Jake

Twin Peaks Rewatch 12: Laura's Secret Diary

Recommended Posts

Twin Peaks Rewatch 12:

633__header.jpg

Laura's Secret Diary

Everyone is so distracted by their own lives this week that the investigation into Laura's murder takes a bit of a back seat. Fortunately, this week, everyone's lives are pretty fun to watch. Join us in our weekly look at the complete run of Twin Peaks, as we watch "Laura's Secret Diary."

Catching up? Listen to the Rewatch archive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is Audrey still at One-Eyed Jack's? This plotline feels like it takes forever.

 

Laura's many diaries make me laugh. It's her diary! No, her SECRET diary! What about her super-duper secret diary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about her super-duper secret diary?

Storyline of Twin Peaks 2016 confirmed.

"I'll see you again in 25 years... then and only then will you read my super-duper secret diary. As I call it, Diary III." - Laura Palmer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the first time I saw this episode, I really liked it - mostly because I found it very visually interesting. (The opening shot had me fooled it was Lynch directing until the credit came up for...Todd Holland?!?) The whole scene with Leland is great, from the trip through the ceiling hole to his tearful confession, which I think is Ray Wise's best piece of acting so far.

 

That said, though, the rest of this episode feels very filler-ish and now I think it's probably the weakest of the series up to this point.

 

What do people think of Judge Sternwood? My sense is that Cooper SHOULD click with him but doesn't quite. I have some theories on why but the general feeling is that maybe Cooper is beginning to have doubts about the folksy appeal of this corner of the world. His response to Doc Hayward in the second scene is unusually sharp.

 

The M.T. Wentz dialogue with the concierge and the fight at the end both make this episode feel very TV-ish which is an odd point to make about a TV show, but usually Twin Peaks doesn't feel that way.

 

Agreed that the Audrey storyline feels drawn out. Which is odd considering it's only lasted for a few days so far. The big problem for me is that it makes the dynamic character way too passive.

 

I like the storm passing over, gives the episode a nice, semi-unified feel especially since it's somewhat scattershot in plot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only have spoilered thoughts this time

 

God, seeing how people react to Leland killing Jacques as a grieving father is a fantastic way to tee up Leland as the killer in future. Though my fuzzy memory tells me that the fallout of the reveal is not as pronounced as it should be. And right now Sarah Palmer's absence is weird given that her husband is being incarcerated for murder. I don't know if it's partly the podcast and boards priming me but seeing all these new plotlines is making me less excited for where the show will go when existing plotlines are resolved. Without the curiosity of what happens next, they'll probably just annoy me as they go on especially because they're probably longer than I remember. This is kind of reaching but the thought struck me. When the judge gives his speech that starts with "After we leave this shadows we currently inhabit", is he speaking as an entity like Bob that's aware of what Leland is? The scene is treated as oddly dramatic, as is the judges arrival but I don't remember if anything else fit with this.

 

Also yes I loved that opening shot. Drawing something disturbing from something totally mundane. :tup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the eventual reveal of Leland as the killer, both times I've watched the show now didn't really make sense to me until I finally watched the movie. And now it does. At the time, it just seemed like angry father stuff and him "being taken over" by Bob, with some potential really sad abusive stuff in his childhood from said Bob/Bob possessing someone else but it wasn't until the movie that you realize the Leland reveal is really fucking dark.

 

 

Storyline of Twin Peaks 2016 confirmed.

"I'll see you again in 25 years... then and only then will you read my super-duper secret diary. As I call it, Diary III." - Laura Palmer

 

It's known as Diary II in some versions because of the European cut of the diary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the eventual reveal of Leland as the killer, both times I've watched the show now didn't really make sense to me until I finally watched the movie. And now it does. At the time, it just seemed like angry father stuff and him "being taken over" by Bob, with some potential really sad abusive stuff in his childhood from said Bob/Bob possessing someone else but it wasn't until the movie that you realize the Leland reveal is really fucking dark.

 

I have not yet seen the movie... but now I think I might before the podcast catches up. God damn, the Leland thing can get darker?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SuperBiasedMan:

Oh jesus christmas, you are in for a fucking bumpy ride, buddy. I am not going to spoil the events of the movie for you but please come talk to me when you're done. The movie explains just the full spectrum of Fucked Up Shit Leland was into and it brings up a really sad mystery of whether Leland has just been possessed by Bob for a really long time or if he's a repeat-Bob clientele. The Black Lodge stuff is still really confusing to me. Either way, a lot of abuse.

 

I think it should be pointed out in general for first time watchers that have NOT seen the Fire Walk With Me movie and have significant issues with triggering content, that maybe you should read a synopsis first, even if it spoils you. I absolutely spoiled myself on some of the movie plot points and still wasn't really emotionally prepared for how dark it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

repeat-Bob clientele.

 

What a great way of putting it. I've often described it as

a partnership rather than conventional possession. The film makes it clear that he is responsible for his actions, even if he represses his memory, and even if "Bob is real" as Laura puts it. (Interestingly, Lynch once described Bob as "an abstraction given human form" which is surprisingly frank for a director who hates discussing meaning).

