzlement, Cooper seems to stutter forward in horrified realisation when he asks what year is this. Then we hear Sarah's voice shout 'Laura' which to my ears sounded like it was taken from the very first episode of Season 1 when Sarah shouts up the stairs for Laura to get up for school. Of course, she is already dead by this point.  Laura then starts to scream and the lights go out in the house which I feel indicates Cooper has arrived too late to help her. 

 

I wondered if the reference to the Chalfonts/Tremonds, who also lived for at least more than one generation at the trailer park suggest that this just a cycle that will continue forever, that it is not something that can be broken and Laura is forever doomed to these horrors, much as humanity continues to suffer from making the same mistakes throughout history. Bob may have been destroyed but presumably the creature that laid him will continue to produce more.

 

In a separate note, I thought perhaps the reason Cooper seems more subdued and withdrawn after leaving the lodge, is because he had sacrificed part of his soul to make the new Dougie. It has left him not evil, just devoid of sentiment and emotion so while he still behaves in a generally positive manner, he does it without real feeling or compassion.

[Urthman]

12 hours ago, Hansel Bosch said:

 

If that's true, then Kyle MacLachlan played no less that six versions of Cooper this season!

 

 

The genius of ending each episode with "Starring Kyle MacLachlan" is that Lynch never has to name the character(s) MacLachlan is playing.

[Urthman]

I think that Lynch/Frost did not have a lot of great ideas for Twin Peaks plots; they had a lot of great ideas for Twin Peaks scenes, and decided those were worth filming even if they had nowhere to go with them.

For instance, if Lynch came to me and described the scenes he had planned for Audrey Horn and said, "But I have no good ideas where to go with that; whether she's in a coma or a dream or a spirit realm--none of those ideas seem to lead anywhere interesting." I would say, just go ahead and film what you've got, because that final scene at the road house is sublime. That scene of Steven and Gersten nestled in the roots of a gigantic tree, cowering on the edge of violent death, was incredible and shouldn't be cut out just because Lynch doesn't have a great idea to answer the question of what exactly Steven did that got them there.

The resolution to Bad Coop can be seen as Lynch saying, "Look, I could try to resolve everything left dangling, but it wouldn't be very good. Wouldn't you rather I just move on to the ideas I have for scenes that I think will be good?"

And that's the nature of soap operas. They never end. They're always dangling new plots, so no matter where you stop, you're always left with lots of things unresolved. If you don't enjoy the journey for its own sake, you might as well skip it. 

[Urthman]

17 hours ago, Mentalgongfu said:

Cooper looked very much like Mr. C during the sex scene with Diane. I think this was intentional, as I have seen I'm not the only one in the audience who made the connection. No idea what it means yet, but kind of goes along with the black hat idea.

 

I wonder if that was meant to be Diane's perspective?  No matter how glad Diane was to be with the real Cooper, it seems hard to believe she could kiss him or have sex with him without having traumatic thoughts about Bad Coop. Cooper could have been grinning like Dougie when they were having sex, and she might still see Bad Coop's face.  It was frightening the way she was completely covering his face with her hands.

[Aether]

9 hours ago, Urthman said:

 If you don't enjoy the journey for its own sake, you might as well skip it. 

 

I tend to enjoy the journey, especially with Lynch's films, I just thought the finale was weirdly bitter and petty, it was genuinely a let down.

 

The questions it left me with had nothing to do with TP lore...I'm not trying to understand Audrey's plight or the new Cooper reality. Lynch doesn't give a shit about that, so it's not worth thinking about further. Mostly I'm trying to figure out why I watched. You mentioned "skip it"...given how the original finale played out, why did I watch this? I love Lynch's films, but for some reason TP takes him to this place where his conclusions generally undermine the rest of series. And now I'm trying to figure out why I put myself through another round of this...a "fuck you" finale seemed incredibly likely to happen again...that's how it played out the first time. It's like I have some sort of Twin Peaks Stockholm Syndrome. However, it's on me. There were red flags and I ignored them, chose to watch...ultimately, I'm responsible for the viewing experience. I've been feeling sort of bummed out and miserable all day and definitely wondering why I watched. It'll work out, this shit happens with art...it's intense, it pulls you in and sometimes that goes wrong, the connections we try to make with artistic experiences: it's intense and messy. Other times it works out okay. Humans are weird.

