Twin Peaks Rewatch 4: Rest in Pain

[Urthman]

Oh, that post about the music was from me.  I thought I was logged in.  I don't know if there's any way to fix it so it's attributed to my account.

[LostInTheMovies]

Also, re: the New York article, even granting that Leonard was grappling with the show in its very early episodes without the 20/20 hindisight we have, the Warhol analogy strikes me as particularly inapt.

[Zeppin]

One thing I'm surprised no one brought up is how ridiculous it is that they recast Laura as HER COUSIN and then made her an almost central character.

Thats a thing I love about Twin Peaks. Its chock full of meta-moments that absolutely confound me but mean almost nothing to the characters. All interactions on why Maddie looks exactly like Laura just with dark hair end with, "Yeah, huh, how about that."

 

I think that casting the same actress as both Maddie and Laura was done quite deliberately for a number of reasons not directly related to the show's soap opera roots. Most significantly it's intended to highlight the contrast between the two characters; Maddie is as sweet and innocent as Laura is dark and deceptive. This kind of duality is big in Twin Peaks, the most obvious example being that between Cooper's picturesque small town America and the darkness in the woods.

 

That duality is also rife in the characterizations of the show's characters; Josie Packard and Leland being particularly striking examples.

[Turgid]

Open question for any newcomers to the series - and perhaps I'll have to post this in another thread if this one has died - do you agree? Do you feel "Twin Peaks" has any larger meaning or theme or that it's primarily a mood piece? Does being a mood piece necessarily negate "meaning"? Do you view the show primarily as entertainment, as art, as something in between?

 

Fortunately I'm following this thread, and this is exactly what I've been thinking about as I'm listening to the cast. I'm largely approaching the show as a piece of entertainment, in fact a comedy with bits of melodrama thrown in. (Though there are a few truly unsettling elements as well.)

 

Maybe this is due to my modern perspective, as the soap opera seems completely contrived and the characters laughably (and in some cases delightfully) overwrought. There's also the fact that I could go and watch the whole thing at any time, so I feel the mystery is something I'm deliberately saving and savoring as it unfolds, and I don't have the same sense of tension.

 

However, it's pretty clear that Chris and Jake take the show much more seriously and at face value. They point out elements and choices made by the show that I didn't consider. It's interesting to think of how I would have reacted to the show in 1992 (had I been old enough to appreciate it). I get the feeling that a lot of Thumbs do treat it as a serious drama and mystery with important motifs and themes, and very deliberate choices by the artists to convey certain feelings. I really like listening and reading about these things and I can appreciate them after the fact.

 

But to be honest when I watch each episode myself most of that stuff kind of passes me by as I'm enjoying the surface level of the plot and bizarre characters. I'm just taking it in scene by scene, following along and not thinking too deeply about it. So for me I'm not expecting much deeper meaning. Even the moody unsettling stuff (e.g. Leland's grief or Cooper's dream) can be amusing or uncomfortable to watch in the way of a B movie, but not affect me like a piece of good art can. Some of the scenes and performances are pretty great, and I can get into it, but overall the show reads as fairly empty.

 

There's that saying "don't put more thought into a piece of art than the author." I find it hard to believe Lynch or the other writers put a whole lot of thought into this beyond making it as entertaining as possible. However some of the commentary on the cast and these forums has made me think twice. It's an interesting way to experience it.

[LostInTheMovies]

Fortunately I'm following this thread, and this is exactly what I've been thinking about as I'm listening to the cast. I'm largely approaching the show as a piece of entertainment, in fact a comedy with bits of melodrama thrown in. (Though there are a few truly unsettling elements as well.)

 

...

 

Thanks for responding! I was worried no newcomers would take the bait, haha. As noted elsewhere I have a near-sociological fascination with how viewers react to this show as it unfolds. I really wish I'd kept a journal of my own initial responses, as most are lost to me now. Hope you'll continue to share your reactions. Out of curiosity, what's your take on Lynch's other work? Do you see this as being more a lark for him in his larger career or consistent with the tone/sensibility of his movies? One of the interesting things about the Twin Peaks critiques in '90 (Jonathan Rosenbaum's in particular) is that they view Lynch's work as a whole as lacking "serious" purpose (while being great at mood).

