Twin Peaks Catch All

Yeah, they are certainly setting up the possibility of Laura coming back. When last we saw her, she could open her face just like her mother only instead of darkness inside she had light. It then felt like she got pulled out of the lodge while Cooper watched. I can totally see her coming back (via Naido - who tried to usher Cooper back?)

Also, did anyone catch the hand in Sarah's face? The finger that looked grafted on was the soul finger (the same one that had the reverse fingerprint on BadCoop.) That whole sequence lead me to think that the frogmoth thing definitely went in Sarah Palmer's mouth. And her seeing horses before bad stuff happens in the original series certainly matches up with the poem the woodsman says on the radio "The horse is the white of the eyes and the darkness within."

Great f*cking episode.

Amazing.

There have been times this season that I've doubted some creative choices, and even some episodes that at the time I just didn't like. However the more the season progresses and the more threads come together, the more I love it as a whole.

This may end up being Lynch's crowning achievement, after so many compelling but ultimately flawed films. I think Frost is a very good influence on him, and I love that he finally has so much screen time and creative control for his vision to come to fruition.

Maq wrote:

I think I'm starting to like Dougie even more than Coop.

"Thank Dougie"

The Audrey stuff is utterly heartbreaking. There have been hints as to what she's gone through and they're just getting worse.

I just want a little Coop ... I don't think that is asking for too much. I will say that MacLachlan's acting in this latest iteration is just fantastic. I love Dougie ... but I came for the Coop.

You got a solid 20 seconds of old Coop this past episode, what more do you need?

PissedYeti, I'm totally with you on wanting more (any!) Good Coop. Even if I am mostly loving the show, it's still a disappointment to me that Coop has been withheld for so long. There's four more episodes to go, so I suppose there's still time for some satisfying payoff that justifies this decision, but for now it feels to me like overthinking things to not include the show's best and most beloved character for so long.

mrlogical wrote:

PissedYeti, I'm totally with you on wanting more (any!) Good Coop .... for now it feels to me like overthinking things to not include the show's best and most beloved character for so long.

I don't think so at all. It feels to me like so much of the Return has been about subverting traditional plot structures and steadfastly refusing to give an audience what it thinks it wants. Rather than try to cynically capitalize on nostalgia, it feels like Frost and Lynch are trying to do something unique. The amazing thing is that the show invites us constantly to join in on the fun of that subversion. When the three cop brothers run Doug-e's background check, and get all of the tools they need to connect the dots - but then throw it in the garbage can that's a clear signal. When they withhold Audrey for ages, only to give us a scene with her involving people and characters we don't know at all and a situation that is almost opaque to the point of meaninglessness, that's another invitation to enjoy the subversion.

But even as it denies as some of what we think we want, it gives us so much. Last episode start to finish was one of the best episodes of any season of Twin Peaks ever, and it barely had Cooper. It is also worth remembering that we did get some Coop as Coop in the first few episodes while he was in the lodge. And that the subtitle of this is "The Return." It is a show that wears its awareness of time on its sleeve. Though you could make a show called "The Return" that starts with our protagonist coming home and moves on from there, that wouldn't really be a show about the act of returning. I'm much more a fan of the slow reintroduction of characters we knew. The steady reveal of how things have changed and how they haven't, and how even the things that haven't actually have (the stab of pain in that credit sequence for episode 13 with Big Ed burning the letter while looking out at the empty gas lot.) Cooper returning to this dimension and his disconnect from it mirrors the audiences return to Twin Peaks the show. It is familiar. We see faces we know, but they are older. And there are lots of faces we don't know. And it is the thing we remember, but it also isn't. Our journey as an audience is mirroring Coop's. Which is why I say give me this kind of show revival over the cynical nostalgia fueled cash grab any day of the week.

I suspect we get Coop in part 17 and/or 18 and whatever form that comes in a lot more satisfying and interesting than a Twin Peaks season 3 which just sort of aped the formula of the first run and spoonfed audiences pure nostalgia.