[Urthman]

Well, I for one found Twin Peaks the Return packed with weird, arresting, compelling, funny scenes the likes of which I've never seen in any other TV show.  And a solid majority of TV shows committed to narrative closure have disappointing endings anyway.

[BonusWavePilot]

54 minutes ago, Aether said:

The languid pace of the return and the ambiguity of so many scenes ultimately served no purpose and led to nothing. Where's Audrey? Lynch could care less. Her fate is not enigmatic, it was just discarded. In retrospect, a lot of the season meant very little, these were starting points that Lynch never intended to take anywhere interesting. The finale undid much of the season and much of Twin Peaks as a whole (literally) just so that we could witness Cooper (once again) lost and defeated. I only focus on the magic gardening glove nonsense because it's a window into how Lynch viewed the finale. Some of it was a joke to him, the rest was contempt for the viewer. You disagree and that's perfectly fine, it has been interesting to see the various reactions. Thanks, Frohike.

"...so many scenes ultimately served no purpose..."  What purpose is a scene allowed to serve?  Does it have to be literally advancing the plot?  As an example - the languid pace: what sort of conclusion would have justified it for you?  I think it was mostly tonal - a way of dragging out the impatience and suspense.

Does anything that is not completely explained count as 'discarded'?  How is there any room for 'enigmatic' in that arrangement?  When you have an explanation, you no longer have an enigma.

"Some of it was a joke to him, the rest was contempt for the viewer."  Did you get his autograph during the discussion where you established this?  I'm happy to argue just about any interpretation of the work, but I think that attributing authorial motive is a much trickier question, especially in a work this inscrutable.

 

Personally I find it unlikely that someone would throw their lives into making 18 hours of television just as a show of contempt, or that if they had, that this season is what we would have ended up with.

[Frohike]

Some puzzling phrases when Cooper talks to Jeffries:

 

"--Philip?

 

--Please be specific

 

--The date: February 23, 1989"

Jeffries skips the acknowledgement and gets straight to business. It's implied that he just needs a date to send Cooper into. It seems like Jeffries can use the same "tech" that the Fireman uses to send people anywhere at any time. I'm actually starting to wonder whether Jeffries "finding" Judy was just a lie; when BadCoop finished his conversation with Jeffries and asked about Judy he was told that he had just met Judy.  I think most viewers assumed this meant the woman who opened the door.  I think it was the entity behind the door: Jeffries himself.

 

"There may be... someone. Did you ask me this?"

 

This might imply that someone else had come to him with a similar request to go back to that night. Who could this be? Is Audrey traveling in the same space as Agent Cooper, maybe lurking behind the walls as she usually did. What did she contribute to the dream of that timeline?

[Aether]

15 minutes ago, BonusWavePilot said:

Personally I find it unlikely that someone would throw their lives into making 18 hours of television just as a show of contempt, or that if they had, that this season is what we would have ended up with.

 

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.

[BonusWavePilot]

Oh sure, I'm not claiming that Lynch did any of this by accident. 

 

Cockney Freddie and the magic gardening glove is no more ridiculous than super-strong teenage-minded Nadine, or Ben Horne's civil war obsession, to my mind.  It is true that the wackier stuff existed more in pockets than as a vein throughout this season though.

 

All of which said, I'm not exactly arguing that I found the finale entirely satisfying myself, but I didn't find it retroactively changed my enjoyment of the earlier episodes.  I think I prefer something unsatisfyingly strange over a pat everything-comes-together sort of ending though, if I had to go one extreme or the other.

[Arianna]

23 hours ago, UnpopularTrousers said:

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.

Well, and where Audrey thinks she slept with Billy (Zane), not 'John Justice Wheeler'.

[anderbubble]

Lynch frequently describes ideas as though they are entities that are alive, and flit into and out of his presence. He must catch them and hold onto them, or he loses them. Then he can use those ideas as bait to attract other ideas.

