Jake

Twin Peaks Rewatch 5: The One-Armed Man

Recommended Posts

Twin Peaks Rewatch 5:

606__header.jpg

The One-Armed Man

The magical starts trending toward the mundane in week five of our complete rewatch of Twin Peaks. Hopefully you're hungry for a of a lot of plot, a lot of mystery, and a peppering of moments which seem revelatory but curve into surprising bafflement, as that's what's on the menu this week, in "The One-Armed Man."

Catching up? Listen to the Rewatch archive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm continually fascinated by Dr. Jacoby. He's such a bizarre presence in the context of the town, and his sly revelations to avoid breaching confidentiality are so weird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I lol'd..

 

1251366126_twin_peaks_-llama_crossing.gi

 

Another fine Cooper/Truman moment. Cooper's staring into the eyes of the llama and Truman looking bewildered at the llama as it walks away, Cooper then continuing unphased with his line. They really nailed it. I wonder if they had the person with the llama go between them and then just by chance this one time the llama just looked straight into Coopers face or what.. Or if they did something to specifically attract the llama to Coopers face..

 

Judging from how fond they are of weird little mistakes/coincidences it's probably the former, and in reality the llama was just supposed to walk past them.

 

Hank is just.. ew.. He's cartoonishly creepy..

TyK2N3Ml.png

..and his call to Josie just makes me even more confused as to where her plot is going (I don't remember her plotline at all from previous viewings..)

 

I had thought it was another actor, who will be appearing later as an FBI agent, but it was actually David Lynch as Gordon Cole calling Cooper. I'm now reading that Lynch just really liked the idea of shouting his lines, so his character was conceived of as being hard of hearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was some discussion earlier on about how strange it is to have a Wall Street-esque cold hearted businessman in Twin Peaks juxtaposed against all these other people. I'd just like to point out how that caper goes even deeper with the ludicrous sawmill subplot. The fact that Horne goes out in the middle of the woods to go meet with Leo Johnson,the most deadbeat useless human imagineable to conspire in arson is great.

Also from the Wikipedia page "Tamblyn improvised elements of his performance, including a magic trick involving two golf balls, which was something he had learned and wished to include during his role in the episode." Which is also amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The scene where Andy is drawing Sarah Palmer's visions is pretty important because it's the first time that everyone...not just people tasked with finding Laura's murder...seem unconcerned with the idea that someone's visions are being taken seriously in the search for a killer. In a previous episode, the idea of Twin Peaks being "special" and having a darkness that surrounds it is introduced, but it isn't until this episode we get everyone in a room and they seem not at all concerned with the idea of magic being a tool that can be depended upon for results. They are, after all, going to put these posters that Andy draws in shops and whatnot for the whole town to see we assume. They aren't just humoring her and Agent Cooper corroborates this by saying, "That's the guy." 

 

It's also a nice touch that the only person who seems agitated by this turn of events is Laura's Father, Leland Palmer because he is the killer. On first viewing, I imagine one might feel that Leland is the only voice of reason. On second viewing, the bit is played for its irony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The scene where Andy is drawing Sarah Palmer's visions is pretty important because it's the first time that everyone...not just people tasked with finding Laura's murder...seem unconcerned with the idea that someone's visions are being taken seriously in the search for a killer. In a previous episode, the idea of Twin Peaks being "special" and having a darkness that surrounds it is introduced, but it isn't until this episode we get everyone in a room and they seem not at all concerned with the idea of magic being a tool that can be depended upon for results. They are, after all, going to put these posters that Andy draws in shops and whatnot for the whole town to see we assume. They aren't just humoring her and Agent Cooper corroborates this by saying, "That's the guy."