I disagree with the idea that the options available to Lynch and Frost were "cynically capitalize on nostalgia" or "deliver a show that spends more time with James Hurley than it does Dale Cooper and Audrey Horne combined." I'm still thrilled to sit down and watch it every week, and acknowledge that maybe the final four episodes will provide some sort of revelation that makes these creative decisions feel necessary to me. But I disagree that the very idea of making a third season of Twin Peaks in which Dale Cooper and Audrey Horne play prominent roles would have to be cynical and stupid, and that withholding things the audience wants is inherently a better, more sophisticated creative choice. (Conversation around Twin Peaks has been making me think a lot about a Slate piece from a while back,
"Against Subtlety" that touches on some related themes).

I'm definitely not saying that it is an either/or choice. But a majority of the time, a reboot of an old show errs on the side of nostalgia grab over finding its own voice. I'm just grateful this one is taking a different tact, and I say that as a huge fan of Cooper. I don't think it is "overthinking" to make the choices that have been made so far.

(We're also getting a good deal of Cooper - just not in the way we might have expected.)

EDIT - Looking forward to checking out that Slate piece, thanks for sharing it!

Maybe overthinking wasn't the best way to describe what I mean...I respect the choice, and certainly do appreciate some aspects of it. But if David Lynch and Mark Frost came to me a year or two ago and said "hey, we wrote two scripts for a new Twin Peaks and we think they're both really good, and one of them has a lot of Dale Cooper in it and one of them doesn't, which one should we shoot?", I'd chose the former any day of the week.

I did finally give up all of my Dougie-hate for good after that scene when Dougie is having a celebratory dinner with the casino guys and he keeps trying to grab their glasses every time they offer a toast. Kyle MacLachlan is just too good.

I like that Slate piece a lot, although I will concede that the principals behind an argument that there is value in art conveying meaning clearly and directly is not likely to hold much water with a creator like David Lynch In any case, it speaks to my feeling that sometimes a swoosh is just as good as or better than a bank shot.

I love the direction of this newest iteration even when I have no clue what is going on. I am blown away by MacLachlands acting ability when portraying both Dougie and the BadCoop as they are essentially in opposition and he nails it. There's just a lot of things I want to see happen (ex. Coop and Audrey reunite) but I won't let my expectations get in the way of enjoying what is being shown. I like change (subversion) and dealing with unrealized expectations is making the experience all that more enjoyable as it gives the show more life.

It is an interesting article, but I take disagree with the premise and with a lot of its assumptions. I don't think subtlety is valued AT ALL. People in general undervalue it. Our art tends to be plot focused. There are screenplay writing guides that basically prescribe plot beats page by page on screenplay. On this page X event happens. On page 45 you kill the mentor. On page 10 the hero refuses the call. Etc. These types of guides exist because there are certain plot paths that are like sugar. If we get some, we crave it to the extent where we forget that there are other ways to get out nutrients (many of them a lot healthier.) There are other structures, and there are ways to utilize narrative art that isn't as plot focused. (narrative being that there is a story with characters, plot being a series of events.) Mad Men was subtle, sure, but it was also an example of character driven narrative rather than plot driven narrative. Most things we watch / consume are plot driven.

I think critics give more weight to subtlety than the general populous, but even then I think it is a bit of a generalization to say they prefer it. I think critics are more aware of tools that exist outside of plot, but that doesn't mean they all prefer the thing. Its just their job to point out when it is or isn't being used. Its also a bit unfair to use the tastes of the past to indicate what we should like here and now. Taste evolves and changes. On the nose might have been a compliment at one time, but that doesn't make on the nose automatically valuable, or cast any aspersion on the connotation it has today.

It also feels a bit like a "war on terror" article. Terror is a tactic, an action. It isn't a side. Its like having a war on cutting supply lines or a war on sieges. In much the same way subtlety or bluntness are both artistic tools that can be used on not used to great effect or misused. In general Lynch is good at using both tools in his other work.

That said, I wouldn't really classify Twin Peaks as subtle. Twin Peaks, particularly this season and in FWWM, is excellent at being both inscrutable and blunt at the same time. It has subtle moments (pretty much everything Kyle Maclachlan is doing as an actor, for example) but I feel it is much blunter than subtle. (See also the end of FWWM.) It is still ambiguous and not easy to parse logically, but even when it "doesn't make sense" in plot it very often makes a ton of emotional sense. And boy oh boy does it spell out a lot! There is some STRAIGHT UP exposition dumps. Which it succeeds at, in my view, in part because the plot itself is obscure, so even the most straightforward info-dump can have appeal that it wouldn't on another show. I'm a notorious exposition hater but I love Peaks exposition because the context it presents it in still retains some ambiguity and space for interpretation.