 

Lynch also tends to avoid explaining his interpretation of his work; and, when presented with someone else's explanation, often says that it is not what it means to him; but if it's what it means to the viewer, that's great.

 

My wife and I are quickly settling on the interpretation that Judy is jiāo dài (交代, "to explain"); that the ultimate evil is to explain the idea. That BOB, the offspring of Judy, is literally the explanation ("who killed Laura Palmer") who killed the idea, Laura.

[Clock]

2 hours ago, One Thing said:

I assumed on first viewing that the footage of Laura and James talking in the woods from FWWM served the purpose of 1) firmly setting the viewer back in the space of 1989 and the night of Laura's death, and 2) the retcon of Laura's scream as a response to Coop watching through the trees. I personally thought the latter clever but a tad diminishing, since that moment in FWWM is played perfectly by Sheryl Lee as the traumatic response of a victim who now sees malevolence in every shadow.

Then on second viewing I was more attentive to the dialogue and noted the following:

Laura: 'Open your eyes, James. You don't know me. Even Donna doesn't know me. Your Laura disappeared... it's just me now'.

In FWWM this in uncomplicated – a reflection of Laura's double life and the darkness that is about to utterly consume her. Given the overt retconning of this very same scene in The Return, however, this put me on alert.

 

I had this thought too. It really sounded like tulpa talk, in this new context. And the scream and vanishing act felt like a Tulpa thing, too.

 

Also, incidentally, throughout this scene I couldn't stop looking at how dilated Laura and James's eyes were - was it so originally? I also noticed that in the scene where badCoop shows up at the sheriff's his eyes look black.

 

As to the Linda/Richard/Coop scene, I'm still not sure what to make of it. My initial take though was that Cooper and Diane have driven into an alternate world. They pull up to the motel, and Diane sees a dopple, possibly Linda? Point being, it made me think that this alternate world might be one that contains alternate versions of people as well. So my first thought is that the alternate world already contained a 'Richard' Coop and a 'Linda' Diane, and that during the sex scene (or even when he walked in the motel door) goodCoop swapped places with Richard, while Diane remained in the motel. Since during the sex scene 'coop' suddenly looks exactly like BadCoop, hair and expression and everything, and when Coop wakes up he seems himself again, sees the note and is confused by it, and then walks out of a different hotel and takes a different car. He might have had an entirely separate sex scene, but with 'Linda' while Diane was with 'Richard'. But there are holes in this idea, I am aware, but that's what I thought at first. That or that badCoop was literally badCoop, since we see him on fire in the lodge but not disintegrated.

 

At least, I feel like they both knew what was going on even though we don't. Diane doesn't seem surprised to see her other self, and she doesn't mention it. And the 'what next/now you walk to me' bit felt weirdly ritualistic.

 

That said, the goodCoop + badCoop amalgam idea does make some sense to me, though I dislike it and don't want it to. But, considering the fire walk with me poem that we are reminded of via Mike talking forwards for once (which was AWESOME):

 

Through the darkness of future past

The magician longs to see.

One chants out between two worlds

Fire walk with me.

 

We have in that poem a lot that resonates with this situation. 'Future past' darkness, a magician (both fake-Dougie Coop and bad-Coop have felt like magicians this season to me), and two worlds (I originally thought this referred to the lodge, but now we seem to have a full alternate world). We also see badCoop on fire with black smoke (electricity symbol), but not really looking dead otherwise. We have seen badCoop survive should-be-fatal wounds before. Granted, that was when he had Bob, but I'm still leaning toward thinking badCoop's not dead.

 

I originally thought that 'Chants' was 'chance' in that poem (though apparently Frost has said otherwise in a tweet referring to it in the original seasons), in which case that would sound a bit like the 'one chance out between two worlds' (the second world being the alt world rather than the lodges as I originally assumed) required Coop to walk with fire, aka badCoop who we just saw on fire. So he combines somehow with badCoop (maybe via the weird sex scene) in order to find Linda, defeat Judy, and... escape from both worlds? Are both worlds dreams? Who is the dreamer? Or maybe the 'two worlds' refers to the alt-world and the lodge, and the real-seeming world is real?