 

I also thought about this in the scene with Mike, where he's not fitting with the profile they're expecting and Truman doesn't walk out of there saying "Maybe that dream was kinda bogus Cooper..." like he would in most shows. Instead they go to a vet named Bob to follow up on that lead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The scene where Andy is drawing Sarah Palmer's visions is pretty important because it's the first time that everyone...not just people tasked with finding Laura's murder...seem unconcerned with the idea that someone's visions are being taken seriously in the search for a killer. In a previous episode, the idea of Twin Peaks being "special" and having a darkness that surrounds it is introduced, but it isn't until this episode we get everyone in a room and they seem not at all concerned with the idea of magic being a tool that can be depended upon for results. They are, after all, going to put these posters that Andy draws in shops and whatnot for the whole town to see we assume. They aren't just humoring her and Agent Cooper corroborates this by saying, "That's the guy."

It's also a nice touch that the only person who seems agitated by this turn of events is Laura's Father, Leland Palmer because he is the killer. On first viewing, I imagine one might feel that Leland is the only voice of reason. On second viewing, the bit is played for its irony.

In response to your spoiler

Did Lynch and Frost know Leland was the killer from the start and just didn't plan to reveal it and were forced, or was it something they made up later on as the network pressured them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to your spoiler

Did Lynch and Frost know Leland was the killer from the start and just didn't plan to reveal it and were forced, or was it something they made up later on as the network pressured them?

 

Haha. Now we are just speaking in spoilers:

 

I don't know. My guess is they knew by this point who they were going to make the killer. I don't remember any reference that said when they pinpointed who the killer was going to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not clear on how much killer stuff they reveal in the European pilot as I haven't seen it? Do they just advance the reveal of BOB's sketch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also thought about this in the scene with Mike, where he's not fitting with the profile they're expecting and Truman doesn't walk out of there saying "Maybe that dream was kinda bogus Cooper..." like he would in most shows. Instead they go to a vet named Bob to follow up on that lead.

 

Yeah, they are really heavy handed about following through on the idea that lots of stuff is possible and that ALL the characters are somewhat used to that idea. The reason they have to involve lots of characters outside the "task force" is because it is a trope that the police will often use psychics when their investigations reach dead ends. By adding the community of Twin Peaks into the mix, they are acknowledging that everyone in Twin Peaks is NOT phased by the possible magical nature of the evil they are dealing with.

 

In my personal opinion not culled from any other site. I believe that we as humans shift our understanding throughout our lives into three categories on a continuum: the probable, the possible, and the impossible. When we read or watch fiction, we sort the world that is being created into these categories so that we can expect the world to play by certain rules. We do this in real life when we are children. Monsters under the bed (in the closet) are possible until we have enough experience of them not grabbing us to sort them into the impossible category. In opposition to this, logic dictates that you can't do this, because you can't prove the absence of something. But, in order to live our daily lives we have to be illogical so that we don't fear monsters under the bed or realize every waking moment that there are missiles that can annihilate us all. We sort those things closer to the impossible because of the experience of them not happening constantly, because we must. Otherwise, we wouldn't be any less scared of the dangers of monsters or nuclear war than the day we first learned about them. This could be called something, but I don't know the philosophical term. Twin Peaks is slowly letting us know how possible and probable the magic in their world is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not clear on how much killer stuff they reveal in the European pilot as I haven't seen it? Do they just advance the reveal of BOB's sketch?

 

Been meaning to watch the European pilot; however, my wife is a task master and worries that if we don't doggedly watch the episodes we will leave season 2 and never come back to it because it is a bit of a slog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha. Um, I didn't realize this for a long while, but have now figured it out. In case you didn't know. Every Twin Peaks episode has its own wikipedia page which talks about the director and writer of that episode and gives a synopsis of the episode.

 

WARNING POSSIBLE SPOILERS

 

The episode overview page is here.

 

Clicking on the episodes provides many more details. I didn't realize this because I don't have that many shows that I watch which have 20 year plus histories. The ones I go to usually have less info:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Aqua_Teen_Hunger_Force_episodes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wanted to insert this here just because I have been thinking about it.

 

There had been some discussion about racial stereotypes early on: particularly the characters of Josie Packard and Hawk. One of the things which I was running up against was the idea that the character of Hawk is a bad ass. So, maybe not such a bad stereotype; however, I did a little bit of thinking and internet searching on that subject and have a piece of evidence which kind of changed my opinion.