 

I agree it's tough "prepping" people for Fire Walk With Me - and, in that sense, for Twin Peaks in general. I'll save the rest of this discussion for spoiler tags, but I'll concur that people who are particularly sensitive to really harsh material should be forewarned. Yes, it aired on prime-time in the early nineties. Don't let that fool you - I have no idea how some stuff got past the censors though I'm glad it did. Anyway...

Kind of meta to discuss the whole issue of spoilers within a spoiler tag, but here goes... Twin Peaks is tricky to recommend/prepare people for because on the one hand, it really is best to experience it without knowing what's in store. I think it had a much bigger impact on me for that reason; I really wasn't ready for where it took me and that element of surprise isn't just crucial in an entertainment sense (who killed Laura Palmer? the parlor game) but an artistic one. I think the shock/discomfort of discovering Leland killed/raped Laura, especially after allowing ourselves to slip into the "fun" aspect of the sleuthing, is really essential to the power of the story. It points the finger at the audience (and the creators) as well as the killer himself, and makes us simultaneously identify with the victim and feel responsible for ignoring/covering up her trauma like the community onscreen.

 

On the other hand, the show's reputation is that it is dark and somewhat emotionally/thematically safe, which certainly isn't true (the near-exclusive focus on season one in retrospective pieces always drives me batty - it's such a disservice to a complex, rich, if flawed piece of work). So I always want to give people fair if vague warning if I suspect they might want to avoid intense violence, abuse, or just generally disturbing shit. On the other hand, if I know it's a person who is ok watching, say, von Trier movies or Salo or even gory slasher flicks, I'd let them be gut-punched by Twin Peaks' turn for the dark as I was!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Storyline of Twin Peaks 2016 confirmed.

"I'll see you again in 25 years... then and only then will you read my super-duper secret diary. As I call it, Diary III." - Laura Palmer

 

It's known as Diary II in some versions because of the European cut of the diary

You all get a Cooper-style thumbs up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SuperBiasedMan:

"spoilers"

Oh boy. *rubs hands together* I am a very detached person, so I don't easily get invested by things I watch, there's a lot more fascination and curiosity going on. So I'll probably be able to handle it... but if I can't I relish the opportunity for a film to affect me even if it's distrubing to me.

This prooobably is a different take to what you wanted to discuss with people but I intend to watch it soon and let you know when I have!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am glad people are open to the type of warnings that I am pretty used to in my circle of things, spoilers become somewhat meaningless when it comes to perhaps preserving one's sanity. Like, I'm not talking about being upset or squicked, I'm talking about being so emotionally derailed that you can't finish what you're watching, I got to that point a couple of times even WITH a heads up. But I suspect it's because of my own personal experiences and in that way

 

Many people have come up to the actress who played Laura Palmer to tell her that despite it being super dark, it helped them work through their own experiences with incest and rape. It was really hard for me on this level, particularly a lot of the Flesh World-related and Jacques/Leo scenes, especially.

 

On the brighter side, the movie really does fill in some gaps that people might be left scratching their head about after the series, especially with how muddy S2 is plot-wise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Fire Walk With Me-

I think it's important going in understanding that it's not going to answer much about the show (or at least the ending) and that it's very different in tone. I suspect that's why the movie's gotten a much better reputation in recent years than when it came out: people know what to expect now. That's what allowed me to enjoy it, anyway.

 

As to the subject matter, I'm fortunate enough that none of it related to my firsthand experience, but I have a family member who is very similar to Laura Palmer in many ways. I found it a very truthful movie and maybe because of that it felt good to watch even though it disturbed me.

 

About the episode-

 

I know this storyline is pretty unpopular, but Andy and his sperms make me laugh, damn it. I agree that it goes on waaaay too long and is goofy as hell, but to me it's more watchable than many of the other plotlines that start cropping up in the near future.

 

Doc Hayward's quasi-defense of, or at least sympathy with, Leland is really darkly ironic. I forget; does he ever find out it was Leland who killed Laura? I don't remember him reacting to it and I imagine he would since he and his family were so close with Laura. (In my head, no one in Twin Peaks except the people who watched Leland die know that he was the murderer. It's the only way I can justify the non-reaction from everyone in the town at his wake.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doc Hayward's quasi-defense of, or at least sympathy with, Leland is really darkly ironic. I forget; does he ever find out it was Leland who killed Laura? I don't remember him reacting to it and I imagine he would since he and his family were so close with Laura. (In my head, no one in Twin Peaks except the people who watched Leland die know that he was the murderer. It's the only way I can justify the non-reaction from everyone in the town at his wake.)

 

It is truly bizarre and I wonder too. I also wonder if the actors were told what was even really going on since the big previous episodes hadn't aired yet. Also, WHAT a wasted dramatic opportunity, especially for that particular character!