 

I watched Twin Peaks for the first time in 2008, yet I still have trouble remembering that first experience, re-watches having obscured my view somewhat. That said, to the best of my recollection, my take on season one was pretty similar to yours. I enjoyed it and felt it was a blast but considered it primarily fun entertainment (compared to something like, say, Mulholland Drive - at least the final third). The murder mystery was enjoyable to untangle but I would say I saw it as a MacGuffin primarily. My impression was that the show had been cancelled because viewers grew impatient with the delayed reveal, so I expected we would never find out who killed Laura and I'm pretty sure I was ok with that.

 

That said, I don't know if I would have said at the time that it was more like a B movie than a good piece of art, simply because the Lynch-directed episodes (particularly #2) were among the best pieces of filmmaking I'd ever seen on television, in pure aesthetic terms (pacing, blocking, camera movement, cutting, composition, etc). I definitely noticed the difference between Lynch and the other directors, especially the VERY first time I attempted to start the series, before the Gold Box DVDs came out. At this point, Netflix did not have the pilot available so I had to start with episode "1" (the Duwayne Dunham-directed one with the fish in the percolator). Like you, I saw it as very soapy and 90s and hard to take at face value and was a bit disappointed. I wondered if Lynch had a role in the series beyond executive-producing. But then came the scene with Sarah's vision of the long-haired man crouching in the corner, and I jumped out of my seat. I realized then Twin Peaks would be worth investing in. Then came episode "2" - the one with the Red Room dream sequence - and I was hooked from the first shot, that extremely long, bizarre Horne family dinner. This seemed to come from a different universe than the previous episode. And then of course the Red Room dream and I realized what I was in for. But I stopped for a couple years, waiting for the pilot to come out so I could begin properly.

 

I don't think this counts as a spoiler, but as I recall I was much more impressed with season two, at least initially, than season one (although in retrospect and repeat viewings, I consider season one more consistent).

[Turgid]

I agree with pretty much everything you said! Especially the MacGuffin part, that is a great way to put how I feel about the mystery. I feel like the whole point is to keep it ambiguous and I'm fine with that.

 

I definitely notice the Lynch directed episodes as well, and I agree they're excellent TV. I think what I meant with the B-movie comment was more that the drama seems fairly deliberate (as opposed to naturalistic). It is well written and well presented for sure, but nonetheless artificial-feeling to me. So for example when Leland listens to the record player and starts dancing and crying, geez is that uncomfortable to watch as it drags on, but at the same time I'm thinking "wow I'm surprised the writer and actor really went for it here!" It's like theater, not "real." Like Lynch is shouting at me "look at this!" Which is not to say it can't be meaningful, just that I'm not fully immersed/emotionally involved in it. So I guess it's unlikely to be personally meaningful to me, at least not yet. However as more of the characters and plot gets revealed I find I'm more interested in the story in general, so we'll see.

 

Thanks to you guys I'm keeping an eye out for broader themes and symbols, etc. In particular I love the analysis of Cooper as a deconstruction of the film noir detective, with Audrey as his "femme fatale" in sarcasm quotes, and his genuine appreciation of the town, and love of coffee. The conflict between the older deliberately ignorant parents and the darker youth, and the idea of the external modern world vs the rustic isolated town are also very interesting to me, I look forward to seeing if and how those develop.

 

As for comparing to his other work, I don't believe I've seen any of Lynch's stuff except Dune when I was a kid. That certainly had some creepy and memorable images, but I'd have to rewatch it to make any comment. I plan to watch his more well-known stuff at some point and I'll report back my relevant impressions. Thanks for the great discussion, btw, keep it coming.

[LostInTheMovies]

...

 

As for comparing to his other work, I don't believe I've seen any of Lynch's stuff except Dune when I was a kid. That certainly had some creepy and memorable images, but I'd have to rewatch it to make any comment. I plan to watch his more well-known stuff at some point and I'll report back my relevant impressions. Thanks for the great discussion, btw, keep it coming.

 

 

Sounds great. As for being new to Lynch, I'm wondering if you'll get more out of watching his films as the series unfolds or waiting until it's over to watch his stuff (or maybe just watching the earlier films, like Eraserhead and Blue Velvet in the meantime). Dunno, but I'll be interested in your observations regardless.

