Jake

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

Recommended Posts

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Nordelnob said:

I wouldn't exactly consider myself one of jaded or disappointed people really. This empty feeling that I'm left with is 100% the intent of the finale. And I knew if would likely end with another cliffhanger or a lot of unanswered questions. But I am curious as to why Lynch left it on such a sour note.

 

Is it? Is the perception of the viewer = to the intent of the artist?

 

If someone, like myself, was not left feeling empty, does that mean I just missed the intent and couldn't grasp that I was supposed to be left feeling empty?

You  are speaking as if your own personal reaction must be what Lynch wanted. That's not necessarily the case, and it devalues the reaction of anyone else to claim that must have been the intent. 

 

I don't feel empty or sour. I do have a lot of unanswered questions, but I knew no matter what happened in the final two hours this was something that would not be easily digested or dissected afterward. I'm still not sure where I'll land in my final evaluation, but Game of Thrones pissed me off a lot more this summer than Twin Peaks did, and I had a lot more enjoyment with the latter than the former. 

 

Also, people keep talking about the season 2 ending as an example of David Lynch leaving strings hanging and giving a middle finger to the audience, which seems to forget that he had originally expected a third season of the show, and failing that, to have a series of movies to elaborate on the ideas rather than just Fire Walk With Me. 

 

edit: Thanks @UnpopularTrousers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot say that I am pleased, but I am satisfied. What did you expect? Happiness, rainbows, and unicorns? It's David Lynch, people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: the scene with Laura and Coop in the woods and the scene of Pete fishing...

 

As far as I could tell at no point during this season did they use archival footage that was not previously seen in the aired Twin Peaks seasons, Fire Walk With Me, or the cut scenes that form The Missing Pieces. Since obviously Laura never interacts with a 25 years older Cooper during those scenes in Fire Walk With Me/The Missing Pieces (or indeed, with Cooper at all outside of the Red Room), it can't be Sheryl Lee in that new sequence, and it doesn't really look like her either. Similarly, the scene with Pete fishing...you have the original pilot footage of him getting ready and leaving to go fish...and then it cuts to a slightly sharper scene where he's only ever seen from behind. 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.

 

(Speaking of Jack Nance, I had no idea but apparently he was married to Catherine E. Coulson back in the 70s.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mentalgongfu said:

 

Is it? Is the perception of the viewer = to the intent of the artist?

 

If someone, like myself, was not left feeling empty, does that mean I just missed the intent and couldn't grasp that I was supposed to be left feeling empty?

You  are speaking as if your own personal reaction must be what Lynch wanted. That's not necessarily the case, and it devalues the reaction of anyone else to claim that must have been the intent. 

 

I don't feel empty or sour. I do have a lot of unanswered questions, but I knew no matter what happened in the final two hours this was something that would not be easily digested or dissected afterward. I'm still not sure where I'll land in my final evaluation, but Game of Thrones pissed me off a lot more this summer than Twin Peaks did, and I had a lot more enjoyment with the latter than the former. 

 

Also, people keep talking about the season 2 ending as an example of David Lynch leaving strings hanging and giving a middle finger to the audience, which seems to forget that he had originally expected a third season of the show, and failing that, to have a series of movies to elaborate on the ideas rather than just Fire Walk With Me. 

 

edit: Thanks @UnpopularTrousers

Whether you can find a way to make the events that happened hopeful in some way is one thing. But the entire tone of the that last episode was deliberately empty and maybe there's a better adjective... down, depressing. Coop is now no longer the happy vibrant person he was. Diane is having rape trauma and leaves him. We get these long lingering, eerie shots that seem to be be conjuring a sense of dread. The whole last episode felt like a horror movie. I can't believe this is even being disputed. (granted a lot of the season has felt like that. But it has had it's more hopeful moments.)

Mind you, I'm not making any judgements as to whether any of that was a good way to do it, or a bad way to do it. I'm honestly still processing it. If that's the last Twin Peaks we ever get, then much like the S2 finale, I think at the very least there will be a lot to talk about.

