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

[BonusWavePilot]

I guess part of what makes me want to argue this is the idea of Lynch being 'disrespectful' or similar, as it raises the question, what are we owed?

 

I don't actually have an answer just at the moment, but I think the idea of viewing this as a contract between Lynch and his audience is an interesting one.  What do we owe, for that matter?

[UnpopularTrousers]

10 minutes ago, Digger said:

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.

Rather than the motel scene being an event which took place after the rape, I thought it was an alternate version of the rape. In both stories Diane had kissed Cooper once before and then they met and then they had sex/he raped her. While there were no punches or direct violence, Cooper's words felt like they were orders and that Diane felt like she had no choice. I have no interest in getting into a discussion of what level of persuasion constitutes rape (because that's besides the point) but at the very least Cooper seemed to be using his power in an immoral and shitty way.

 

This goes into my view of the finale being about how there isn't merely good and evil and how the real Cooper is a mixture of Good Coop and Bad Coop. I think the series was about extremes and the finale was about asking you to look to see the truth that exists in the unsaid middle.

[UnpopularTrousers]

2 minutes ago, BonusWavePilot said:

 

I think we were owed 18 episodes and that he delivered on that promise.

[Mister]

The Judy stuff is absolutely the sort of stream-of-consciousness asspull that Lynch loves.  Remember how Bob came into existence because Frank Silva was accidentally in a mirror shot?  There's a phrase used for a lot of Power by the Apocalypse tabletop games like Dungeon World, "play to find out what happens," meaning set the stage, and let the act of creation dictate the direction of the story, and that's how Lynch loves to work.

[Jake]

7 hours ago, lethalenforcer said:

Is everything we saw leading up to 17/18 now essentially wiped/meaningless? Of course those things had to happen to get Coop back in position to (attempt to) alter Laura's path. Or is the reality with Pete finding no body, and the existence of Carrie Page, an alternate reality? Or are those things completely independent of one another? And why was the girl at the Roadhouse scratching herself so much? This is my mind today.

I think Cooper thought that's what would happen, somehow, because he goes to visit someone he thinks will be Laura Palmer, and he has the person right... but it's not actually Laura. It's not the person he expected, or the past he expected. It seems like he has somehow shifted over into an entirely separate reality. I don't know how or why, but it doesn't seem like he actually changed the past, but found himself in a wholly separate timeline? Presumably the Twin Peaks we know still exists somewhere but Cooper is, once again, not in it?

 

The line "One chants out between two worlds" in the fire walk with me poem now seems to mean something different than it did before? We have seen what seem like (at least) two totally different realities this season, with the red room/lodge(s?) serving as the transitory space between them(?). 

[Digger]

4 minutes ago, BonusWavePilot said:

I guess part of what makes me want to argue this is the idea of Lynch being 'disrespectful' or similar, as it raises the question, what are we owed?

 

I don't actually have an answer just at the moment, but I think the idea of viewing this as a contract between Lynch and his audience is an interesting one.  What do we owe, for that matter?

It seems many believe we owe unwavering allegiance and lack of judgement.   I don't think owed is right word.  Any artistic offering is open to reading and critique.   Why is Twin peaks any different.  I don't think one could argue artists can not offend or disrespect their audience, or that work can miss the mark, or be bogged down or too dilute.  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.  The audience who have followed this work for so long are, in my opinion, part or the creative team as well.   

[Mentalgongfu]

This is perhaps a little off topic, but of the all the people who are feeling jaded at the finale, Julee Cruise is with you. Apparently she was none too happy about the ending and/or the limited role of her song in the finale and her general treatment by Lynch and Co. She was posting about it last night on Facebook, and the Obnoxious and Anonymous guys were reading some of it on their live stream. There are some quotes in a short article over at alternative nation. 

[Jake]

1 minute ago, Digger said:

The audience who have followed this work for so long are, in my opinion, part or the creative team as well.   

 

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. 

[Mentalgongfu]

5 minutes ago, Jake said:

The line "One chants out between two worlds" in the fire walk with me poem now seems to mean something different than it did before? We have seen what seem like (at least) two totally different realities this season, with the red room/lodge(s?) serving as the transitory space between them(?). 

 

I didn't have captioning on, but I heard this is how it was captioned. I always imagined it as "One chance out..." and have seen it in print that way in the past. 

 

Is there any way to confirm which line it is supposed to be, or whether it was changed at some point in the evolution of Twin Peaks?

[UnpopularTrousers]

2 minutes ago, Jake said:

I think Cooper thought that's what would happen, somehow, because he goes to visit someone he thinks will be Laura Palmer, and he has the person right... but it's not actually Laura. It's not the person he expected, or the past he expected. It seems like he has somehow shifted over into an entirely separate reality. I don't know how or why, but it doesn't seem like he actually changed the past, but found himself in a wholly separate timeline? Presumably the Twin Peaks we know still exists somewhere but Cooper is, once again, not in it?

 

The line "One chants out between two worlds" in the fire walk with me poem now seems to mean something different than it did before? We have seen what seem like (at least) two totally different realities this season, with the red room/lodge(s?) serving as the transitory space between them(?). 

Maybe we should also be thinking about the person who is doing the chanting. The chanter is in neither world. The chanter is between them.

I think we live in that fuzzy transitory middle of the Worlds Venn diagram. Good Coop sitting on one shoulder, Bad Coop sitting on the other.

[Jake]

1 minute ago, Mentalgongfu said:

 

I didn't have captioning on, but I heard this is how it was captioned. I always imagined it as "One chance out..." and have seen it in print that way in the past. 

 

Is there any way to confirm which line it is supposed to be, or whether it was changed at some point in the evolution of Twin Peaks?

Oops I don't actually know. I probably pulled it from a bad source?

[BonusWavePilot]

@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.

[Nordelnob]

16 minutes ago, Mentalgongfu said:

This is perhaps a little off topic, but of the all the people who are feeling jaded at the finale, Julee Cruise is with you. Apparently she was none too happy about the ending and/or the limited role of her song in the finale and her general treatment by Lynch and Co. She was posting about it last night on Facebook, and the Obnoxious and Anonymous guys were reading some of it on their live stream. There are some quotes in a short article over at alternative nation. 

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 it could likely end with another cliffhanger or at least a lot of unanswered questions. But I am curious as to why Lynch left it on such a sour, hopeless, and almost nihilistic (and in some ways solipsistic) note. Especially considering it would likely be the last episode ever.

[Mentalgongfu]

@Jake

For all I know it may be "chants" instead of "chance."

Either could make sense, but it does change the meaning slightly. 

[UnpopularTrousers]

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 (a07850@giant.rsoft.bc.ca) 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

 

[Mentalgongfu]

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

[LadyHawke]

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

[malkav11]

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.)

[Nordelnob]

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!)

[UnpopularTrousers]

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. 

[Digger]

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.  

[UnpopularTrousers]

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.

[Nordelnob]

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.

[Digger]

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.

[UnpopularTrousers]

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.