 

Hawk's bad ass stereotype is actually something that worked against many Native Americans in the Vietnam war. From what I have been reading the injury rate for Native Americans in that war was up around 37%. Which I believe is high. I'm not an expert in this area, so if anyone has something to add to those statistics feel free.  Many of the Native Americans who fought in that war contend this injury rate was directly related to the way they were usually positioned in their units. They were usually positioned out front as "trackers" or recon. Even though they had very few skills necessary to fill this role beyond that of their African American or Caucasian counterparts. It was assumed they had a sixth sense about the enemy and that worked to their advantage. It didn't.

 

I only bring this up, because I found it to be an error in the way I was thinking and is an example of how even a "positive" stereotype can work against you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wanted to insert this here just because I have been thinking about it.

There had been some discussion about racial stereotypes early on: particularly the characters of Josie Packard and Hawk. One of the things which I was running up against was the idea that the character of Hawk is a bad ass. So, maybe not such a bad stereotype; however, I did a little bit of thinking and internet searching on that subject and have a piece of evidence which kind of changed my opinion.

Hawk's bad ass stereotype is actually something that worked against many Native Americans in the Vietnam war. From what I have been reading the injury rate for Native Americans in that war was up around 37%. Which I believe is high. I'm not an expert in this area, so if anyone has something to add to those statistics feel free. Many of the Native Americans who fought in that war contend this injury rate was directly related to the way they were usually positioned in their units. They were usually positioned out front as "trackers" or recon. Even though they had very few skills necessary to fill this role beyond that of their African American or Caucasian counterparts. It was assumed they had a sixth sense about the enemy and that worked to their advantage. It didn't.

I only bring this up, because I found it to be an error in the way I was thinking and is an example of how even a "positive" stereotype can work against you.

Hawk has moments of badassery, and its certainly not unimportant to his character, but he's also portrayed at times as being kind of a regular dude. It makes him kinda confusing as a character. There's a scene in S2 where

Lucy's sister meets him and she's asking him about how he must feel so bad about his people being abused by the white man. His response is just confusion and disinterest in the idea.

When TVTropes writes about Hawk, the editor contends that the character usually defies attempts to be stereotyped on the show by other characters (like the weird Spirits scene) where they (the writers) try to have their cake and eat it too.

Wow, that was disorganized and rambling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, there were two wtf shots in this episode that are things you would think would have stuck with me, but I hadn't remembered at all when watching this episode.

 

1. That llama. Goddamn.

 

2. The people playing tennis at night.

 

Neither connected to the plot in anyway, but just totally striking images.

 

Also, I had never put two and two together, but at the Horns' residence they have that same creepy antler chandelier that you see at One Eyed Jacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hawk getting a high-five from the biker was all you needed to know about his badassery.

Idle thumbs people tend to overthink a lot of shit.

Or, well maybe I underthink it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LostInTheMovies

In my personal opinion not culled from any other site. I believe that we as humans shift our understanding throughout our lives into three categories on a continuum: the probable, the possible, and the impossible. When we read or watch fiction, we sort the world that is being created into these categories so that we can expect the world to play by certain rules. We do this in real life when we are children. Monsters under the bed (in the closet) are possible until we have enough experience of them not grabbing us to sort them into the impossible category. In opposition to this, logic dictates that you can't do this, because you can't prove the absence of something. But, in order to live our daily lives we have to be illogical so that we don't fear monsters under the bed or realize every waking moment that there are missiles that can annihilate us all. We sort those things closer to the impossible because of the experience of them not happening constantly, because we must. Otherwise, we wouldn't be any less scared of the dangers of monsters or nuclear war than the day we first learned about them. This could be called something, but I don't know the philosophical term. Twin Peaks is slowly letting us know how possible and probable the magic in their world is.

