Jake

Twin Peaks Rewatch 2: Traces to Nowhere

Recommended Posts

I just don't see how its racist. There are stereotypes shown, and sometimes its pretty on the nose. But her character was not written with racist intent, I don't abide with that.

Maybe I will change my mind about this going forward, but I don't see it.

 

This is my first time through the show but I'd definitely like to say that I see where CLWheeljack is coming from. It's absolutely pigeonholing for Josie to be introduced by Truman to Cooper in that town hall scene as the most gorgeous woman in Twin Peaks (allowing for the fact that Truman is in a relationship with her), to have her character be an exotic beauty who, as stated, speaks in delicate broken English and dresses culturally appropriately. The fact that her motivations are sympathetic doesn't excuse this presentation (and I'm anxious now that this thread's implied there are more nefarious things forthcoming). Again, as stated, so far Hawk has it worse (I've watched slightly ahead) but that only serves to set a landscape of racial caricature on the show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I do want to be clear that I'm not claiming this show doesn't contain shitty racial caricaturing, because it does. I just really strongly don't believe the mill shutdown in the pilot is an example of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stepping outside the context of that one scene, one of the reasons that I feel that scene is likely intentionally evoking a racial stereotype has to do with my view of the overall message of the show.

 

I feel that Twin Peaks can be read as a reaction to, and refutation of the prime-time soap operas of the 80s, typified by Dallas (which ran until 1991). There are some superficial similarities, such as a place-name title, and the musical cues Jake mentioned that read as intentionally evocative of the soap opera form. Additionally, the way that the pilot drops you into multiple storylines as though it is simply a continuation of a non-existent previous episode also reinforces the soap opera feeling.

 

(Note that I don't have any information whatsoever as to whether this read was Frost + Lynch's intent, but as usual, I'm not sure it matters what the original intent was. Also note that I haven't actually watched much of Dallas. I'm just speaking from general principles here, so I may be way off base.)

 

However, unlike the glamorous and cosmopolitan (arguably, har har) setting of Dallas, Lynch and Frost chose to set Twin Peaks in a logging town in the middle of nowhere. The scope of the conflicts on the show is concomitantly smaller in many ways. In other ways, the scope is intentionally not reduced in order to highlight the ways that these kinds of conflicts have little to no relation to the common man, as with the Ghostwood Pines deal, which doesn't really seem to make much sense to me. Continuing the themes of character displacement that I mentioned in the Ep 1 thread, Horne is a Wall street power broker plucked out of his natural habitat, and deposited in Twin Peaks. His grand scheming and machinations, all targeting not at a multinational corporation, but at a lumber mill.

 

In this context, it doesn't seem unreasonable that Lynch would choose to intentionally evoke the Japanese corporate takeover meme, if for no other reason than to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that the Japanese were going to take over "everything" by extending that literally. (Along those lines, while we can agree to disagree, after reviewing that scene again, I really don't see how it can be viewed without that cultural reference as subtext.)

 

The other interesting note along these lines is the inclusion of "Invitation to Love", the show-within-a-show soap opera. From what I can tell so far, it seems that Invitation to Love is intended at least in part to illustrate what Twin Peaks isn't. (Although I suspect that Ep 3 will be full enough with other topics, I'd love an in depth discussion of Invitation To Love in a future episode, just to see what people think about it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It feels like it's definitely a reaction to (and also probably got picked up because of) Dallas and The Fugitive and that sort of thing, but I don't think that is necessarily corroborating evidence for the Japanese takeover thing. I don't think there is nothing to what you're saying, but I don't know if its as 1:1 as you're making it out to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, unlike the glamorous and cosmopolitan (arguably, har har) setting of Dallas, Lynch and Frost chose to set Twin Peaks in a logging town in the middle of nowhere. The scope of the conflicts on the show is concomitantly smaller in many ways. In other ways, the scope is intentionally not reduced in order to highlight the ways that these kinds of conflicts have little to no relation to the common man, as with the Ghostwood Pines deal, which doesn't really seem to make much sense to me. Continuing the themes of character displacement that I mentioned in the Ep 1 thread, Horne is a Wall street power broker plucked out of his natural habitat, and deposited in Twin Peaks. His grand scheming and machinations, all targeting not at a multinational corporation, but at a lumber mill.