But I am still just curious about why they made that choice. In the case of S2 they were clearly setting up the next season. But I think they knew this could be it, and they chose to end it on a downer (particularly tonally, but story-wise I think you can find things to be down or feel empty about too), while deliberately dropping almost every important plot thread that they've set up for 17 episodes. Like I said I'm still processing it, but it is an interesting choice (to say the least!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Jake said:

 

I strongly disagree with this! The actual creators, Frost and Lynch, can choose to include what they think the audience wants, or not, but the audience themselves are absolutely not part of the creative team. They are literally not part of it - we were not consulted on the script or asked for feedback - and we also aren't in any figurative sense that I believe holds water. 

 

You said the audience wasn't "owed," but then declared that the audience was in fact part of the creative team, which is worse(!) because the implication is that the audience is entitled to its wishes being made manifest by the people actually creating or financing the show, on equal terms with those people who are actually taking huge risks and exerting huge effort to make this series real! Give me a break. 

Not really what I meant.  All of the discourse over the last 25 years between the work and the audience and the audience and themselves shape its viewing and understanding.  In this sense the audience is the artist or creator.  We have shaped it's popularity, its interpretation, given it meaning, importance and relevance.  Twin Peaks is a situation very different from other media in that it has been gone for such a long amount of time.  The closest I can relate it to are comics.  Some characters have existed for decades.  An author can upset an audience by making, what the audience views as unwarranted changes, toss out lore and history, or rework it in a way that goes against reader's interpretations and understandings.  Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

 

I don't think an audience's specific wishes are helpful, an audience doesn't know exactly what it wants, often it wants the exact thing it had before that they loved so much, which is impossible because it too has changed.  That same audience wants to be surprised and enthralled.  But, what Twin Peaks is now I don't think is only what Lynch and Frost created.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, UnpopularTrousers said:

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. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, BonusWavePilot said:

@Digger
Well, if owed is not the concept to use, then by what measure can the choices in the series be disrespectful?  Otherwise it can be contrary to expectation, but the notion of respect doesn't come into it.

 

Of course Twin Peaks is as open to reading and critique as anything else, and of course artists can offend or their work can miss the mark.  My point is that if you and a creator have different ideas of where that mark is, do you think you have a right to demand that they move to meet your definition?

 

"These are characters and a world that has been pored over, examined and loved for over 25 years.  The characters, place and feel have been internalized.  I believe an audience can have expectations and opinions."

 

Sure - there are a lot of us who really like this thing.  I don't agree that this means we ought to have any say over how it is made.

It's already been made.  "Owed" was never my word it was yours.  I also did not demand anything.  As for the disrespect, I go back to the pet metaphor, making an animal believe it is going to get something you withhold from it is disrespectful.  You know it wants the food or the toy, and you are enjoying its reaction, and then continuing to promise and withhold is disrespectful.  I also saw many of the scene choices as going nowhere and revealing nothing, so that seems like a waste of time, also disrespectful.  You can disagree, of course, and find those scenes valuable.  I didn't enjoy, for example, Dougie.  Now I have tried to make it meaningful.  I have decided Dougie was Cooper's chance at happiness, and that by creating the tulpa he has given up a part of himself and allowed that part domestic bliss and no Blue Rose wackiness or giant evil entity insanity.  That Coop gets a happy ending.  I have very little in the show to back this up.  I don't know if new Dougie has much awareness of the world.  He said only one word, "Home."  Is he able to do and say more.  Dougie one was not a great husband, was that because he was made of the vices evil Coop was made of.  Don't know.  No explanation.  INformation deliberately withheld.  Disrespectful.  You'll never know, and I've not given you enough information to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nordelnob

 

I'd agree the tone was empty, down or depressing; I just can't agree that it was supposed to leave me feeling the same way, because it didn't exactly do that. It mostly left me feeling ponderous. 