 

This is a great way of putting it. And it's also where the show treads a fine line and takes risks - because at certain points viewers would scoff and say, "this goes too far" and shut it off whereas others would hang in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LostInTheMovies

In my personal opinion not culled from any other site. I believe that we as humans shift our understanding throughout our lives into three categories on a continuum: the probable, the possible, and the impossible. When we read or watch fiction, we sort the world that is being created into these categories so that we can expect the world to play by certain rules. We do this in real life when we are children. Monsters under the bed (in the closet) are possible until we have enough experience of them not grabbing us to sort them into the impossible category. In opposition to this, logic dictates that you can't do this, because you can't prove the absence of something. But, in order to live our daily lives we have to be illogical so that we don't fear monsters under the bed or realize every waking moment that there are missiles that can annihilate us all. We sort those things closer to the impossible because of the experience of them not happening constantly, because we must. Otherwise, we wouldn't be any less scared of the dangers of monsters or nuclear war than the day we first learned about them. This could be called something, but I don't know the philosophical term. Twin Peaks is slowly letting us know how possible and probable the magic in their world is.

 

This is a great way of putting it. And it's also where the show treads a fine line and takes risks - because at certain points viewers would scoff and say, "this goes too far" and shut it off whereas others would hang in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LostInTheMovies

Sorry for the previous double-post - not sure how that happened but feel free to delete.

 

Anyway, just joining in now but I'm mostly caught up on the podcast and enjoying it. I've listened to a couple "introcasts" to Twin Peaks - where one of the guests is a newbie (the co-host can't touch on certain things) - so the non-spoiler/spoiler format of this show is very refreshing. One suggestion/recommendation though: why not expand the spoiler section of the cast? I think the one for ep. 2 (3 by your count) was only 3 or 4 minutes.

 

As for episode 4 (sorry, I can't break the habit of referring to them by the disc menu's numbers!) I think it offers one of the last great opportunities to see Donna & Audrey interact, in the high school bathroom. One of you mentioned their interesting dynamic in the Lynch-directed episode and I'd only add that besides their conspiratorial connection there's also a subtle rivalry/tension which really powers the scenes forward. Obviously this was true in real life as well - the lore of Sherilyn Fenn-Lara Flynn Boyle rivalry is pretty well-established - but

it's a pity if the offscreen drama nixed the potential for more onscreen chemistry. I love the way these two play of each other: Audrey is superficially the more badass but Donna has a certain coy, knowing edge to her reactions that suggests she knows Audrey has more bark than bite (and as we'll learn later Donna had more of an edge/involvement with Laura's escapades than we would think). It's a great little scene but pretty much the last time we see them together until very late in season 2, long after both characters have shifted and the Laura mystery has ended. Weird especially since the scene sets up more potential interaction in the future (Audrey says something like, "let's keep this between us" as if they're going to go on sharing info).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, just joining in now but I'm mostly caught up on the podcast and enjoying it. I've listened to a couple "introcasts" to Twin Peaks - where one of the guests is a newbie (the co-host can't touch on certain things) - so the non-spoiler/spoiler format of this show is very refreshing. One suggestion/recommendation though: why not expand the spoiler section of the cast? I think the one for ep. 2 (3 by your count) was only 3 or 4 minutes.

Glad you're enjoying! I imagine there might be episodes with longer spoiler sections, and we were actually expecting them to be longer when we started the cast, but as it turns out we just generally get most of our discussion out of the way before the break. We also really don't want episodes to get longer than an hour (and ideally they'd be more like 45 minutes) so adding more spoiler stuff would be pushing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I definitely expected to have more to say, but more often than not the spoiler segments are boiling down to "oh wasn't THAT scene interesting, given what we know happens??" "yeah it was, crazy!" As Chris said, I'm sure there are episodes where the "spoiler" section ends up longer. (Note to readers who are rewatching instead of watching for the first time: You can make the spoiler section longer by sending us your observations or thoughts on the episode's role in the series as a whole or its impact on future episodes so we have something meaty to read and discuss in the spoiler section!)