 

Small towns can be surprisingly weird.  Weird enough that the Ghostwood deal doesn't stand out to me as being unbelievable.  I grew up in a small town in the middle of no where Kansas, and I've got countless odd or unexpected stories you wouldn't expect from a place like that.  Like Kevin Costner was an investor in a local business for awhile (I think because of it's work on developing buffalo herds).  Unless you just meant that it's weird to want to tear down a sawmill to build a golf course community. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More the latter. On the face of it, does it make sense to build a golf resort in logging town? Plausibly, yes. My parents live in a farming town in Vermont that has transformed itself gradually into a ski/golf resort community. There's also clearly something there already, as the Great Northern does apparently brisk business.

But in the context of a setting for a television show, there's a clear contrast with the "typical" TV setting of, say, LA Law or Miami Vice.

Its not necessarily a unique or deliberate choice, so much as a part of a zeitgeist shift: the same reaction would lead to the imminent rise of grunge, also centered in the Pacific Northwest.

Also, I don't mean this to belittle these towns or settings. I've read the argument that the "americana" setting in the show is not intended ironically, but with genuine affection, which I agree with. The contrasts highlight the absurdity not of the people of Twin Peaks, but of the overblown rhetoric of Hollywood.

Jake - for the record, I don't 100% believe this, but over-wrought content analysis is fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was I the only one that noticed when Ed picked up James from the police station, Hawk and Ed did like some secret code-sign where they drew their index fingers over their right eyes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More the latter. On the face of it, does it make sense to build a golf resort in logging town? Plausibly, yes. My parents live in a farming town in Vermont that has transformed itself gradually into a ski/golf resort community. There's also clearly something there already, as the Great Northern does apparently brisk business.

 

Yeah, I wasn't really sure which direction you were going. But Twin Peaks always makes me think of the oddities of small towns anyways, which is usually compounded by the fact that everyone knows everything about everyone (or at least think they do). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CLWheelJack, I'm a little confused. You said in another post:

 

CLWheeljack
I think we've moved on from this, but the idea that the invasion of modernity is one of the central themes of the show doesn't really work for me. As my wife pointed out, one of the major conflicts of the show appears to be older men targeting and exploting young women which is, in her words "the oldest crime that exists".

 

I guess my issue arises with the notion that you seem to be arguing that the plot line with the mill and a possible shutdown is analogous to the Asian (Japanese) takeover of the car and other industries taking place at that time. So, that points to the modernity encroaching idea that was broached on the podcast which you seemed to argue against. The outside world is causing pressures both through the examples of the drug trade and business.

 

I know there is the intimation that there has always been an evil in Twin Peaks. This evil allows for the idyllic nature of Twin Peaks. This is specifically mentioned in a diner scene with Truman, Cooper, and Hawk in episode 4 or 5

 

I fail to see how these things don't point to the idea of the pressures of modernity.

 

Do you agree with sclpls who stated?

 

Instead of modernity, we can think of it as the event that throws the identity of a community into a state of shock.

 

I am tending to think that the show works because of the friction between that threat of the modern world encroaching and the intrinsic evil that already exists there.
 
Not trying to bust your balls. I am just asking for clarification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was I the only one that noticed when Ed picked up James from the police station, Hawk and Ed did like some secret code-sign where they drew their index fingers over their right eyes?

 

This will be explained in episode 4, Rest in Pain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't an episodic specific observation, but it's interesting that both Twin Peaks and the X-Files deal with some of the same stuff. Both shows have this running theme of modernity encroaching on these last hidden vestiges of pre-franchised America and shedding light on its hidden monsters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't an episodic specific observation, but it's interesting that both Twin Peaks and the X-Files deal with some of the same stuff. Both shows have this running theme of modernity encroaching on these last hidden vestiges of pre-franchised America and shedding light on its hidden monsters.

 

I like your take on this, Turkey. I don't think it is a spoiler to mention that David Duchovny will show up later in Twin Peaks. I believe the X-Files is one of the natural progeny of Twin Peaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, to a certain degree I'm differentiating between the show as a cultural artifact vs. the themes of the show as presented in-world. I don't think that the themes presented within the show itself is interested in the least with Japanese industrial invasions, but I think it's cultural context for how the show may have been created and consumed by its audience. It's sort of a meta-consideration, which is why I don't really have an issue with the apparent contradiction.

 

To put another way, the while Japanese question has to do entirely with the way that Josie is portrayed. Reading some wikis, it appears that Josie was originally intended to be Italian. I think that re-casting Josie, but keeping her role exactly the same would affect how that character is presented, but wouldn't necessarily affect the broader themes of the show.