 

@UnpopularTrousers 

Personally, I'm trying not to dissect the intent beyond any meaning I can grasp for myself. But I am admittedly a little annoyed at the idea that has been spread throughout the season by some posters, not necessarily those at this site, that The Return was just an intentional troll. And that might come across in some of my posts. I think it's the only interpretation I would bother to argue against. It bothers me because it assumes both the intent of the artist and that any viewer who liked it is just a "fanboy," a mark who will buy whatever Lynch is selling, regardless of its value, and implies a superiority on the part of the viewer who is dissatisfied compared to someone whose reaction is more positive.

 

The choice need not be binary, and shouldn't be. I loved The Return, but I won't know how I feel about the ending for a while. I loved the sweeping scene. I loved Wally Brando, and I came to love Dougie. But that's me. Being bored or upset, or feeling there was wasted time is just as valid a reaction, even though it's not mine. Thinking all 18 hours was just meant as a big middle finger to the audience is probably a valid reaction too, but it's one that I disagree with strongly enough to argue about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, UnpopularTrousers said:

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.

I didn't notice that, but I was pretty impressed by all of the other stuff. I was trying to figure out how they did it. It seemed like they either had a bunch of stuff that they filmed and never used with Laura, or maybe they did a face switch on another actress? I'm not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mentalgongfu said:

@Nordelnob

 

I'd agree the tone was empty, down or depressing; I just can't agree that it was supposed to leave me feeling the same way, because it didn't exactly do that. It mostly left me feeling ponderous. 

 

@UnpopularTrousers 

Personally, I'm trying not to dissect the intent beyond any meaning I can grasp for myself. But I am admittedly a little annoyed at the idea that has been spread throughout the season by some posters, not necessarily those at this site, that The Return was just an intentional troll. And that might come across in some of my posts. I think it's the only interpretation I would bother to argue against. It bothers me because it assumes both the intent of the artist and that any viewer who liked it is just a "fanboy," a mark who will buy whatever Lynch is selling, regardless of its value, and implies a superiority on the part of the viewer who is dissatisfied compared to someone whose reaction is more positive.

 

The choice need not be binary, and shouldn't be. I loved The Return, but I won't know how I feel about the ending for a while. I loved the sweeping scene. I loved Wally Brando, and I came to love Dougie. But that's me. Being bored or upset, or feeling there was wasted time is just as valid a reaction, even though it's not mine. Thinking all 18 hours was just meant as a big middle finger to the audience is probably a valid reaction too, but it's one that I disagree with strongly enough to argue about. 

I gotcha. I may have phrased that poorly. I suppose what feeling people take away from it is going to vary a lot more than your average TV show.

This season was certainly not a troll. David Lynch is just a weird guy. A very, very weird guy.

I have thoroughly enjoyed The Return. I'm posting on this forum after all. I'm engaged and interested in these characters. The way I feel about the finale, I have felt several times about other moments/episodes this season. And some of them my feelings have changed. And of course some of them haven't. If I can say anything about it though, almost every scene has been good, even if some of them didn't seem to serve much of a purpose to the overall story, or character development. That David Lynch knows how to put together a good scene, whether it's comedic or horrific. And he knows how to create a compelling mystery. Paying them off or resolving them is another question! Lynch seems to be allergic to that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took the changes in the motel and the car to be a change in the timeline that just wasn't fully remarked on. Jeffries did say something about it being "really slippery in here," meaning, I think, that time is malleable and you can't really capture the moments as solidly as you like. 

 

Poot-tee-weet.

Billy Pilgrim has become unstuck in time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Digger

"You know it wants the food or the toy, and you are enjoying its reaction, and then continuing to promise and withhold is disrespectful."

 

I think we can reasonably assume that Lynch & Frost know we want certain things, but 'you are enjoying its reaction' is supposition, and when was any promise made?

 

"You'll never know, and I've not given you enough information to understand."

 

But why do you assume you have a right to?  If they want to make something where there isn't enough information to be sure about anything, when did they agree to do otherwise?

 

I get why the things you mention are frustrating, or not how you wish this was made, but I still can't get to disrespect, because I don't think we were owed or promised anything different.  Lynch and Frost are not beholden to our expectations.  (Well, not in an artistic sense anyway.  Perhaps financially, but I don't think either of them are likely to starve if TP bombs)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Frohike said:

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?