 

I enjoyed reading your take on the drama too...it sounds like you are describing a sense of conscious "distance" and I know what you mean. That's how I felt watching both the first season of Twin Peaks and Blue Velvet. What's interesting about Lynch, as compared to a lot of other artists who achieve this same sense of distance/irony, is that it seems more to be a side effect of his approach rather than its aim. In other words, he likes to mix humor and seriousness in really off-kilter ways but not because he is satirizing the serious aspects, simply because he finds the mix of the two textures interesting. Furthermore, sometimes he doesn't even acknowledge the humor at all: a good example is the scene with Laura's mother crying in the pilot. In a recent interview with both Grace Zabriskie (the actress who played Mrs. Palmer) & Lynch, she claimed there was some dark humor to the scene and Lynch denied this vehemently!

 

Twin Peaks is also unusual because Mark Frost is a much stronger co-creator than is typically recognized. It's a very complex collaboration especially since both are vague about who contributed what. But I've found that their divergences are pretty evident by observing who wrote/directed what, examining their other works, and reading some really sharp accounts/analyses of their contributions. Frost is a more self-aware writer than Lynch and he was the one responsible for the very arch, tongue-in-cheek tone of the Invitation to Love soap opera parodies (you'll notice that Lynch only presents the opening title and avoids showing any actual clips from Invitation to Love in the episode he directed). I would say to the extent that Twin Peaks is intentionally postmodern, that's more Frost's doing than Lynch's.

[Gattman]

In that screengrab it looks like James walked in and sharted. 

 

Also, my favorite interaction of the episode was Leo and Cooper. (Cooper: Leo, is that short for Leonard? Leo, snarky: "That's a question?")

 

Just the way Leo responds I find hilarious. 

Yes i smiled at that as well

[Gattman]

Re the Bobby speech at the funeral I was thinking when he said "you know who killed her, we all did" the first person they cut to would be the killer using the old cliche and that was James

[Gattman]

Do people really thinking these greiving scenes are played for laughs I am on the opposite opinion i find them tragic

[Guts]

This is only spoilerish in that it reveals that Laura and Leo were sexually involved,

Just a quick note about the relationship between Laura and Shelly, Though the hosts are correct in that Shelly and Laura weren't friends, and probably only saw each other when picking up meals on wheels, (Though I do remember something from the diary " which I read over 20 years ago" about Laura and Bobby maybe partying with Shelly and Leo I don't think it was clear) Anyway,They were technically cheating with each others significant others which is both a very personal and yet informal relationship for any two people to have.  

[Kolzig]

I thought it was incredibly Twin Peaksy that Bobby's mom has a smilie face badge attached to her jacket in the scene where she enters the religious room where Bobby and his dad are sitting and talking. Especially since they are supposed to be going to a funeral.

 

[mistercrayon]

Spoilers relate to the return!

 

It’s kind of interesting to see how much of an ass Albert is but also how much he retains the “i ain’t taking no nonsense” (see his interactions in the return

Spoiler

With Cole)

even if it also mellows with time. 

 

I think i had a weird feeling when cooper mentioned the dream- did he actually see Lucy in his dream? It felt like he started describing something completely different.  Also coop teasing audrey is still bad. 

 

I wonder if bobby announcing he was gonna do stuff at the funeral was a good idea or not (it increases tension - hitchcocks bomb- but spreads out his rage across a long time). 

 

Im glad Shelley got in on the gag about Lelands coffin adventure. 

 

I got a really weird feeling towards the end. Coop and hawk take Leland home, the assumption is that this is his safety space but it’s clearly not a great place Sarah and Leland create a toxic mix - it’s more about shuffling him off outside our vision. 

Spoiler

And Sarah has a demon inside her

 

I like how the bookhouse boys still have to do their sign even if they are sitting near each other talking about the bookhouse boys. It’s odd that the law man buys into the vigilante crew so easily (probably because it has the veneer of a conspiracy theory)

 

also

 

Spoiler

The black lodge influencing the town is obviously apparent throughout the series but given that the white lodge is nearby - the rulers of that are clearly useless or indifferent (apart from making Laura Palmer)

 

I find the ed and nadine stuff awkward. It feels like ed is supposed to be seen as sympathetic. But the way ed treats nadine is pretty objectively gross. 

 

Coopers recall of his dream is ridiculous. The speed and the clarity are so precise that has its own really nice rhythm to it. It also makes it difficult fOr Lucy and Truman to deny it’s the truth.