 

As for the question of modernity itself, do you mind if we table this discussion until Ep. 4? The spoiler tagged bit you note has a lot to do with it. Although, for the record, I like the interpretation presented in the letters, that the townspeople's response is more disappointed ("I thought we could have avoided it this time") than shocked and surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like your take on this, Turkey. I don't think it is a spoiler to mention that David Duchovny will show up later in Twin Peaks. I believe the X-Files is one of the natural progeny of Twin Peaks.

 

And, if you're an ultra-dork

like me

you can accept the Fringe explanation that Twin Peaks, X-Files, and Fringe are all in the same universe!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked the conversation about Lynch cutting to shots that aren't technically connected in the sequence of events, such as the traffic light, but then found it odd that Chris talked about enjoying that, and then got caught up in the logistics of two later events.

The tape of Laura with the newly added voiceover and the part where Audrey's music is turned off. I'm not sure why it matters what is the exact in universe explanation for these things is. From what I remember, Twin Peaks is generally a show that doesn't need to justify what it's showing to you all the time. It likes to break into supernatural and unsettling imagery and shots, where the viewer might not know what to make of the man crouched at the end of the bed. What's more important is that he's unsettling and creepy and causes a reaction from Mrs. Palmer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listening to the podcast, I'm just going to list my responses:

-I didn't think that Hawk following the one armed man was non-sequitur at all. I saw it as him following a lead based on his intuition, but not having enough to go on to pursue it beyond noting that he went towards either the oxygen-supply or the morgue.

-I thought that the VHS Laura with the "Help" voice-over was the dream that Donna had that I believe she mentions in the following scene.

-The way I see this show is as a heavy-handed written work, which some of you seem to be implying by putting it in context of American soap-operas from the 80's. I love all of the characters because they are so melodramatic. How can you not love Bobby?! When he explains all of his activities on the night of Laura's death by mentioning all the places he was supposed to be and saying "I didn't show up because I didn't feel like it.", hitting the table with his fists and snapping, I was smitten. This appreciation of camp bleeds into the lurid use of symbolic relationships of props. I don't see these things existing in a world as much as I see them existing in a story. A good example is how Shelly is beaten while sitting on a pile of construction-plastic identical to what Laura was found wrapped in. I see that as an intentional detail that doesn't necessarily pay-out, but is intended to make me even more suspicious of Leo. A broader example is the use of music that Chris and Jake discuss for a bit in the podcast. Twin Peaks is a hyper-reality. I don't think it's representative of a place and people as much as representative of a medium (American 80's soap-opera). I think that it is a work where we are encouraged to appreciate the idiosyncracies of the craft meshed with the narrative, completely inseparable; the saturated use of the form's techniques are the narrative-voice. This is where I come to the place where I see the Dr. recovering the other half of Laura's heart as a symbolic message that Laura truely gave it to the Dr. rather than to James.

-Why hasn't anyone mentioned that Laura is obviously dealing coke to the entire town, using her apparent perfectness and charitable activities for cover?

------

I have a thought-experiment for y'all about the writing techniques employed by the show:

Would we care about how the fish got into the percolator if there wasn't a murder to solve?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why it matters what is the exact in universe explanation for these things is. From what I remember, Twin Peaks is generally a show that doesn't need to justify what it's showing to you all the time.

There is no "in universe" explanation, because things like editing and and juxtaposition of shots don't exist in life, only in film. I also don't need it justified; my reflection is about the artistic choices being made and the motivations for those choices. In some cases it might simply be "to be foreboding" or whatever, and nothing else, but I don't think that is always or automatically the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know every single person here disagrees, but I like having the man dance over the end credits.  It breaks the Red Room sequence out of Cooper's dream and lets us know that, yes, that really happened in this episode and odd events like this are something we'll need to deal with throughout the show.  It replaces Laura's homecoming photo, and shows us that—just as Laura is always going to be a presence—so are the goings on of Mike, Bob, and the Man From Another Place.

 

Also, Leland's specific actions with Laura's picture paying off in Fire Walk With Me were likely intentional, though as you mention it probably wasn't a long-delayed plan.  Another reference is Cooper in the Pilot saying "Give this to Albert and his team; don't go to Sam; Albert seems to have a little more on the ball."  We don't meet Sam until Fire Walk With Me and Cooper spends even less time with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These casts have been great!