Little correction: Jeffries says "you've already met Judy" not "you just met Judy" so nothing to indicate it's that woman.

 

Also, for whatever reason I interpreted "Phillip" "Please be specific" "date" as Phillip wanting Coop to be specific as to what version of Jeffries he wanted to talk to, and Coop specified Phillip Jeffries as of that date. Your interpretation seems more likely, my brain was just leaping all over the place during those episodes. What a crazy ride. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was that the frogmoth sound when Laura disappears?

 

Also I liked the prominent white horse figure in Carrie's house—just like Sarah Palmer's old vision!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mikemariano said:

Was that the frogmoth sound when Laura disappears?

 

Also I liked the prominent white horse figure in Carrie's house—just like Sarah Palmer's old vision!

 

I believe it was the same sound, which is also one of the sounds the Fireman played to Cooper on his old phonograph in Part I when he was still in the Lodge and tells him to "listen to the sounds."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours 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.

Just stop with all this crap. You have no way of reading into a creator's motivations and just because you personally disliked something doesn't mean that it's a personal attack on you. I'm so fucking sick of this attitude from fans and critics, that just because something doesn't align with their tastes and expectations, there must be something wrong with it, there must be something about it that's laughing at them.

Maybe you're the one with the flaws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Hansel Bosch said:

 

It was also a Mark Frost joint, which often seems to be forgotten. But I think for Episode 18 Frost was told he was not really needed...

 

 

 

Yeah, it seemed kinda like Episode 17 was Mark Frost's finale and 18 was Lynch's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any artist worth their salt regardless of form or format, makes it according purely to their own vision.

 

As soon as they start trying to think about the audience, what will be liked/disliked, what will be popular/unpopular, their original vision will be altered and almost always weakened.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, malkav11 said:

Re: the scene with Laura and Coop in the woods and the scene of Pete fishing...

 

As far as I could tell at no point during this season did they use archival footage that was not previously seen in the aired Twin Peaks seasons, Fire Walk With Me, or the cut scenes that form The Missing Pieces. Since obviously Laura never interacts with a 25 years older Cooper during those scenes in Fire Walk With Me/The Missing Pieces (or indeed, with Cooper at all outside of the Red Room), it can't be Sheryl Lee in that new sequence, and it doesn't really look like her either.

I'm confused at the confusion. It's 2017 Sheryl Lee in a wig. Lynch plays with the focus and uses the darkness/B&W as much as possible, but it's definitely Sheryl Lee playing teenage Laura Palmer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dartmonkey said:

I'm confused at the confusion. It's 2017 Sheryl Lee in a wig. Lynch plays with the focus and uses the darkness/B&W as much as possible, but it's definitely Sheryl Lee playing teenage Laura Palmer.

 I don't know if it's my computer or what but it looked a whole lot not like teenage Laura Palmer and I just figured they CGI'd "youth filter" on Sheryl Lee's face. IMO when teenage Laura Palmer talks to Cooper it was the weakest part of the episode to me, and one of the more over-the-top-but-not-clearing-the-hurdle visual effects. I was bummed that Cooper tried to save Laura, it seemed very naive for a guy who had been through what he'd been through -- and yeah, I guess now I don't understand if he actually Back To The Future'd all of Twin Peaks or not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just watching the episode again and something about the dead man caught my attention. The bullet wound seems to angle upwards, which means it may possibly be a suicide. 

I just thought that was strange because there has been speculation about how Becky was sort of a stand in or a "reincarnation" for Laura. And Steven shot himself.


Or maybe it's nothing. It's probably nothing. 

 

Also, they use the same "Lost Highway" Mr. C driving at night shot when "real" Cooper is driving. Almost like they are hitting us over the head with the fact that Bad Coop is now a part of Cooper. Well, that and all of the other clues. His behavior. The ruthless way he dispatched those guys in the diner. That sex scene.

But the theory about Cooper giving up his innocent, chipper side when he created Dougie 2.0 seems just as plausible to me.

I really want to believe that these are all meaningful clues, and that it's all going to build to something, hopefully we get another season.

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