 

Or... Cooper altered the timeline and now the world is just completely different. But then why the crossing over scene?

 

TL;DR: I am very confused and tired and don't know what I'm talking about and may not be making sense. Damn. I'm gonna abandon this messy post here and just hope that there is some nugget of something in it. Kudos to the show for leaving me this confused while still feeling like there is sense to be made somehow.

 

Anyway, the most originalCoop-like person in these last episodes was the new Dougie. He was so cheery, and more coherent than our previous fake-Dougie.

[BonusWavePilot]

19 minutes ago, Owl said:

I also noticed that in the scene where badCoop shows up at the sheriff's his eyes look black.

I think Badcoop has had black irises for the whole run...

[Nordelnob]

1 hour ago, Urthman said:

 

I wonder if that was meant to be Diane's perspective?  No matter how glad Diane was to be with the real Cooper, it seems hard to believe she could kiss him or have sex with him without having traumatic thoughts about Bad Coop. Cooper could have been grinning like Dougie when they were having sex, and she might still see Bad Coop's face.  It was frightening the way she was completely covering his face with her hands.

This seems likely. Diane is traumatized for life. As much as she completely LOVES Cooper with all of her heart, having sex with someone who looks identical to your rapist is probably not the best thing to do.

[BonusWavePilot]

1 minute ago, Nordelnob said:

This seems likely. Diane is traumatized for life. As much as she completely LOVES Cooper with all of her heart, having sex with someone who looks identical to your rapist is probably not the best thing to do.

 

This was a disturbing scene.  The way I took it was that Diane recognised the change in Cooper since they had 'crossed over', and this is what was disturbing her - hence her attempts to cover RichardCoop's face.  (Or alternatively, if she was looking at it from the other side, she was alarmed by the change in Richard)

[UnpopularTrousers]

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.

 

[Digger]

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.

[Nordelnob]

20 minutes ago, BonusWavePilot said:

 

This was a disturbing scene.  The way I took it was that Diane recognised the change in Cooper since they had 'crossed over', and this is what was disturbing her - hence her attempts to cover RichardCoop's face.  (Or alternatively, if she was looking at it from the other side, she was alarmed by the change in Richard)

Equally likely.

I find myself a bit frustrated in general with this finale, and I'm sure in some way that's part of the point.. I'm just kind of a little bit.. bummed. I enjoyed the hell out of this season, including the finale. But the way it ended feels so empty, and devoid of any meaning. I'm sure that's 100% by design. I'm just not sure I understand why. I realize Twin Peaks isn't always a feel good romp. But in the past it did tackle MEANINGFUL issues/themes/moods, and could often be very hopeful.

Things like Harry and Cooper's friendship, and Cooper's unstoppable drive to do good. Redemption of characters like Bobby Briggs. And just about everything Major Briggs ever said was uplifting or enlightening in some way.

We haven't had much of that this season. I was really expecting the finale to drive some of that stuff home. But instead we are left with a sense of dread and despair. And the world is now just an ugly, grey place.  I'm trying to figure out why I am surprised by this, given the way the original was left. But I always attributed that to the show being cancelled before it could resolve the cliffhanger. Not a deliberate attempt to leave a sour taste.

 

[Digger]

5 minutes ago, UnpopularTrousers said:

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.

 

I have trouble with this reading too.  What was Lynch then focusing on?  It seemed mostly mood and tone, and usually the same mood and tone (uncomfortable, strange, withheld) is that 18 hours worth of compelling?. It wasn't really character he was focused on, because we didn't spend enough time with most of them to know them any better or much at all.  The new characters appeared for brief scenes sometimes 5 or 6 episodes apart. Their storylines were disjointed or dropped.  I also don't think it accounts for Lynch often in the character of Gordon Cole winking at the audience and basically saying I know what you want to see but instead here's a french woman.  I know what you want to know, instead Hawke tells us we don't want to know about it.  One might just roll with it, but the disrespectful interpretation whether intentional on Lynch's part or not is still obviously valid.