 

I wanted to mention the music, which I really like. I think it's meant to invoke horror soundtracks of previous years, since it seems like the 3 flavors of TP are 70s haunting films, film noir, and soap opera. The analog synth stuff that John Carpenter used in the 80s, and a million italians in the 70s, particularly anybody would worked with Argento or Fulci. Sidebar: On the idea of music nobody listens to, 2014 has seen an (relatively minor) explosion of reissue labels like Death Waltz, focused on analog synth horror soundtracks, and there have been more than a few bands popping up to create original versions of that. Steeve Moore's Zombi being the most high profile. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know every single person here disagrees, but I like having the man dance over the end credits.  It breaks the Red Room sequence out of Cooper's dream and lets us know that, yes, that really happened in this episode and odd events like this are something we'll need to deal with throughout the show.  It replaces Laura's homecoming photo, and shows us that—just as Laura is always going to be a presence—so are the goings on of Mike, Bob, and the Man From Another Place.

 

I presume this was meant to go in the thread on Zen, not Traces to Nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I presume this was meant to go in the thread on Zen, not Traces to Nowhere.

 

:getmecoat

 

I will never get used to the third episode not being called Episode 2!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, Harry Truman.  So you mentioned in the podcast that you weren't certain if the actor, Michael Ontkean, was doing a great job in his role, or if it is just more his type of personality that he brings to the role.  Haven't seen much of his filmography, but he was in Ned Braden in Slap Shot.  So that was a role where he was required to be a D***.  He wasn't going to win an Oscar for the performance, but it was a big stretch from Harry, and I buy him in both roles. 

 

Now, later on in Twin Peaks, SPOILER ALERT -

(people might piece things together)

 

When Harry is in mourning, Ontkean's acting goes a little south for me, takes me out of the moment.  Not sure if that was intentional melodrama Twin Peaks sometimes goes for, but not quite right.  But I guess if I have more to say about it, we can wait till that episode comes along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ow, later on in Twin Peaks, SPOILER ALERT -

(people might piece things together)

 

Hello Luc999. In order to put things is a spoiler block, click in the text box to start typing. You should see formatting icons across the top. Select the text that might spoil, then hit the third button (next to the eraser). That's the Special BBCode button. From the list select Spoiler. This will hide that text in a block that requires the reader to hit a spoiler button to reveal the text. This will happen after you hit Post. Till then, it just denotes it as spoiler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LostInTheMovies

I know every single person here disagrees, but I like having the man dance over the end credits.  It breaks the Red Room sequence out of Cooper's dream and lets us know that, yes, that really happened in this episode and odd events like this are something we'll need to deal with throughout the show.  It replaces Laura's homecoming photo, and shows us that—just as Laura is always going to be a presence—so are the goings on of Mike, Bob, and the Man From Another Place.

 

Something interesting about the end credits: there are only five episodes that don't feature Laura's portrait under the end credits. All but one are directed by Lynch. Aside from the pilot establishing the motif of Laura's portrait, the only Lynch episode that DOES end with Laura's portrait is one in which Laura DOESN'T play a major part.

 

Most likely, this is just coincidence. But knowing how important the character was to Lynch's conception of the show, this makes me wonder if there wasn't an unwritten (or written!) rule that every episode needed to end with her image - a rule that only Lynch himself felt permitted to break, as long as the episode itself had already highlighted her in an unusual way. The only exception - when another director ignored her portrait - may actually prove the rule.

 

Consider...

 

Episode 2: the Little Man dances in the Red Room. Directed by Lynch. Features Laura in the dream sequence.

Episode 8 (s2 premiere): Gerstein Hayward playing the piano. Directed by Lynch. Features the flashback to Laura's murder.

Episode 14: Cooper & the red curtains. Directed by Lynch. Laura never appears onscreen (other than frequent shots of photos) but as the episode reveals her killer, I'd say she's pretty central to it.

Episode 18: Ben Horne's home movies. Directed by Duwayne Dunham. Worth noting that: 1) Dunham was closer to Lynch than other directors, since he had edited Blue Velvet, Wild at Heart, and the TP pilot and 2) episode 18 is the ONLY episode to feature Laura's image onscreen until the finale - Ben Horne holds a picture of her aloft while talking to Hank in his office.

 

Then gain, maybe I'm just reading too much into this. ;)

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