Toddland wrote:

Here's a what-if that I was thinking about after last weeks episode:
What if the Laura Palmer that was killed in FWWM was a doppelganger? What if the Laura that had been in the lodge was the real Laura Palmer?

I was talking about this with the wife last night. Maddy Ferguson. I think Laura is a number of Blue Roses. And I think Cooper is too. Both of them born from the White Lodge to oppose the Black Lodge/The Mother/BOB.

So. Audrey.

Spoiler:

Those weird scenes with her and Charlie are coma dreams, right? I mean that's why it's all weird and she can't seem to leave the house.

Maq wrote:

So. Audrey.

Spoiler:

Those weird scenes with her and Charlie are coma dreams, right? I mean that's why it's all weird and she can't seem to leave the house.

That's my guess as well.

So we have only 3 episodes left. Based on what I've seen, I believe we will get closure on the major characters but there will still be some characters that will remain a mystery. Off the top of my head, here are the plot lines that I think will be resolved:

Bad Coop
Dougie
Audrey
The assassination couple
Punch guy (and his sidekick James)
The strange woman in jail
The sound in the Great Northern
That Horne kid who's totally gonna die
Shelly's daughter

Any others?

I don't agree with that Audrey theory. Remember that there was another group at the road house also talking about Billy and Tina, so there's some clear link to the real world there.

I suspect Billy and Tina might be visitors, hospital workers, whatever. I think reality leaks into the dream world ala Life on Mars.

Also I'm not sure that Evil Coop is actually Doppelcoop. I think Evil Coop is "our" Dale Cooper and Dougie is a doppelganger. Has Evil Coop actually killed a wholly innocent person? I'm not sure he hasn't gone all Punisher / Dark Wanderer and has been containing BOB to keep him from spreading more evil.

Yay for Ed and Norma! Although I love the show and have no problem with it's grim nature, a shot of happiness is a nice thing to have once and awhile.

The Audrey coma thing is an angle I hadn't thought of but would explain it. Not sure what to think on those scenes though and her son ... how did that happen then? Gave birth in a coma? Has that ever happened? To the Googles!!

I can't see BadCoop being the real Cooper but with Lynch you never know. BadCoop just seems to have too much access to the Black Lodge stuff for me to think he is anything but the DoppelCoop.

A very interesting post on reddit suggested her spirit may be trapped in the wood of either the Great Northern (the humming) or the Roadhouse (makes sense of a lot of the random stuff happening in that one booth).

What an amazing episode of television that was. Arms in the air. Shrieking.

Damn. So friggin stoked for next Sunday.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/XsoFZJPl.jpg)

Wow

Yeah, I loved that last episode. So good!

That was really great!

Bad Coop
Dougie
Audrey
The assassination couple
Punch guy (and his sidekick James)
The strange woman in jail
The sound in the Great Northern
That Horne kid who's totally gonna die
Shelly's daughter

Progress!

I'm shaking and tingling and crying. That was phenomenal.

Twas a great episode and I can't wait to see what they do for the final two.

100%

Aristophan wrote:

Off the top of my head, here are the plot lines that I think will be resolved:

Bad Coop
Dougie
Audrey
The assassination couple
Punch guy (and his sidekick James)
The strange woman in jail
The sound in the Great Northern
That Horne kid who's totally gonna die
Shelly's daughter

Any others?

Andy's vision from The Fireman of him leading Lucy through the Sheriff's station
Sarah Palmer
Laura Palmer

Things that may tie into the above but that we may still not learn anything about:

The "Mother"
The box in New York
Phillip Jeffries
Judy
The woman at the end of episode 8

The Secret History of Twin Peaks explains some of the deep background lore that has popped up in both the original series and The Return... and there's a sequel coming out later this year that I'm sure will go towards digging even deeper into this season so I wouldn't really expect much of the tangential stuff to be explained in the show.

I'm really worried that the season will end on a cliffhanger. Cooper has not fared well in season finales.

Comes out Monday in Sweden so pls spoiler tag stuff until Tuesday morning?

I mean I'll try to stay away from the thread but I'm stupid like that.