But I think they wanted to take the show in a lighter direction at that point. I'm not sure why but it's always interesting to me that that episode was scripted and directed right at the time season two was beginning and a critical/audience backlash was brewing. We already know they had to change course at this point because MacLachlan refused to do the Audrey storyline, so maybe the writers - and even more so, the network suits since Lynch and Frost were more withdrawn and less likely to play interference after the Laura arc ended - took a look at the reaction to the show's darker turn, got nervous, and said "enough of this Bob stuff, let's give the audience a break for a bit, and have some fun." From interviews, it doesn't really seem like that was the case (and Frost was somewhat involved, as he walked the writer of episode 17 through the action of the story), but who knows. The timing is certainly interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to chime in: I'm not a huge fan of the idea of doing two episodes per podcast. I know that Season Two gets really bogged down in the middle, but ultimately it's just a 22 episode season and then you're done (except for Fire Walk With Me). Although there are some truly terrible episodes on the horizon (I'm looking at you, Diane Keaton) I'd hate for any episode in this short run to get sidetracked. But either way, I'm loving the podcast and can't wait for future episodes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two plot threads from this episode that I completely forgot about:

 

- Hank discovering the suspected restaurant critic is a government agent.

- Hank fighting Ponytail Guy in the Double R in his pajamas.

 

Basically I forget about everything with Hank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep meaning to bring this up but does Hank remind anyone else of young Hal from Malcolm in the Middle?

Not Bryan Cranston, Hal specifically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fuck. I wish it was common practise to label what spoiler boxes were about. Just read the identity of Laura's killer, expecting the spoiler box to be related to the post author's previous non-spoilers sentence.

Fuck.

Not anyone's fault bar mine, I'll say now. Just a shame, as I was quite enjoying the attempt to figure out whodunnit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no! That is a shame, and I'm sorry if it was my post (as I suspect). I can see how the formatting could have been misleading. If it makes you feel better,

the killer is revealed only a few episodes from this one.

(Not a spoiler per se, just general information about the season timeline.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hate what this episode does go Hank. I liked Hank when he seemes like he would be a significant villain with his own ominous theme music, providing a darker manipulative villain without the silliness of the Horne brothers. But in this episode he gets weirdly excited about decorating the diner and there doesn't seem to be a reason for it and then he gets so easily beat up by the stereotypical Asian martial arts gangster while at the diner. At night. In his frickin pajamas! So disrespectful to that character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no! That is a shame, and I'm sorry if it was my post (as I suspect). I can see how the formatting could have been misleading. If it makes you feel better,

the killer is revealed only a few episodes from this one.

(Not a spoiler per se, just general information about the season timeline.)

Hah, thanks! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Hank struggles between his true calling, which is being a thug, and his desires to appear, manipulatively so, like a good, clean honest husband for Norma. Both Hank and perhaps even Nadine, have a rapt interest in making the physical manifestations of a "true" marriage in their lives because I think they both know deep down that they don't have one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hate what this episode does go Hank. I liked Hank when he seemes like he would be a significant villain with his own ominous theme music, providing a darker manipulative villain without the silliness of the Horne brothers. But in this episode he gets weirdly excited about decorating the diner and there doesn't seem to be a reason for it and then he gets so easily beat up by the stereotypical Asian martial arts gangster while at the diner. At night. In his frickin pajamas! So disrespectful to that character.

 

Hank definitely gets short shrift. It felt like the Twin Peaks setup for local bad guy is that you start as Bobby, then you become Leo and finally you graduate into Hank. The muscle of the Horns, the former Bookhouse Boy, the foil for Truman. But his ultimate fate is even worse than beating by random Yakuza thug. Of course, many characters never really get the development they deserve. 

 

Though I still think decorating the diner was part of his fake 'win Norma back" act. Which is just part of his larger fake outward persona. That whole shtick is so goofy it somehow works to make him even more of a slug. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Hank is an interesting character. For some reason, even though he appears relatively early in season one, I often don't think of him as a "true" "core" Twin Peaks character like the ones introducing in the pilot although I don't have this issue with Albert or Maddy, who are introduced one episode earlier. Maybe because his storyline is somewhat tangential to the main mystery arc? That said, I've always really liked him or perhaps more accurately, Chris Mulkey's slimy performance. What's remarkable is that he doesn't play the "trying to be nice" bits in the usual TV way of winking at the audience, to let them know he's just conning Norma. We know because we're privy to information Norma isn't, but we can also see how should could be fooled (while still deeply suspicious). Very chilling character in that regard.

 

Another thing with this episode, which I guess should be in spoiler tags although it's nothing big:

What's with the whole Hank-stealing-the-prosecutor's-ID thing? It never really pays off as I recall. Yes, in the next episode Jean finds that wallet on him, but THAT doesn't really pay off either although it's mentioned later. How does Jean finding that wallet lead to him sparing Hank and starting to work with him? It just seems like one of those threads - like Bobby seeing Hank out Leo's window - that was meant to lead to something bigger but never did. Quite a lot of those in this part of season two, unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Germane to nothing but Ray Wise was in tonight's Agent Carter premiere.

 

Season 2 plot spoiler reference:

with a silent, long gray-haired servant. That cannot be a coincidence.

 

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