Also worth noting: This is also only my second time through the show (and I think that is true for Chris as well) so I don't have a full, nonlinear working memory of the series as a whole work, or anything. I love Twin Peaks and it stuck with me on my first viewing, enough to do a podcast while re-watching it, but we are not mega-fans who have tons of hours of watching, discourse, and thought banked on the show in advance of this viewing. So while I do remember the big things that happen, and I have read some articles and other pieces about the show, this podcast is an avenue of rediscovery for me as much as it is a discussion of something I know. I guess that's a roundabout way of saying again to please send your forward reaching, and all encompassing thoughts in to the [email protected] email address to give us more to chew on when it comes to big picture spoiler stuff!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I definitely expected to have more to say, but more often than not the spoiler segments are boiling down to "oh wasn't THAT scene interesting, given what we know happens??" "yeah it was, crazy!" As Chris said, I'm sure there are episodes where the "spoiler" section ends up longer. (Note to readers who are rewatching instead of watching for the first time: You can make the spoiler section longer by sending us your observations or thoughts on the episode's role in the series as a whole or its impact on future episodes so we have something meaty to read and discuss in the spoiler section!)

Also worth noting: This is also only my second time through the show (and I think that is true for Chris as well) so I don't have a full, nonlinear working memory of the series as a whole work, or anything. I love Twin Peaks and it stuck with me on my first viewing, enough to do a podcast while re-watching it, but we are not mega-fans who have tons of hours of watching, discourse, and thought banked on the show in advance of this viewing. So while I do remember the big things that happen, and I have read some articles and other pieces about the show, this podcast is an avenue of rediscovery for me as much as it is a discussion of something I know. I guess that's a roundabout way of saying again to please send your forward reaching, and all encompassing thoughts in to the [email protected] email address to give us more to chew on when it comes to big picture spoiler stuff!

Listening to Patrick Klepeks Lost rewatch podcast I've heard what a longer spoiler segment might sound like, and if people haven't recently watched the show in question it'll probably go "Didn't X work this way" "Maybe? I think so... Whatever, someone will write in."

Edit: Then again, Lost does have the most absurdly complex lore ever and almost 85% of it is almost completely unmemorable outside of the context of being into the shows mystery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha. Um, I didn't realize this for a long while, but have now figured it out. In case you didn't know. Every Twin Peaks episode has its own wikipedia page which talks about the director and writer of that episode and gives a synopsis of the episode.

 

WARNING POSSIBLE SPOILERS

 

The episode overview page is here.

 

Clicking on the episodes provides many more details. I didn't realize this because I don't have that many shows that I watch which have 20 year plus histories. The ones I go to usually have less info:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Aqua_Teen_Hunger_Force_episodes

It's worth noting that the Wiki has the official numbering, so if you're looking for episode 5 (i.e. the fifth episode) info, for example, look for episode 4 in the wiki or risk accidental spoiler reading.

----

It was interesting that they referred to bird scratches or pecks as, "Bird bites." I don't think I've ever heard those two words together before, but why shouldn't they be? Linguistic anomaly more than a TP observation, I suppose.

 

Not only does this episode continue to show us how the townspeople are perfectly comfortable with the supernatural and that we've already been shown how quickly Cooper embraces it, but we hear that he's a "Strong sender" and doesn't want to risk interfering. Stating that the eyes were closer together shows he places more faith in the accuracy of his dreams than in Sarah's eye-witness (hallucination, vision, or whatever they're assuming it was) account (or, I guess, her ability to describe the man). If he's a strong sender, couldn't be be influencing people's perception rather than just corroborating their insights?

 

Andy's portraited as a dolt most of the time and, usually, as a more delicate man than one would expect of a police officer. Does this belie his keen understanding of the back channels and underbelly of TP? When asked the distance to the hotel, he disagrees with Harry by a significant margin (10 versus 30 minutes), saying it depends on which way you go.

 

Hank's super-creepy, yes, but what's the significance of the domino? I expect veteran watchers will have some insight, but I'm wondering if it's supposed to be a prison or criminal rank thing, if it's inserting another supernatural element (6 made of 3's, 666, "The beast" unleashed on the earth, etc.), or some allusion via numerology.

 

Also, "Giving little elvis a bath," might become my new favorite euphemism*.

 

*If I wish to, once more, be single

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